On 2021/4/21 16:44, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:21:54PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> >> I tried using below shell to simulate your testcase: >> >> #!/bin/sh >> >> for((i=0; i<20; i++)) >> do >> taskset -c 0-31 netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H 192.168.100.2 -l 30 -- -m 1048576 >> done >> >> And I got a quite stable result: 9413~9416 (10^6bits/sec) for 10G netdev. > > Perhaps try it without the taskset, in my test, there was only one > connection. Just tried, and got the similar result as above. > >>> >>> https://github.com/mkubecek/nperf >>> >>> It is still raw and a lot of features are missing but it can be already >>> used for multithreaded TCP_STREAM and TCP_RR tests. In particular, the >>> output above was with >>> >>> nperf -H 172.17.1.1 -l 30 -i 20 --exact -t TCP_STREAM -M 1 >> >> I tried your nperf too, unfortunately it does not seem to work on my >> system(arm64), which exits very quickly and output the blow result: >> >> root@(none):/home# nperf -H 192.168.100.2 -l 30 -i 20 --exact -t TCP_STREAM -M 1 >> server: 192.168.100.2, port 12543 >> iterations: 20, threads: 1, test length: 30 >> test: TCP_STREAM, message size: 1048576 >> >> 1 4.0 B/s, avg 4.0 B/s, mdev 0.0 B/s ( 0.0%) > [...] > > Did you start nperfd on the other side? (It plays a role similar to > netserver for netperf.) Few days ago I noticed that there is something > wrong with error handling in case of failed connection but didn't get to > fixing it yet. Yes, I did. If I did not start nperfd, I got "connect: Connection refused" as below: nperf -H 192.168.100.2 -l 30 -i 20 --exact -t TCP_STREAM -M 1 server: 192.168.100.2, port 12543 iterations: 20, threads: 1, test length: 30 test: TCP_STREAM, message size: 1048576 connect: Connection refused failed to connect to '192.168.100.2' 1 4.0 B/s, avg 4.0 B/s, mdev 0.0 B/s ( 0.0%) connect: Connection refused failed to connect to '192.168.100.2' 2 4.0 B/s, avg 4.0 B/s, mdev 0.0 B/s ( 0.0%), confid. +/- 0.0 B/s ( 0.0%) connect: Connection refused failed to connect to '192.168.100.2' > > I'll try running some tests also on other architectures, including arm64 > and s390x (to catch potential endinanity issues). > > Michal > > . >
