From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 29 08:31:53 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED44AF72 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:31:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bc979@lafn.org) Received: from zoom.lafn.org (zoom.lafn.org [108.92.93.123]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75782BFD for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.1.4] (static-71-177-216-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [71.177.216.148]) (authenticated bits=0) by zoom.lafn.org (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r8T88THh065571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:08:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bc979@lafn.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Throughput test with iperf... From: Doug Hardie In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:08:29 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <04980532-FA66-4660-B1E0-0E4AF59025A5@lafn.org> References: To: tak.official@gmail.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 at zoom.lafn.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: FreeBSD Questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:31:54 -0000 On 28 September 2013, at 23:38, takCoder wrote: > hi again.. >=20 > would any of you please at least explain it to me what may cause iperf > server ending up with "Segmentation fault (core dumped)" message right = at > the beginning of setting second connection in my bi-directional = throughput > test, using -r flag?? >=20 > i used these commands on client and server on two freebsd machines = which > are connected straight with one cat5e cable: >=20 > iperf -s -i 1 > iperf -c X.Y.Z.T -t 60 -r >=20 > just getting more confused.. :( Are you using iperf or iperf2. Iperf has a few problems. Iperf2 is = more stable.