Menu
What's new
By:
Filters Better Search

How to interpret iPerf3 results?

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

K

kfchan

New Around Here
I ran iPerf3 in server mode on a laptop, connected it via a network cable to a desktop and then ran iPerf3 in client mode on the desktop using iPerf3 <host ip address>.
The laptop is running Windows 10 and the desktop Windows 11.

I can see the following output on the server :

Server listening on 5201 (test #2)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 169.254.24.181, port 60154
[ 5] local 169.254.228.205 port 5201 connected to 169.254.24.181 port 60155
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 97.5 MBytes 817 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 51.4 MBytes 431 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 3.00-4.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 4.01-5.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-10.02 sec 149 MBytes 125 Mbits/sec receiver

and this output on the client :
C:\iPerf>iperf3 -c 169.254.228.205
Connecting to host 169.254.228.205, port 5201
[ 5] local 169.254.24.181 port 60152 connected to 169.254.228.205 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.02 sec 5.61 GBytes 47.4 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 1.02-2.01 sec 1.44 GBytes 12.4 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 2.01-3.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 3.01-4.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 4.01-5.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 5.01-6.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 6.01-7.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 7.01-8.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 8.01-9.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
[ 5] 9.01-10.01 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 7.05 GBytes 6.05 Gbits/sec sender
[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 136 MBytes 114 Mbits/sec receiver


Can someone please help me understand how to properly interpret these results?
Why are the results drastically different between the server and client?
Is the data transfer done by having the client send data to the server?
Is "sender" referring to the client and "receiver" referring to the server?
In the server results, I see only mention of "receiver" at the end but in the client results, there are numbers for both "receiver" and "sender".

I'm doing this test to try to figure out what throughput I get when the test is done with a Cat5e cable (results above) and with a Cat6 cable (results not included above).
 
With the same kit at each end of the same length cable, for moderate lengths [approx 1-10 Metres], at 1Gbps speed there should be little to no difference between Cat 5e & Cat 6.
Assuming that the cable is properly terminated and not damaged in any way. i.e. compare like for like as far as possible.
At the extreme end of the length supported by Cat 5e (100 Metres) there could be a difference as Cat 6 is supposed to be more resilient to electrical interference.
[High levels of electical interference will impact Cat 6 & Cat 5e *but* that should be preferentially dealt with, if possible, *before* simply using a 'better' cable.]

Cat 6 supports up to 10Gb Networking Standards [Needs *ALL* kit to support 10Gb networking standards ... Network Cards/Switches/etc]
Cat 5e supports up to 1Gb Networking Standards [Needs *ALL* kit to support 1Gb networking standards ... Network Cards/Switches/etc]

Cat5e & Cat 6 can be mixed at 1Gb *but* not at 10Gb.

Speed is driven by what is connected to the cable *but* 1Gb or 10Gb kit cannot be made to go faster regardless of the cable used.

N.B.
There are distance limits for Cat 5e [1Gb @ 100 Metres] & Cat 6 [10Gb @ 55 Metres] beyond these limits the max speed is not guaranteed.
Depending on the quality of the cable it *could* support the max speed beyond these limits but this is not a given.
 
Those iperf3 results seem seriously broken. What you should expect on a simple ethernet connection is pretty much rock-solid-steady throughput for the whole run, except maybe a bit of ramp-up behavior at the start, and possibly some wonkiness from a fractional-second interval at the end. Here's a sample of what I get with two Intel NUC machines plugged into the same ethernet switch:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.1.13, port 57810
[ 5] local 192.168.1.11 port 5201 connected to 192.168.1.13 port 57818
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 108 MBytes 907 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 10.00-10.04 sec 3.88 MBytes 933 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 1.10 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec receiver

and

Connecting to host nuc1, port 5201
[ 5] local 192.168.1.13 port 57818 connected to 192.168.1.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 114 MBytes 955 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 113 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 113 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 936 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.10 GBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 1.10 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec receiver

BTW, the default test setup is with the client sending data. Add the '-R' (receive) switch to have the client receive data; you should get largely-comparable results. Newer iperf3 versions also accept '--bidir' to run concurrent send and receive.

I'm not sure what's going on with your results. Could be you have a broken version of iperf3, or there's something wrong with one or the other ethernet port, or something wrong with the cable. Do you observe any performance issues in ordinary use of these machines?
 
Twiglets said:
With the same kit at each end of the same length cable, for moderate lengths [approx 1-10 Metres], at 1Gbps speed there should be little to no difference between Cat 5e & Cat 6.
Assuming that the cable is properly terminated and not damaged in any way. i.e. compare like for like as far as possible.
At the extreme end of the length supported by Cat 5e (100 Metres) there could be a difference as Cat 6 is supposed to be more resilient to electrical interference.
[High levels of electical interference will impact Cat 6 & Cat 5e *but* that should be preferentially dealt with, if possible, *before* simply using a 'better' cable.]

