Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:38:31 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ixl 40G bad performance? Message-ID: <CAN6yY1t9Tw0j=uwaw1GK47r5=F-zeuz2hps_Ez3Y_QC-QSAGKA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5aae0ee63c44627223d5d179f1901d00@pyret.net> References: <5aae0ee63c44627223d5d179f1901d00@pyret.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Daniel Engberg < daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> wrote: > One thing I've noticed that probably affects your performance benchmarks > somewhat is that you're using iperf(2) instead of the newer iperf3 but I > could be wrong... > > Best regards, > Daniel > iperf3 is not a newer version of iperf. It is a total re-write and a rather different tool. It has significant improvements in many areas and new capabilities that might be of use. That said, there is no reason to think that the results of tests using iperf2 are in any way inaccurate. However, it is entirely possible to get misleading results if options not properly selected. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1t9Tw0j=uwaw1GK47r5=F-zeuz2hps_Ez3Y_QC-QSAGKA>