Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 02:03:28 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is best TCP throughput benchmarking tool? Message-ID: <876446461.20181020020328@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <04f00191-78b8-6c9f-4b6b-fb11d10f91ea@grosbein.net> References: <eaf633d0-beb7-d806-7d2e-bfec0beb1e47@FreeBSD.org> <650aa1c7-26db-f463-cb59-8dfe1886c764@grosbein.net> <1743704969.20181019235034@serebryakov.spb.ru> <04f00191-78b8-6c9f-4b6b-fb11d10f91ea@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Eugene, Saturday, October 20, 2018, 12:18:01 AM, you wrote: >>>> Please note, that I'm testing endpoint, not a router, so netmap-based >>>> packet generators & receivers is no use for me, unfortunately. >>> Try benchmarks/wrk. It works pretty well for speeds lower than 40Gbit/s >>> but its version 4.0.2 had its own rough edges demanding a router between TCP endpoints. >>> I have not tried its newer versions, though. >> Looks like benchmark/wrk is HTTP benchmark, opposite to what I need... > Together with nginx, wrk can serve as quick TCP traffic generator/receiver. > I've used them in 40G environment with success. To be honest, I don't want to run nginx on both ends (and I need to test both directions) and it is hard to control time of one connection (by sending file size?) and monitor speed in test progress... All these tools — wrk, nginx — are optimized for many concurrent connections on powerful hardware and looks like overkill to test one connection bandwidth on Atom CPU. BTW, how to configure nginx to server 16G+ file without any disk access? One big hole on tmpfs? :) -- Best regards, Lev mailto:lev@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?876446461.20181020020328>