Cat 6 supports up to 10Gb Networking Standards [Needs *ALL* kit to support 10Gb networking standards ... Network Cards/Switches/etc]
Cat 5e supports up to 1Gb Networking Standards [Needs *ALL* kit to support 1Gb networking standards ... Network Cards/Switches/etc]

Cat5e & Cat 6 can be mixed at 1Gb *but* not at 10Gb.

Speed is driven by what is connected to the cable *but* 1Gb or 10Gb kit cannot be made to go faster regardless of the cable used.

N.B.
There are distance limits for Cat 5e [1Gb @ 100 Metres] & Cat 6 [10Gb @ 55 Metres] beyond these limits the max speed is not guaranteed.
Depending on the quality of the cable it *could* support the max speed beyond these limits but this is not a given.
Click to expand...
I am aware that 1 Gbps is the official speed limit supported by Cat 5e cables. The reason why I'm doing this test is because I've seen some YouTubers test and confirm that unofficially, Cat 5e cables does support up to 2.5 Gbps (I wasn't trying to test if 10 Gbps is supported, only 2.5 Gbps).

This is why I am seeking help in this forum to make sure I am interpreting my test results properly.
 
tgl said:
Those iperf3 results seem seriously broken. What you should expect on a simple ethernet connection is pretty much rock-solid-steady throughput for the whole run, except maybe a bit of ramp-up behavior at the start, and possibly some wonkiness from a fractional-second interval at the end. Here's a sample of what I get with two Intel NUC machines plugged into the same ethernet switch:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.1.13, port 57810
[ 5] local 192.168.1.11 port 5201 connected to 192.168.1.13 port 57818
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 108 MBytes 907 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 10.00-10.04 sec 3.88 MBytes 933 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 1.10 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec receiver

and

Connecting to host nuc1, port 5201
[ 5] local 192.168.1.13 port 57818 connected to 192.168.1.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 114 MBytes 955 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 113 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 113 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 936 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec 0 393 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.10 GBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 1.10 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec receiver

BTW, the default test setup is with the client sending data. Add the '-R' (receive) switch to have the client receive data; you should get largely-comparable results. Newer iperf3 versions also accept '--bidir' to run concurrent send and receive.

I'm not sure what's going on with your results. Could be you have a broken version of iperf3, or there's something wrong with one or the other ethernet port, or something wrong with the cable. Do you observe any performance issues in ordinary use of these machines?
Click to expand...

I ran the test without any additional (optional) parameters so the command was simply :
iperf3 -c <ip address of host>

Based on your post above, this would mean that it's in default mode and the client would have sent data to the host (i.e. not bidirectional).

What puzzles me is, why the "sender" bandwidth (6.05 Gbits/sec) is so drastically different from the "receiver" bandwidth (125 Mbits/sec).
 
kfchan said:
What puzzles me is, why the "sender" bandwidth (6.05 Gbits/sec) is so drastically different from the "receiver" bandwidth (125 Mbits/sec).
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. The iperf test didn't work correctly therefore you are seeing nonsense numbers. Your test ran for 10 seconds. For the first 2 seconds some sort of data was transferred. For the following eight seconds zero data was transferred. That's very wrong.
 
kfchan said:
I am aware that 1 Gbps is the official speed limit supported by Cat 5e cables. The reason why I'm doing this test is because I've seen some YouTubers test and confirm that unofficially, Cat 5e cables does support up to 2.5 Gbps (I wasn't trying to test if 10 Gbps is supported, only 2.5 Gbps).

This is why I am seeking help in this forum to make sure I am interpreting my test results properly.
Click to expand...
Both Cat 5e & 6 can excced the official speeds if the cable is good quality and *short* enough ... BUT ... as you are working outside of the official spec it is not guaranteed to work [Speed & length are different sides of the same equation].
There is also the issue of are you creating electical interference 'over driving' the cable speed.
For 2.5Gb I would simply use a Cat 6 cable which are not much dearer than Cat 5e.
Some of your strange results could be because the Cat 5e cable is not 'good enough' to support 2.5Gb speeds.
Badly terminated or damaged cables/overdriven cables/cables under extreme electical interference can give results that are strange.
I have had very long (100M+) cables work perfectly and short [1M] cables fail to work consistently, so cable quality does matter.
Also note that some Kit/Network Cards/etc can be sensitive to cable quality as well, they can appear to be faulty *until* the cable(s) are replaced by better quality cables.
 
kfchan said:
I am aware that 1 Gbps is the official speed limit supported by Cat 5e cables.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Cat 5e defines a maximum signalling rate of 100 MHz at up to 100 meters. In itself it doesn't specify the maximum Ethernet rate.

