ottawan Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Armbianmonitor: http://ix.io/2dkO But only when the connection is initiated by the remote host. iperf3 -s ----------------------------------------------------------- Server listening on 5201 ----------------------------------------------------------- Accepted connection from nanopcT4, port 51356 [ 5] local nanopiNeo4 port 5201 connected to nanopcT4 port 51358 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.34 MBytes 19.7 Mbits/sec 108 1.41 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.05 MBytes 17.2 Mbits/sec 100 2.83 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 4.68 MBytes 39.3 Mbits/sec 220 5.66 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 199 KBytes 1.63 Mbits/sec 24 1.41 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 3.25 MBytes 27.3 Mbits/sec 179 15.6 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 4.53 MBytes 38.0 Mbits/sec 217 1.41 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.10 MBytes 9.19 Mbits/sec 56 4.24 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 860 KBytes 7.04 Mbits/sec 38 2.83 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 5.75 MBytes 48.3 Mbits/sec 291 1.41 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 4.00 MBytes 33.6 Mbits/sec 209 1.41 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 28.7 MBytes 24.1 Mbits/sec 1442 sender ----------------------------------------------------------- Server listening on 5201 ----------------------------------------------------------- iperf3 -c nanopcT4 -R Connecting to host nanopcT4, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host nanopcT4 is sending [ 5] local nanopiNeo4 port 55042 connected to nanopcT4 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 108 MBytes 905 Mbits/sec [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 938 Mbits/sec receiver There was also some less significant packet loss and slower performance running Bionic. and asymmetric as well, but in the opposite direction - when neo4 is initiating connection: iperf3 -c nanopcT4 -R Connecting to host nanopcT4, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host nanopcT4 is sending [ 4] local nanopiNeo4 port 60366 connected to nanopcT4 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 73.5 MBytes 617 Mbits/sec [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 78.2 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 78.2 MBytes 656 Mbits/sec [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 78.4 MBytes 658 Mbits/sec [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 77.7 MBytes 652 Mbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 77.6 MBytes 651 Mbits/sec [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 77.8 MBytes 653 Mbits/sec [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 77.7 MBytes 652 Mbits/sec [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 76.8 MBytes 644 Mbits/sec [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 79.1 MBytes 663 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 778 MBytes 653 Mbits/sec 152 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 775 MBytes 650 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. iperf3 -s ----------------------------------------------------------- Server listening on 5201 ----------------------------------------------------------- Accepted connection from nanopcT4, port 51336 [ 5] local nanopiNeo4 port 5201 connected to nanopcT4 port 51338 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 106 MBytes 889 Mbits/sec 0 404 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 113 MBytes 946 Mbits/sec 0 404 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 936 Mbits/sec 0 404 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 113 MBytes 947 Mbits/sec 0 445 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec 1 328 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 369 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec 0 392 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 428 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 113 MBytes 945 Mbits/sec 0 428 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 443 KBytes [ 5] 10.00-10.02 sec 2.86 MBytes 1.06 Gbits/sec 0 443 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.02 sec 1.09 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec 1 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.02 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec receiver
Werner Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Quote upgrade to Buster running Bionic So you upgraded from Bionic to Buster?
ottawan Posted March 5, 2020 Author Posted March 5, 2020 It's not an 'upgrade' per se, rather a clean install.
Werner Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 Just wanted to make sure... Anyway. Both Buster and Bionic (if you did not switch branches) share the very same kernel. Therefore the issue must be searched on OS side and there is very little Armbian can do since the OS itself is barely touched.
Igor Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Werner said: Anyway. Both Buster and Bionic (if you did not switch branches) share the very same kernel. Therefore the issue must be searched on OS side and there is very little Armbian can do since the OS itself is barely touched. Or 3rd party hardware related. Such as cabling, switches, ... @ottawan When https://github.com/armbian/autotests will receive more love, things could be cleared out at once. But now, someone needs to find some time and try to recreate ... Edited March 5, 2020 by Igor wording
ottawan Posted March 5, 2020 Author Posted March 5, 2020 11 hours ago, Werner said: if you did not switch branches Great observation, thank you Werner! Before the upgrade from Stretch (was not Bionic, sorry, my mistake) I was indeed running kernel v.5.x because back then I also saw some slow performance but blamed it on a new USB enclosure without proper testing, then just upgraded the kernel and that solved the problem. In fact I bet it was the very same thing. Now after switching to 5.4.20 theres still some insignificant packet loss but guess I can live with it.
ottawan Posted March 5, 2020 Author Posted March 5, 2020 6 hours ago, Igor said: When https://github.com/armbian/autotests will receive more love I'll definitely look into it now, seems neo4 is not quite popular out there, I must be one of a few 'lucky' ones :)))
Igor Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 3 hours ago, ottawan said: I'll definitely look into it now, I made some major changes today, but running low on time. Check this entire thread: 3 hours ago, ottawan said: seems neo4 is not quite popular out there We are mainly and well stock with bigger brother, M4 and T4. They are very similar.
ottawan Posted March 6, 2020 Author Posted March 6, 2020 18 hours ago, Igor said: M4 and T4. They are very similar. That's kinda obvious, as all 3 share the very same on chip ethernet port. But I'm still struggling to understand how come my T4 is running 4.4.192 just fine, but neo4 is experiencing a massive packet loss running 4.4.208 and one of the earlier 4.4.x versions but 5.4.20 and 5.3.x before - all good. So now on that automated testing script topic: is it to be run as root or a regular user? Is it safe to run on a live system? Does it send anything automatically like armbianmonitor does? (To be honest - I was unpleasantly surprized seeing the data collected sent somewhere without review or even asking).
Igor Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 1 hour ago, ottawan said: as all 3 share the very same on chip ethernet port. That is correct but experiences shows that things like PCB line length matters. Not necessarily this is the case ... just speculating. 1 hour ago, ottawan said: is it to be run as root or a regular user? Is it safe to run on a live system? Does it send anything automatically like armbianmonitor does? - in this very early stage it runs as root. Working under normal user should be added under "to do" and rework accordingly. - it should be safe to run it on a live system but testing might provoke your system to break. We actually want to move the system to the borders, which might result in bricking ... wireless speed test reconfigure your wireless devices and doesn't put them back, we will add more tests which I don't know what they will do ATM. This is not a end user application. - it doesn't send any data anywhere. This test is meant for us, for people that will attach their devices to common testing facility. We will collect data. I will sent my test results, you will sent your test results and we will display some results. They will tell us if this and that hardware feature is not working as expected or if its failed. Nobody cares who is the person that made the test, so that data will not be collected at all. 1 hour ago, ottawan said: I was unpleasantly surprized seeing the data collected sent somewhere without review or even asking armbianmonitor sends out strictly anonymised data on your command and that data is stored on public servers. We take privacy and security seriously.
ottawan Posted March 6, 2020 Author Posted March 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Igor said: sends out strictly anonymised data Yes I figured that out once I examined the data. But ony after it was uploaded. When I ran armbianmonitor though I did not expect it to do automatic upload and my immediate reaction was WTF
Recommended Posts