Hi, On 29/10/16 04:55, Hongyi Zhao wrote: > 2016-10-28 14:57 GMT+08:00 Jan Just Keijser <janj...@nikhef.nl>: > [...]
> I tried it as follows: > > $ ping -c 10 -I eth0 8.8.8.8 > PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 192.168.0.2 eth0: 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=128 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=124 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=124 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=124 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=127 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=133 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=122 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=125 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=131 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=123 ms > > --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9011ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 122.963/126.756/133.225/3.199 ms > > $ ping -c 10 -I tun104 8.8.8.8 > PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 10.211.1.49 tun104: 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=209 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=206 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=435 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=351 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=202 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=203 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=206 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=210 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=204 ms > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=208 ms > > --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9008ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 202.260/243.852/435.330/77.155 ms > > It seems that the vpn tunnel is slower than the eth0 i/f for the above case. As Selva pointed out, that could be due to the location of the VPN server compared to the anycast address 8.8.8.8 ; as an alternative you could try pinging a fixed IP address, e.g. use my company's website www.nikhef.nl >> however. I'd use >> something like speedtest.net to do a more useful measurement. > I want to use some commands to do this job in a script, so the > speedtest.net is not appropriate for my case. > A real test for that would be to stick a (large) compressed file on a known site and try downloading that - it will give you a far better idea of the speed of the VPN compared to a simple ICMP. HTH, JJK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise? Reconnect with the command line and become more productive. Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy! http://sdm.link/telerik _______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