2.5GbE (2.5GBASE-T) is a newer standard that was created after Cat 5e and gigabit ethernet were defined. 2.5GBASE-T was designed to work over the existing Cat 5e cables.

2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
I learnt something new ... I have never used 5 or 2.5 Gbit/s ethernet over Cat 5e.
With so many 'crappy' cables out there I would be surprised it worked at the full speed.

:eek::D
 
ColinTaylor said:
You're missing the point. The iperf test didn't work correctly therefore you are seeing nonsense numbers. Your test ran for 10 seconds. For the first 2 seconds some sort of data was transferred. For the following eight seconds zero data was transferred. That's very wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The other problem is that the client side reports physically impossible transfer rates (many Gbps) for those first two seconds.

Since we know the client side is sending in this test, a possible interpretation of the client numbers is that it was simply stuffing data into kernel-owned buffers at more or less memory-bandwidth-limited rates for the first two seconds, and then once those buffers filled the kernel stopped accepting more data while it was trying to flush what it had across the network. iperf3 should be designed to prevent such behavior though; at least, it successfully avoids it in every other test I've seen. In any case, that theory does nothing to explain the server-side report: even if the client-side statistics were garbage because of buffering effects, data should be arriving at the server at a steady line-limited rate. So there's something that doesn't make sense here.

My best guess is that the copy of iperf3 you have is either broken or not too compatible with recent Windows versions. That's only a guess.
 
Wasnt there some statement from MS in the last few months about testing lan performance under win 10/11 ?
Something to the effect that iperf3 was not testing properly and "use another tool " ?
 
ColinTaylor said:
You're missing the point. The iperf test didn't work correctly therefore you are seeing nonsense numbers. Your test ran for 10 seconds. For the first 2 seconds some sort of data was transferred. For the following eight seconds zero data was transferred. That's very wrong.
Click to expand...
Noted. No idea why I am getting errors after 2 seconds. Tried 2 different USB ethernet adaptors and 2 different cables and still gettting those errors. I will try to get hold of another laptop and ethernet adaptor to retest.
 
tgl said:
Exactly. The other problem is that the client side reports physically impossible transfer rates (many Gbps) for those first two seconds.

Since we know the client side is sending in this test, a possible interpretation of the client numbers is that it was simply stuffing data into kernel-owned buffers at more or less memory-bandwidth-limited rates for the first two seconds, and then once those buffers filled the kernel stopped accepting more data while it was trying to flush what it had across the network. iperf3 should be designed to prevent such behavior though; at least, it successfully avoids it in every other test I've seen. In any case, that theory does nothing to explain the server-side report: even if the client-side statistics were garbage because of buffering effects, data should be arriving at the server at a steady line-limited rate. So there's something that doesn't make sense here.

My best guess is that the copy of iperf3 you have is either broken or not too compatible with recent Windows versions. That's only a guess.
Click to expand...
I am using iPerf3 v3.16 from Github. I did see a version 3.17 today but didn't think it would make a difference but perhaps I should try that anyway.
 
kfchan said:
That article does say that basic tests should work and that's what I am doing. Nothing advanced at all.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, both Microsoft and the iperf3 authors are telling you this is unsupported. You should not be astonished if it's not working.

I looked through the iperf3 FAQ and found an interesting section "TCP throughput drops to (almost) zero during a test, what’s going on?", which seems to match some of your symptoms pretty well. Can't say whether the mechanism they describe is exactly what's happening, but ...
 
tgl said:
Those iperf3 results seem seriously broken. What you should expect on a simple ethernet connection is pretty much rock-solid-steady throughput for the whole run, except maybe a bit of ramp-up behavior at the start, and possibly some wonkiness from a fractional-second interval at the end. Here's a sample of what I get with two Intel NUC machines plugged into the same ethernet switch:

BTW, the default test setup is with the client sending data. Add the '-R' (receive) switch to have the client receive data; you should get largely-comparable results. Newer iperf3 versions also accept '--bidir' to run concurrent send and receive.

I'm not sure what's going on with your results. Could be you have a broken version of iperf3, or there's something wrong with one or the other ethernet port, or something wrong with the cable. Do you observe any performance issues in ordinary use of these machines?
Click to expand...

I would add -P3 - single thread might not move enough traffic for some connections...

