nanog mailing list archives
Re: Proving Gig Speed
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:52:27 +0200
On 16/Jul/18 20:17, Matt Erculiani wrote:
We use Iperf3 for customers that complain about throughput, it's relatively low overhead compared to the Ookla HTML5 client. Same scenario as you, we have the tech hook up their laptop to the customer's drop and perform testing. I suspect your antivirus may be attempting to perform real-time inspection on the http(s) traffic, which would crush the little laptop CPU for sure.
But iPerf doesn't paint pretty pictures at the end of the test that I can brag to my friends with :-)... Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Proving Gig Speed, (continued)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed K. Scott Helms (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mike Hammett (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed K. Scott Helms (Jul 18)
- RE: Proving Gig Speed Luke Guillory (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mike Hammett (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed valdis . kletnieks (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Simon Leinen (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mike Hammett (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Ben Cannon (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Michael Thomas (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Saku Ytti (Jul 17)