How to test super fast internet like 10gbps (THEORETICALLY, MIGHT NOT WORK)

[iKingRPG]

Ok quick disclaimer, I haven't actually tried this, but theoretically it should work.

So this involves Speedtest.net, but as you may have seen in Linus' video "WE GOT 10 GIGABIT INTERNET!", you end up maxing out the speed test server, since most people aren't going to get 10 Gigabit internet just to run a speed test server.

So, what you need to test your internet:

A computer

A internet connection faster than 1gbps

2 ip addresses

So you follow the instructions at https://support.ookla.com/hc/en-us/articles/234578568-How-To-Install-Submit-Server?mobile_site=true,

And after 

You setup the server, get another computer and make sure you have this computer using a different external IP. Now, go to speed test.net and do a speed test using your server. Theoretically, you should be getting 9.8 gigabit or close. Bye.

Edit: Mods, please move this to Networking. I'm sorry.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Now I feel stupid, because the speed test wouldn't even leave your network..

[Electronics Wizardy]

couldn't you also just use iperf for this?

[mynameisjuan]

1 - Most service provider that provide 10gig have it hosted internally, they need an official way to test their equipment. The Ciena's that they deployed for linus have native bandwidth test, I know be cause we deploy them.

2 - Your test relies on two publicly facing devices without a router

3 -  Lets say you do have a router, with a single connection, the two IPs are going to exist on the same router (even if in different subnets) so its going to route right through the router to each device, never leaving it.There is a way around this but beyond the scope of this post.

4 - 9.4Gbps is what you will get with overhead

5 - iPerf is the only way to go

[Catsrules]

1 hour ago, iKingRPG said:

Ok quick disclaimer, I haven't actually tried this, but theoretically it should work.

So this involves Speedtest.net, but as you may have seen in Linus' video "WE GOT 10 GIGABIT INTERNET!", you end up maxing out the speed test server, since most people aren't going to get 10 Gigabit internet just to run a speed test server.

So, what you need to test your internet:

A computer

A internet connection faster than 1gbps

2 ip addresses

So you follow the instructions at https://support.ookla.com/hc/en-us/articles/234578568-How-To-Install-Submit-Server?mobile_site=true,

And after 

You setup the server, get another computer and make sure you have this computer using a different external IP. Now, go to speed test.net and do a speed test using your server. Theoretically, you should be getting 9.8 gigabit or close. Bye.

Edit: Mods, please move this to Networking. I'm sorry.

It would depend on how the routes work, odds are if you have two ip address for the same connection the IPs will be on the same subnet if this is the case I am not sure if your traffic would ever actually leave the router.

Now if you ISP gave you two IP on separate subnets then maybe. However it would still only test the internal speed of your ISP and not actually leave the ISP's network.

 

[trueCABLE]

Hey folks.  I have a forthcoming white paper around this very thing...about validation of 10G networking (LAN side) on a shoe string budget.  For now, though, yes iperf3 on Linux is the ideal way of validating out 10G locally.  Forget Windows...not going to get you from point A to point B for real world link speed testing.  That white paper is very large and has quite a bit of detail around test equipment and how to get around needing a $8K and up Fluke DSX ANSI/TIA Certifier (assuming this is not a customer install who is demanding a real ANSI/TIA Cert in which case...well...better get out that credit card).  Stay tuned on this one...I will post it here as soon as it is through all of the editing process. 

[mynameisjuan]

42 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

Forget Windows...not going to get you from point A to point B for real world link speed testing

That’s just incorrect 
 

42 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

Fluke DSX ANSI/TIA Certifier

That’s just a cable tester, there is no official throughput cert. A throughput test will reveal any flaws in a cable anyway.

 

if you need to test on a budget you can for $2-300 easy. Less if you go used

[trueCABLE]

In my case, and after massive research around the subject, I found that the best sustainable speeds on Windows 10 for example (Home Edition) is about 6G.  I would see spikes to 8G but they were not maintainable.  This was using Tamosoft Throughput test.  RAM to RAM, so no bottle necks involved.  Further, both machines were very fast and equipped with Aquantia 107 based PCI-E NICs.  After huge amount of head against table pounding (yes, I tried the cygwin based stuff too) and some back and forth in the UBNT forums, it was settled that the best way to go about actual cable speed validation was with iperf3 on a Linux distro.  