Code: 
iperf3 -c 192.168.15.120 -P3 --bidir
Connecting to host 192.168.15.120, port 5201
[  5] local 192.168.15.20 port 43176 connected to 192.168.15.120 port 5201
[  7] local 192.168.15.20 port 43182 connected to 192.168.15.120 port 5201
[  9] local 192.168.15.20 port 43196 connected to 192.168.15.120 port 5201
[ 11] local 192.168.15.20 port 43206 connected to 192.168.15.120 port 5201
[ 13] local 192.168.15.20 port 43214 connected to 192.168.15.120 port 5201
[ 15] local 192.168.15.20 port 43220 connected to 192.168.15.120 port 5201
[ ID][Role] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
[  5][TX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec  38.5 MBytes   323 Mbits/sec    0    266 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec  37.8 MBytes   317 Mbits/sec    0    317 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec  37.9 MBytes   317 Mbits/sec    0    337 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec   114 MBytes   957 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec  35.2 MBytes   296 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec  35.1 MBytes   295 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec  35.0 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   0.00-1.00   sec   105 MBytes   884 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    257 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    354 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    328 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   936 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec    0    452 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec    0    399 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    0    427 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec   110 MBytes   924 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec  37.1 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec  37.1 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec  37.1 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   2.00-3.00   sec   111 MBytes   936 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec  35.0 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec    0    537 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    532 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   303 Mbits/sec    0    475 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec   109 MBytes   910 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   303 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   303 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   303 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   3.00-4.00   sec   109 MBytes   910 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    0    438 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec    0    509 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec    0    455 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec   110 MBytes   925 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec  36.4 MBytes   306 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec  36.4 MBytes   306 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec  36.4 MBytes   306 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   4.00-5.00   sec   109 MBytes   917 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    0    382 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    0    421 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    0    455 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   944 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   313 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   313 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   313 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   938 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    441 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    441 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    458 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   6.00-7.00   sec   112 MBytes   935 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   315 Mbits/sec    0    240 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec    0    325 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   305 Mbits/sec    0    334 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec   110 MBytes   925 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.1 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.1 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec  37.1 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   7.00-8.00   sec   111 MBytes   936 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec  36.2 MBytes   304 Mbits/sec    0    263 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    294 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec  37.5 MBytes   314 Mbits/sec    0    356 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   932 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec  37.0 MBytes   310 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec  36.9 MBytes   309 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec  37.0 MBytes   310 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   8.00-9.00   sec   111 MBytes   929 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[  5][TX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec  37.5 MBytes   311 Mbits/sec    0   5.66 KBytes       
[  7][TX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec  36.2 MBytes   301 Mbits/sec    0   5.66 KBytes       
[  9][TX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec  36.2 MBytes   301 Mbits/sec    0   5.66 KBytes       
[SUM][TX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec   110 MBytes   912 Mbits/sec    0             
[ 11][RX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec  36.2 MBytes   301 Mbits/sec                  
[ 13][RX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec  36.2 MBytes   301 Mbits/sec                  
[ 15][RX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec  36.2 MBytes   301 Mbits/sec                  
[SUM][RX-C]   9.00-10.01  sec   109 MBytes   902 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID][Role] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
[  5][TX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec   371 MBytes   311 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  5][TX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec   368 MBytes   308 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[  7][TX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec   370 MBytes   310 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  7][TX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec   368 MBytes   308 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[  9][TX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec   370 MBytes   310 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  9][TX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec   368 MBytes   308 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[SUM][TX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec  1.09 GBytes   931 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[SUM][TX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec  1.08 GBytes   923 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[ 11][RX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec   371 MBytes   311 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[ 11][RX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec   367 MBytes   307 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[ 13][RX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec   370 MBytes   310 Mbits/sec    1             sender
[ 13][RX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec   367 MBytes   307 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[ 15][RX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec   369 MBytes   309 Mbits/sec    1             sender
[ 15][RX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec   367 MBytes   307 Mbits/sec                  receiver
[SUM][RX-C]   0.00-10.01  sec  1.08 GBytes   930 Mbits/sec    2             sender
[SUM][RX-C]   0.00-10.02  sec  1.08 GBytes   922 Mbits/sec                  receiver
iperf Done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Mystery of connection speed in Netflix app in TV - with or without network switch
Replies
14
Views
2K
follower
F
torstein
Why is my wireless LAN speed slower than my wireless internet speed on AX86U?
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
follower
F
L
Slow speed between client and RT-AX82U using iperf3
Replies
8
Views
2K
lucy37
L
adzel
Solved Bandwidth degrades from AIMesh node to AIMesh router (ethernet backhaul)
Replies
5
Views
2K
heysoundude
heysoundude
RMerlin
OpenVPN on the BCM4912 (ZenWiFi Pro XT2 or GT-AX6000)
2 3
Replies
50
Views
14K
rodrigo2022
R

Latest threads

Support SNBForums w/ Amazon

If you'd like to support SNBForums, just use this link and buy anything on Amazon. Thanks!

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,266 (members: 39, guests: 1,227)
Top