Iperf 32 bit

MBytes 941 Mbits/sec[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 559 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec 0 sender[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 558 MBytes 936 Mbits/sec receiver►Test 2:Version iperf 3.1.3Operating System: Windows 10 64 bitLatency between Server & client is 12msC:\Temp\iperf-3.1.3-win64>ping 10.42.160.10Pinging 10.42.160.10 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 10.42.160.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=62Reply from 10.42.160.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=62Reply from 10.42.160.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=62Reply from 10.42.160.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=62Ping statistics for 10.42.160.10:Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 12msC:\Temp\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3 -c 10.42.160.10 -p 8443 -b 2G -t 5Connecting to host 10.42.160.10, port 8443[ 4] local 10.43.190.59 port 61578 connected to 10.42.160.10 port 8443[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 17.0 MBytes 143 Mbits/sec[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 18.9 MBytes 158 Mbits/sec[ 4] 2.00-3.01 sec 18.9 MBytes 157 Mbits/sec[ 4] 3.01-4.01 sec 18.8 MBytes 158 Mbits/sec[ 4] 4.01-5.00 sec 18.8 MBytes 158 Mbits/sec[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 92.2 MBytes 155 Mbits/sec sender[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 92.2 MBytes 155 Mbits/sec receiveriperf Done.C:\Temp\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3 -c 10.42.160.10 -p 8443 -b 2G -t 5 -RConnecting to host 10.42.160.10, port 8443Reverse mode, remote host 10.42.160.10 is sending[ 4] local 10.43.190.59 port 61588 connected to 10.42.160.10 port 8443[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 15.7 MBytes 132 Mbits/sec[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 15.6 MBytes 131 Mbits/sec[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 15.7 MBytes 132 Mbits/sec[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 15.7 MBytes 132 Mbits/sec[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 15.7 MBytes 132 Mbits/sec[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 80.4 MBytes 135 Mbits/sec 0 sender[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 78.9 MBytes 132 Mbits/sec receiveriperf Done.

I am often asked to measure the bandwidth of a network path. Many users test this using a simple HTTP download or with speedtest.net. Unfortunately, any test using TCP will produce inaccurate results, due to the limitations of a session-oriented protocol. TCP window size, latency, and the bandwidth of the return channel (for ACK messages) all affect the results. The most reliable way to measure true bandwidth is with UDP. That’s where my friends iperf and bwm-ng come in handy.iperf is a tool for measuring bandwidth and reporting on throughput, jitter, and data loss. Others have written handy tutorials, but I’ll summarise the basics here.iperf will run on any Linux or Unix (including Mac OSX), and must be installed on both hosts. Additionally, the “server” (receiving) host must allow incoming traffic to some port (which defaults to 5001/UDP and 5001/TCP). If you want to run bidirectional tests with UDP, this means you must open 5001/UDP on both hosts’ firewalls.iptables -I INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 5001 -j ACCEPTA network path is really two paths – the downstream path and the upstream (or return) path. With iperf, the “client” is the transmitter and the “server” is the receiver. So we’ll use the term “downstream” to refer to traffic transmitted from the client to the server, and “upstream” to refer to the opposite. Since these two paths can have different bandwidths and entirely different routes, we should measure them separately.Start by opening terminal windows to both the client and server hosts, as well as the iperf man page. On the server, you only have to start listening. This runs iperf as a server on the default 5001/UDP.root@server:~# iperf -s -u------------------------------------------------------------Server listening on UDP port 5001Receiving 1470 byte datagramsUDP buffer size: 124 KByte (default)------------------------------------------------------------The server will output test results, as well as report them back to the client for display.On the client, you have many options. You can push X data (-b) for Y seconds (-t). For example, to push 1 mbit for 10 seconds:root@client:~# iperf -u -c server.example.com -b 1M -t 10------------------------------------------------------------Client connecting to 172.16.0.2, UDP port 5001Sending 1470 byte datagramsUDP

Report:[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.11 MBytes 933 Kbits/sec 0.134 ms 1294/19533 (6.6%)To find the total packet size, add 28 bytes to the datagram size for UDP+IP headers. For instance, setting 64-byte datagrams causes iperf to send 92-byte packets. Exceeding the MTU can produce even more interesting results, as packets are fragmented.iperf provides final throughput results at the end of each test. However, I sometimes find it handy to get results as the test is running, or to report on packets/second. That’s when I use bwm-ng.Try opening two more terminals, one each to the client and server. In each, start bwm-ng.root@client:~# bwm-ng -u bits -t 1000 bwm-ng v0.6 (probing every 1.000s), press 'h' for help input: /proc/net/dev type: rate | iface Rx Tx Total ============================================================================== lo: 0.00 Kb/s 0.00 Kb/s 0.00 Kb/s eth0: 0.00 Kb/s 1017.34 Kb/s 1017.34 Kb/s eth1: 0.00 Kb/s 0.00 Kb/s 0.00 Kb/s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ total: 0.00 Kb/s 1017.34 Kb/s 1017.34 Kb/sBy default, bwm-ng shows bytes/second. Press ‘u’ to cycle through bytes, bits, packets, and errors per second. Press ‘+’ or ‘-‘ to change the refresh time. I find that 1 or 2 seconds produces more accurate results on some hardware. Press ‘h’ for handy in-line help.Now, start the same iperf tests. Any packet losses will be immediately apparent, as the throughput measurements won’t match. The client will show 1 mbit in the Tx column, while the server will show a lower number in the Rx column.However, bwm-ng will not differentiate between traffic from iperf and other traffic at the same time. When that happens, it is still useful to use the packets/sec display to find the maximum packet throughput limits of your hardware.One warning to those who want to test TCP throughput with iperf: you cannot specify the data rate. Instead, iperf in TCP mode will scale up the data rate until it finds the maximum safe window size. For low-latency links, this is generally 85% of the true channel bandwidth as measured by UDP tests. However, as latency increases, TCP bandwidth decreases.

Iperf. As I mentioned, I see this transfer speed limitation when I am copying large files too. i386 Well-Known Member #4 (single threaded) Explorer copy?Or multithreaded copy (like robocopy)? #5 (single threaded) Explorer copy?Or multithreaded copy (like robocopy)? I've only tested it single threaded. But once again it is directional. Slow from the HP machine but not slow from the desktop. #6 I wrote ANT a few years ago as an alternative to iperf3. It uses standard C++ (but does depend on the boost library), and should be easily cross-compiled to other platforms.Pre-built binaries are on the github page:I'm just curious if it gives the same/similar results you're seeing with iperf3. Note that v100, v140, v141 are the Visual Studio versions used to compile the binary (and I didn't prepare a 32-bit builds, we're all done with that, right? ).In ANT, I came up with this "beep metric" to try to help indicate when parameters weren't optimal to the system being used- because I was very keen on where to blame that performance bottleneck (between NIC/driver components or the processor itself). In the docs\developer_notes.txt is more notes about it.EDIT:i.e. some performance utilities are biased by including the time to LOAD the data to be sent, and also the time for the receiver to have access to the full data -- and to be fair, the work needed to create the data is part of the transfer time, as well as the time for the receiver to fully prepare the data so that it can start using it. But these "data jobs" are local CPU/bus timeline, not the NIC timeline.ANT runs with some defaults. Use -h/--help to see the command line arguments.The "-d" depth argument in ANT essentially corresponds to cores.One thing I found while testing ANT: the Working Buffer size

609 Mbits/sec[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 72.6 MBytes 609 Mbits/sec[ 5] 10.00-10.01 sec 1.05 MBytes 606 Mbits/sec- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec sender[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 724 MBytes 607 Mbits/sec receiver In both cases, transfers from `192.168.X.220` to `192.168.X.201` are not running at full speeds, while they (nearly) are the other way around.What could be causing the transfer to be slower in one direction and not the other? Could this be a hardware issue? I'll mention that `192.168.X.220` is an "HP Slimline Desktop - 290-p0043w" with a Celeron G4900 CPU running Windows Server 2019 if that is somehow a bottleneck.I notice the same performance difference when transferring large files from the SSD on one system to the other.I'm hoping it's a software issue so it can be fixed, but I'm not sure. Any ideas on what could be the culprit? i386 Well-Known Member #2 QUOTE="jtabc, post: 347143, member: 44411"]Any ideas on what could be the culprit?[/QUOTE]Iperf is a Linux Tool, Not optimized for Windows. Some Versions shipped with a less optimized/Buggy cygwin.dll (there are no official binaries, all the Windows Files are from third Parties).Use iperf via Linux live Systems or try Other Software Like ntttcp (GitHub - microsoft/ntttcp) for Windows only Environments #3 QUOTE="jtabc, post: 347143, member: 44411"]Any ideas on what could be the culprit? Iperf is a Linux Tool, Not optimized for Windows.Some Versions shipped with a less optimized/Buggy cygwin.dll (there are no official binaries, all the Windows Files are from third Parties).Use iperf via Linux live Systems or try Other Software Like ntttcp (GitHub - microsoft/ntttcp) for Windows only Environments[/QUOTE]I'm not sure if it is an issue with

Can you also update Magic iperf apk to a new iperf version and enable it running in the background ? You must be logged in to vote 0 replies As far as I know, currently there is no one that builds up to date iperf3 versions for Android. This site maintained iperf3 for Android up to version 3.10.1.For Magic Iperf you should contact with the APK developer. You must be logged in to vote 0 replies As a user, it would be great if the good guys could release APKs of recent stable versions of iPerf3 like 3.9 or 3.13. Having access to updated versions would be helpful, especially for non-coders like myself. It would make it easier to install and use the application without the need for technical knowledge. I appreciate any support in making the latest APK iPerf3 versions available through APK releases. You must be logged in to vote 0 replies Just to be clear, ESnet (maintainers of iperf3) only release source code, through source code tarballs and the GitHub repo. It's up to operating system packagers and/or third parties to build and distribute iperf3 binaries for a variety of different platforms. You must be logged in to vote 0 replies I have created a new repository with 3.14 binaries: (The repository is based on KnightWhoSayNi repository that built iperf3 for android up to version 3.10.1).My testing capabilities are limited, so it will be a great help to test the binaries and make sure the build process