On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 09:31:24 -0700 David Christensen <dpchr...@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
... > But, I still recommend Category 5E cables. > > > >> It's not clear if you are doing an apples-to-apples comparison. Perhaps > >> iperf isn't measuring what you think it is. > > > > That's exactly what I'm asking: what is iperf measuring, and why is it > > so much lower than the speedtest throughput? My understanding is that > > it simply measures straight-up TCP (or UPD, if desired) throughput. > > Even allowing for protocol overhead at the various network stack > > layers, the deviation shouldn't be that great. > > Perhaps you can find information on the project site (?): > > https://github.com/esnet/iperf ... > Assuming you've looked for error/ warning messages everywhere and > haven't seen anything obvious, the next step would seem to be enabling > or adding verbosity/ logging/ debugging/ etc., starting with iperf on > one end and ending with iperf on the other end. FWIW, I'm getting these: Tx excessive retries:392922 Invalid misc:5439 [Rx invalids are all 0] Which seems to mean that there are some problems with the connection. But I don't have any sense of what's normal, particularly with wireless, or how bad this is (obviously, I'd have to keep track of the retries / invalids per time / data transmitted). AFAICT, iperf has no verbosity / logging / debugging settings. Thanks, Celejar