 

As to the white paper, it is aimed specifically at how to avoid spending a lot of money to validate 10G link speeds.  Some installs, though, do absolutely require ANSI/TIA Cert with a sine wave Certifier, so that is part of the white paper as well.  

[mynameisjuan]

30 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

This was using Tamosoft Throughput test

iPerf can handle 10gig on relatively midrange hardware.

 

Windows has no problem with iPerf 10gig, I dont get where you are coming from.

 

34 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

Some installs, though, do absolutely require ANSI/TIA Cert with a sine wave Certifier, so that is part of the white paper as well. 

You are confusing cable certifications to throughput certifications which do not exist. You want a verified cable report, you’re going to have to buy an expensive meter no matter what. You are not getting around that.

 

There is no such thing as a certified throughput report. Such as Ciena, carrier grade switches designed around L2 cirucits/metro-e, they have their own internal testing program in the switch so we can hand of a throughput report to the customer. These are not certified or standardized, its a report that shows no more than iPerf does with a marked date. 

 

I mean its cool that you are making a whitepaper for cheap testing but dont go around saying windows cannot do 10gig throughput and there are official standards with benchmarking

 

 

 

 

 

[trueCABLE]

47 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Windows has no problem with iPerf 10gig, I dont get where you are coming from.

 

iperf3 is of course a native Linux app.  There are some Windows ports based on cygwin namely, but they provided very inconsistent results.  Tamosoft appears to be a Windows port that works relatively well, but on a 300+ ft Cat6A Ethernet cable based permalinks I was never able to push the throughput through that link to 9.49 Gbp/s. I was able to achieve this easily when using Ubuntu and iperf3 natively.  The reason:  Windows networking stack.

 

47 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

You are confusing cable certifications to throughput certifications which do not exist. You want a verified cable report, you’re going to have to buy an expensive meter no matter what. You are not getting around that.

I think we are talking about two different things.  My goal was to test Ethernet cable capability and associated terminations to the maximum possible bandwidth without the use of a sine wave Certifier.  A true sine wave Certifier, by virtue of the fact that it tests every facet of the physical layer, does provide a guarantee that the cable will support a certain bandwidth at a certain distance (ie...that is what Category is all about...maximum speed supported at 328 feet and under specific performance guidelines as set by ANSI/TIA 568 C.2/D.2).  For warranty and legal reasons, this type of very expensive tool is required at times and many end customers won't accept anything less.

 

Now, bandwidth qualification/verification and Certification are two different things.  I fully understand the end result when the entire network is up and running won't necessarily be what the physical layer will support.  In other words...using qualification to achieve quasi-Certification when you can get away with it.

 

The goal of the white paper is to help people who seek to quality test the physical permalink or even channel of various cable Categories.  I think I probably posted in the wrong topic!  My bad on that one.

 

That all said, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the ability of Windows 10 to push actual 10G thoughput via a link that is truly capable of it.  I never once saw a test result (using various methods) that would lead me to believe that Windows 10 was anything other than sub-par in comparison to the networking stack found in any one Linux distro.  

 

In any event, my white paper will detail all of this.  

[mynameisjuan]

10 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

iperf3 is of course a native Linux app.  There are some Windows ports based on cygwin namely, but they provided very inconsistent results.  Tamosoft appears to be a Windows port that works relatively well, but on a 300+ ft Cat6A Ethernet cable based permalinks I was never able to push the throughput through that link to 9.49 Gbp/s. I was able to achieve this easily when using Ubuntu and iperf3 natively.  The reason:  Windows networking stack.

I have seen many iperf runs with 9.4gig results, from i5s to xeons. Its all dependent on stream count.

This was just posted here just last week. I perf in powershell. Dont say it cant be done.

 

15 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

My goal was to test Ethernet cable capability and associated terminations to the maximum possible bandwidth without the use of a sine wave Certifier.....I think I probably posted in the wrong topic! 

Your original post was about iPerf and A-B testing which is what the thread is about and where I took it. 

