How do you test the network speed between two boxes?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







155















I have a gigabit network set up in my house and a few Ubuntu based boxes. Out of complete curiosity I would like to check the speed between the two boxes. I am not having any problems with speed or anything, it really is just the geek in me that is curious. Plus maybe the results will let me know if there is room for improvement, or that I have something configured wrongly.



So how do you properly test the network speed between Ubuntu boxes?










share|improve this question































    155















    I have a gigabit network set up in my house and a few Ubuntu based boxes. Out of complete curiosity I would like to check the speed between the two boxes. I am not having any problems with speed or anything, it really is just the geek in me that is curious. Plus maybe the results will let me know if there is room for improvement, or that I have something configured wrongly.



    So how do you properly test the network speed between Ubuntu boxes?










    share|improve this question



























      155












      155








      155


      90






      I have a gigabit network set up in my house and a few Ubuntu based boxes. Out of complete curiosity I would like to check the speed between the two boxes. I am not having any problems with speed or anything, it really is just the geek in me that is curious. Plus maybe the results will let me know if there is room for improvement, or that I have something configured wrongly.



      So how do you properly test the network speed between Ubuntu boxes?










      share|improve this question
















      I have a gigabit network set up in my house and a few Ubuntu based boxes. Out of complete curiosity I would like to check the speed between the two boxes. I am not having any problems with speed or anything, it really is just the geek in me that is curious. Plus maybe the results will let me know if there is room for improvement, or that I have something configured wrongly.



      So how do you properly test the network speed between Ubuntu boxes?







      networking testing bandwidth






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 7 '17 at 9:19









      Zanna

      51.2k13139243




      51.2k13139243










      asked Oct 17 '10 at 17:04









      Jacob SchoenJacob Schoen

      2,11052229




      2,11052229






















          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          245














          I use iperf. It's a client server arrangement in that you run it in server mode at one end and connect to its from another computer on the other side of the network.



          One both machines run:



          sudo apt-get install iperf


          We'll start an iperf server on one of the machines:



          iperf -s


          And then on the other computer, tell iperf to connect as a client:



          iperf -c <address of other computer>


          On the client machine, you'll see something like this:



          oli@bert:~$ iperf -c tim
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          Client connecting to tim, TCP port 5001
          TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          [ 3] local 192.168.0.4 port 37248 connected with 192.168.0.5 port 5001
          [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
          [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 GBytes 893 Mbits/sec


          Of course, if you're running a firewall on the server machine, you'll need to allow connections on port 5001 or change the port with the -p flag.





          You can do pretty much the same thing with plain old nc (netcat) if you're that way inclined. On the server machine:



          nc -vvlnp 12345 >/dev/null


          And the client can pipe a gigabyte of zeros through dd over the nc tunnel.



          dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345


          As demod:



          $ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345
          Connection to 10.10.0.2 12345 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
          1024+0 records in
          1024+0 records out
          1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.11995 s, 118 MB/s


          The timing there is given by dd but it should be accurate enough as it can only output as fast the pipe will take it. If you're unhappy with that you could wrap the whole thing up in a time call.



          Remember that the result is in megabytes so multiply it by 8 to get a megabits-per-second speed. The demo above is running at 944mbps.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

            – Jacob Schoen
            Oct 17 '10 at 17:24











          • In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

            – Oli
            Oct 17 '10 at 17:33











          • This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

            – Geoff
            Dec 30 '13 at 20:59











          • Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

            – wujj123456
            May 14 '14 at 7:38






          • 1





            @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

            – Oli
            Feb 5 '16 at 16:37



















          20














          Same as Oli's recommendation for iperf. Just want to add several points:




          1. There are also windows clients that enables testing across
            platforms.


          2. -t <seconds> changes the test length. -P <n> changes the number of simultaneous connections. For example, iperf -c [target IP] -P 10 -t 30 tests 10 connections together for 30 seconds and gives aggregated results along with 10 separate connection speeds.

          3. You don't need sudo. You can simply download the binary at http://iperf.fr/. It should work. Download it with wget, make it executable with chmod, and you can directly run the binary. It works perfectly.


          I found that, using default settings, the single connection speed fluctuates quite a bit. However, with 3+ parallel connections, the results are more consistent on my gigabyte switch. (consistently @ 910-920Mbps)






          share|improve this answer

































            7














            Using this script you can easily test connection speed between your machine and some remote host.
            Example of using:



            $ scp-speed-test.sh user@remote_host 80000




            • user@remote_host is your destination host (you must have ssh-access
              to this host)


            • 80000 is the approximate size of test file (in kbs), which will be
              received to the remote host. It is not mandatory argument.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 3





              This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

              – sudo
              Jan 26 '17 at 22:55













            • Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

              – Xen2050
              Feb 20 '18 at 23:20





















            3














            If you want to test your Ethernet LAN at a lower level you can use Etherate which is a free Linux CLI Ethernet testing tool:



            https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate



            Throwing it in the mix as tools like iPerf (which are very good!) operate over IP and TCP or UDP. Etherate tests directly over Ethernet / OSI layer 2.






            share|improve this answer































              1














              There are also some other nice command-line tools for bandwidth benchmarking between two hosts:



              nuttcp



              server$ nuttcp -S
              client$ nuttcp -v -v -i1 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


              nepim



               server$ nepim
              client$ nepim -d -c 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


              goben



               server$ goben
              client$ goben -hosts 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address





              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                – Xen2050
                Feb 20 '18 at 23:28



















              0














              as I pointed out in my comment at best answer, that solution is not good enough be cause client/server is not optimized to ... squeeze every bit of speed



              my solution:



              make a ramdisk on both sides (therefore, you aren't limited by storage speed and I suggest you made them with ramfs not tmpfs, so they won't go in swap ... just be careful not to leave at least 512M free memory for system, this is REQUIRED if you have giga ethernet, at that speed even SSDs may slow things down)
              install apache on server, then create a link to ramdisk, create few large files on ramdisk (100M-1G, you can create them with dd from /dev/random or copy if you have some at hand)
              then go client side and download them (also on that side's ramdisk) with an advanced download program, I used lftp



              oh well, difference was major, from 75mbps reported by iperf and 9.5M/s netcat



              to 11.18M/s with my solution:



              1591129421 bytes transferred in 136 seconds (11.18M/s)





              share|improve this answer































                -4














                It's easy plug your computer on the first box, plug the other box to the first box. Then from your computer ping the first box save the result, ping the other box and do the substraction.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 10





                  That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                  – Oli
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:18











                • Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                  – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                  Dec 7 '17 at 17:48






                • 1





                  Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                  – wullxz
                  Apr 25 '18 at 10:01












                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "89"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: true,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: 10,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f7976%2fhow-do-you-test-the-network-speed-between-two-boxes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                7 Answers
                7






                active

                oldest

                votes








                7 Answers
                7






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                245














                I use iperf. It's a client server arrangement in that you run it in server mode at one end and connect to its from another computer on the other side of the network.



                One both machines run:



                sudo apt-get install iperf


                We'll start an iperf server on one of the machines:



                iperf -s


                And then on the other computer, tell iperf to connect as a client:



                iperf -c <address of other computer>


                On the client machine, you'll see something like this:



                oli@bert:~$ iperf -c tim
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                Client connecting to tim, TCP port 5001
                TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                [ 3] local 192.168.0.4 port 37248 connected with 192.168.0.5 port 5001
                [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
                [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 GBytes 893 Mbits/sec


                Of course, if you're running a firewall on the server machine, you'll need to allow connections on port 5001 or change the port with the -p flag.





                You can do pretty much the same thing with plain old nc (netcat) if you're that way inclined. On the server machine:



                nc -vvlnp 12345 >/dev/null


                And the client can pipe a gigabyte of zeros through dd over the nc tunnel.



                dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345


                As demod:



                $ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345
                Connection to 10.10.0.2 12345 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
                1024+0 records in
                1024+0 records out
                1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.11995 s, 118 MB/s


                The timing there is given by dd but it should be accurate enough as it can only output as fast the pipe will take it. If you're unhappy with that you could wrap the whole thing up in a time call.



                Remember that the result is in megabytes so multiply it by 8 to get a megabits-per-second speed. The demo above is running at 944mbps.






                share|improve this answer


























                • Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

                  – Jacob Schoen
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:24











                • In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

                  – Oli
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:33











                • This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

                  – Geoff
                  Dec 30 '13 at 20:59











                • Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

                  – wujj123456
                  May 14 '14 at 7:38






                • 1





                  @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

                  – Oli
                  Feb 5 '16 at 16:37
















                245














                I use iperf. It's a client server arrangement in that you run it in server mode at one end and connect to its from another computer on the other side of the network.



                One both machines run:



                sudo apt-get install iperf


                We'll start an iperf server on one of the machines:



                iperf -s


                And then on the other computer, tell iperf to connect as a client:



                iperf -c <address of other computer>


                On the client machine, you'll see something like this:



                oli@bert:~$ iperf -c tim
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                Client connecting to tim, TCP port 5001
                TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                [ 3] local 192.168.0.4 port 37248 connected with 192.168.0.5 port 5001
                [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
                [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 GBytes 893 Mbits/sec


                Of course, if you're running a firewall on the server machine, you'll need to allow connections on port 5001 or change the port with the -p flag.





                You can do pretty much the same thing with plain old nc (netcat) if you're that way inclined. On the server machine:



                nc -vvlnp 12345 >/dev/null


                And the client can pipe a gigabyte of zeros through dd over the nc tunnel.



                dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345


                As demod:



                $ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345
                Connection to 10.10.0.2 12345 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
                1024+0 records in
                1024+0 records out
                1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.11995 s, 118 MB/s


                The timing there is given by dd but it should be accurate enough as it can only output as fast the pipe will take it. If you're unhappy with that you could wrap the whole thing up in a time call.



                Remember that the result is in megabytes so multiply it by 8 to get a megabits-per-second speed. The demo above is running at 944mbps.






                share|improve this answer


























                • Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

                  – Jacob Schoen
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:24











                • In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

                  – Oli
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:33











                • This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

                  – Geoff
                  Dec 30 '13 at 20:59











                • Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

                  – wujj123456
                  May 14 '14 at 7:38






                • 1





                  @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

                  – Oli
                  Feb 5 '16 at 16:37














                245












                245








                245







                I use iperf. It's a client server arrangement in that you run it in server mode at one end and connect to its from another computer on the other side of the network.



                One both machines run:



                sudo apt-get install iperf


                We'll start an iperf server on one of the machines:



                iperf -s


                And then on the other computer, tell iperf to connect as a client:



                iperf -c <address of other computer>


                On the client machine, you'll see something like this:



                oli@bert:~$ iperf -c tim
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                Client connecting to tim, TCP port 5001
                TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                [ 3] local 192.168.0.4 port 37248 connected with 192.168.0.5 port 5001
                [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
                [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 GBytes 893 Mbits/sec


                Of course, if you're running a firewall on the server machine, you'll need to allow connections on port 5001 or change the port with the -p flag.





                You can do pretty much the same thing with plain old nc (netcat) if you're that way inclined. On the server machine:



                nc -vvlnp 12345 >/dev/null


                And the client can pipe a gigabyte of zeros through dd over the nc tunnel.



                dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345


                As demod:



                $ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345
                Connection to 10.10.0.2 12345 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
                1024+0 records in
                1024+0 records out
                1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.11995 s, 118 MB/s


                The timing there is given by dd but it should be accurate enough as it can only output as fast the pipe will take it. If you're unhappy with that you could wrap the whole thing up in a time call.



                Remember that the result is in megabytes so multiply it by 8 to get a megabits-per-second speed. The demo above is running at 944mbps.






                share|improve this answer















                I use iperf. It's a client server arrangement in that you run it in server mode at one end and connect to its from another computer on the other side of the network.



                One both machines run:



                sudo apt-get install iperf


                We'll start an iperf server on one of the machines:



                iperf -s


                And then on the other computer, tell iperf to connect as a client:



                iperf -c <address of other computer>


                On the client machine, you'll see something like this:



                oli@bert:~$ iperf -c tim
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                Client connecting to tim, TCP port 5001
                TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                [ 3] local 192.168.0.4 port 37248 connected with 192.168.0.5 port 5001
                [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
                [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 GBytes 893 Mbits/sec


                Of course, if you're running a firewall on the server machine, you'll need to allow connections on port 5001 or change the port with the -p flag.





