Sorry to keep following up with this;
the other thing it gives you is things like sysctl parameters, kernel,
tcp window scaling (pre and post test) and a bunch of per stream and
aggregated metadata relating to the entire suite. In a nice self
contained gzip that can produce lovely graphs using mat
In terms of what you need on the target netserver/netperf from ipkg is
tiny and is all you need.
On 30 January 2018 at 10:51, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:
> FLENT + RRUL testing is 4 up 4 down TCP streams with 4 different QoS
> Markings, and then 4 different QoS Marked UDP probes and ICMP.
>
> It g
FLENT + RRUL testing is 4 up 4 down TCP streams with 4 different QoS
Markings, and then 4 different QoS Marked UDP probes and ICMP.
It gives you a measure of how much the CPU and Network path can cope
with load conditions, which are more realistic for everyday use.
iperf3 isn't going to give you
Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:
> Any chance I can convince you to use netperf + FLENT for doing
> your tests rather than iperf(3)?
>
> flent.org
>
For those playing at home, could you elaborate on _why_? What do
you expect to change? By what sort of percentage?
Sincerely,
Karl Palsson
signature
Any chance I can convince you to use netperf + FLENT for doing your
tests rather than iperf(3)?
flent.org
-Joel
On 30 January 2018 at 03:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >> So that means that you have to do the performance testing for routing
> >> between two s
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>> So that means that you have to do the performance testing for routing
>> between two subnets.
> Hi,
> With wired, firewall off and using routing (no MASQUERADE, explicit LAN
> route added on the NUC via WAN IP):
Thanks for doing this again.
This is
On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 19:12 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 17:09 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >> > I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link
> Archer C7
> >> v4.0,
> >> > LAN
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> (please don't top post).
>
> On 01/28/2018 02:00 PM, Rosen Penev wrote:
>> Compared to the Archer C7v2, the v4 has a single ethernet interface
>> switched between all 5 ports. The v2 has two ethernet interfaces with
>> 4 ports being switch
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 17:09 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>> > I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link Archer C7
>> v4.0,
>> > LAN client Dell Latitude 7480 (eth I219-LM, wifi 8265 / 8275)
>> > WAN
FYI - the Openfast path patches are applied to several trees. I am
running them on a c7 v2 right now and am able to hit close to stock
numbers.
The NAT acceleration stuff isn't needed to with open-fastpath patches at all.
relevant thread:
https://forum.lede-project.org/t/qualcomm-fast-path-for-le
(please don't top post).
On 01/28/2018 02:00 PM, Rosen Penev wrote:
> Compared to the Archer C7v2, the v4 has a single ethernet interface
> switched between all 5 ports. The v2 has two ethernet interfaces with
> 4 ports being switched.
>
> Now the disappointing performance has several reasons to
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 17:09 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link Archer C7
> v4.0,
> > LAN client Dell Latitude 7480 (eth I219-LM, wifi 8265 / 8275)
> > WAN server NUC5i3RYB (eth I218-V), NAT betwee
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link Archer C7 v4.0,
> LAN client Dell Latitude 7480 (eth I219-LM, wifi 8265 / 8275)
> WAN server NUC5i3RYB (eth I218-V), NAT between them, <1 ms latency
> (everything on the same table), IPv4 unless specified,
Compared to the Archer C7v2, the v4 has a single ethernet interface
switched between all 5 ports. The v2 has two ethernet interfaces with
4 ports being switched.
Now the disappointing performance has several reasons to it. The main
one being that the ag71xx driver in OpenWrt is not very optimized
Hi as I also am using the archer c7's as my build targets (and c2600's) I
am watching this keenly; is anyone else running openvswtich on these with
the XDP patches?
The c2600 which is arm a15 - currently really could do with optimization
and probably is a much better choice for CPE. I would not be
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 19:30 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Hi Rafal,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:25:10PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > Getting better network performance (mostly for NAT) using some kind
> > of
> > acceleration was always a hot topic and people are still
> > looking/asking
16 matches
Mail list logo
