Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

-b and --fq-rate flags should be mutually exclusive #1597

Open
bltierney opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #1602
Open

-b and --fq-rate flags should be mutually exclusive #1597

bltierney opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #1602

Comments

@bltierney
Copy link
Contributor

I think it does not make sense to give both -b and --fq-rate flags for iperf3.
iperf3 should give an error in that case.

@WBINVD
Copy link

WBINVD commented Nov 20, 2023

There could be a use case for using both rate limits with --bidir, since --fq-rate doesn't apply to the server (yet).

It might be better to print a warning instead, like when a large, but valid UDP length is set in iperf.

@talawahtech
Copy link

FYI I am currently using both for the exact reason @WBINVD mentioned. I am running a bidirectional test where I need to constrain the bandwidth in both directions. The ideal would be if --fq-rate worked on both client and server, since it has lower CPU overhead, but as a workaround I specify both, with a slightly higher value for --bitrate. e.g.

--fq-rate "2000m" --bitrate "2005m" --bidir

With this approach, CPU usage stays low on the client because --fq-rate kicks in before --bitrate, and --bitrate works on the server side.

cc @bmah888 please don't merge the PR until --fq-rate is supported on the server.

@bmah888
Copy link
Contributor

bmah888 commented Jan 11, 2024

See #1632

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants