Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:54:38 +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: <926143031.20181020175438@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <78b23b34-7c47-30a1-4386-405ec90fa76d@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> <876446461.20181020020328@serebryakov.spb.ru> <78b23b34-7c47-30a1-4386-405ec90fa76d@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Eugene, Saturday, October 20, 2018, 2:23:29 AM, you wrote: > You do not need to micro-control this. The wrk provides you with nice stats > plus you have counters of "systat -ifstat 1" during long test. >> 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. > You can choose number of concurrent connections yourself while running wrk. One. I need one :-) >> BTW, how to configure nginx to server 16G+ file without any disk access? >> One big hole on tmpfs? :) > You do not need large disk file in case of wrk+nginx. Make small-sized tmpfs > with single several megabytes-sized file, and that's all. I want to run multi-minute streams. On gigabit network. Without any time spent on connections, requests, TCP windows scaling, etc. As I said, it is complete opposite to what nginx+wrk does well. -- Best regards, Lev mailto:lev@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?926143031.20181020175438>