 

22 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

The goal of the white paper is to help people who seek to quality test the physical permalink or even channel of various cable Categories.

I dont know how this will be tested and certified without a cable tester. Poor mans tester is just iPerf and watch for drops on load after 60 seconds of testing. This is common in the industry post installation, nothing new.

 

I would be interested in the white paper 

[trueCABLE]

Very interesting.  You indicate you used multiple streams?  Was this to various WAN side servers or LAN side servers and is the result 100% repeatable?  Would the average "Joe" be able to pull this off?  I am writing for a wide audience, so if you have access to methodology that is not otherwise available to the average person then I would love to use your method for simplicity but cannot recommend it.  For the record, I also tried using multiple TCP streams but was never able to achieve this result--but could easily do so with a single TCP stream from Linux box to Linux box (A to B).

 

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Your original post was about iPerf and A-B testing which is what the thread is about and where I took it. 

Excellent, we are on the same page.

 

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I dont know how this will be tested and certified without a cable tester. Poor mans tester is just iPerf and watch for drops on load after 60 seconds of testing. This is common in the industry post installation, nothing new.

 

Actual sine wave Certification?  You cannot.  You can however, hybridize the testing with a quasi digital qualifier/certifier along with iperf3.  This only applies to situations where you don't have a customer demanding Cert to 568 C.2/D.2 and the requisite metrics found there.

 

I am very interested in getting the white paper out, but the editing processes have not finished yet.  I may include your method as well,  AND give you credit for it in a white paper that will have an audience of quite a few people.  However, the method you are using has to vet out as repeatable and reasonable.  If it is, then we can go PM if you would like.

[mynameisjuan]

12 minutes ago, trueCABLE said:

Very interesting.  You indicate you used multiple streams?  Was this to various WAN side servers or LAN side servers and is the result 100% repeatable?

Its just a -P [#] flag in the iPerf command. Nothing special. It had something to do with jumping from v2 to 3 and the way iPerf changed the way it works and how its clock/thread dependent now. 

 

I was going to copy the thread on r/networking where more knowledgeable people duke it out with examples on Windows half way down I noticed your post on there already.

[trueCABLE]

Ha!  Figures.  When I wrote the white paper and used the cygwin based iperf it was actually based upon iperf v2 and I see that now.  Tamosoft, while appearing to be iperf3, might also be based on iperf v2.  

 

I am thinking that the best way to handle this kind of testing is still dual booting Linux on a Windows machine, but want to hear all about how they are using this flag and if on the client side you need to specify more than a single IP.  If more than one IP, then this is probably a no go for the average person.  The average person won't have multiple servers to hit against.

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by LogicalDrm

[trueCABLE]

19 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I was going to copy the thread on r/networking where more knowledgeable people duke it out with examples on Windows half way down I noticed your post on there already.

Yeah, I was one of the ones duking it out there! 

[iKingRPG]

18 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

3 -  Lets say you do have a router, with a single connection, the two IPs are going to exist on the same router (even if in different subnets) so its going to route right through the router to each device, never leaving it.There is a way around this but beyond the scope of this post.

Oh, now I feel stupid.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, iKingRPG said:

Oh, now I feel stupid.

Dont, its a learning experience!

[trueCABLE]

Agree with mynameisjuan! Please do NOT feel like this.  I was running in small circles for a while trying to come up with a reasonable and accessible way for people to validate out 10G runs, in the context of installing our Cat6A cable.  The white paper also includes a low(er) cost way of generating professional quasi-Cert results that you can hand to a customer!

11 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

11 hours ago, iKingRPG said:

Oh, now I feel stupid.

Dont, its a learning experience!

Ok, and back to the Windows network stack performance vs. Linux performance.  I will revise my white paper to indicate that single TCP stream 10G validation to 9.XX Gbp/s on Windows is not going to happen.  On Linux, this is not an issue.  I took a harder look at the results above done via Power Shell.  This is the result of using multiple servers to bounce off of on the client side.  Not everyone has this capability, so my original thoughts are still correct at least in context of the white paper.  

 

That all said, a big thanks to mynameisjuan who did point out that it is TECHNICALLY possible using Windows, but it just turns out it is not necessarily reasonable.