                You can do pretty much the same thing with plain old nc (netcat) if you're that way inclined. On the server machine:



                nc -vvlnp 12345 >/dev/null


                And the client can pipe a gigabyte of zeros through dd over the nc tunnel.



                dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345


                As demod:



                $ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1K | nc -vvn 10.10.0.2 12345
                Connection to 10.10.0.2 12345 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
                1024+0 records in
                1024+0 records out
                1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.11995 s, 118 MB/s


                The timing there is given by dd but it should be accurate enough as it can only output as fast the pipe will take it. If you're unhappy with that you could wrap the whole thing up in a time call.



                Remember that the result is in megabytes so multiply it by 8 to get a megabits-per-second speed. The demo above is running at 944mbps.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Feb 28 '16 at 13:42

























                answered Oct 17 '10 at 17:15









                OliOli

                224k89567767




                224k89567767













                • Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

                  – Jacob Schoen
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:24











                • In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

                  – Oli
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:33











                • This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

                  – Geoff
                  Dec 30 '13 at 20:59











                • Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

                  – wujj123456
                  May 14 '14 at 7:38






                • 1





                  @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

                  – Oli
                  Feb 5 '16 at 16:37



















                • Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

                  – Jacob Schoen
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:24











                • In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

                  – Oli
                  Oct 17 '10 at 17:33











                • This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

                  – Geoff
                  Dec 30 '13 at 20:59











                • Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

                  – wujj123456
                  May 14 '14 at 7:38






                • 1





                  @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

                  – Oli
                  Feb 5 '16 at 16:37

















                Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

                – Jacob Schoen
                Oct 17 '10 at 17:24





                Man you have all the answers to my questions! My network apparently is not set up as well as yours only transfer at 714 MBytes and bandwith of 598 Mbits/sec. Dunno may look into that in the future. Thanks.

                – Jacob Schoen
                Oct 17 '10 at 17:24













                In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

                – Oli
                Oct 17 '10 at 17:33





                In fairness the other box is only one switch (and 20meters of cat5e) away and there's no congestion. 600mbps is still pretty fast.

                – Oli
                Oct 17 '10 at 17:33













                This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

                – Geoff
                Dec 30 '13 at 20:59





                This is great, but I don't have root access to the server.

                – Geoff
                Dec 30 '13 at 20:59













                Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

                – wujj123456
                May 14 '14 at 7:38





                Try -P 10. My result with single connection is similar to jschoens, but with 3+ parallel connections, it consistently pushes 920Mbps.

                – wujj123456
                May 14 '14 at 7:38




                1




                1





                @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

                – Oli
                Feb 5 '16 at 16:37





                @CMCDragonkai You probably shouldn't testing resources that aren't yours. Bandwidth heavy tests can have an impact on short-term stability.

                – Oli
                Feb 5 '16 at 16:37













                20














                Same as Oli's recommendation for iperf. Just want to add several points:




                1. There are also windows clients that enables testing across
                  platforms.


                2. -t <seconds> changes the test length. -P <n> changes the number of simultaneous connections. For example, iperf -c [target IP] -P 10 -t 30 tests 10 connections together for 30 seconds and gives aggregated results along with 10 separate connection speeds.

                3. You don't need sudo. You can simply download the binary at http://iperf.fr/. It should work. Download it with wget, make it executable with chmod, and you can directly run the binary. It works perfectly.


                I found that, using default settings, the single connection speed fluctuates quite a bit. However, with 3+ parallel connections, the results are more consistent on my gigabyte switch. (consistently @ 910-920Mbps)






                share|improve this answer






























                  20














                  Same as Oli's recommendation for iperf. Just want to add several points:




                  1. There are also windows clients that enables testing across
                    platforms.


                  2. -t <seconds> changes the test length. -P <n> changes the number of simultaneous connections. For example, iperf -c [target IP] -P 10 -t 30 tests 10 connections together for 30 seconds and gives aggregated results along with 10 separate connection speeds.

                  3. You don't need sudo. You can simply download the binary at http://iperf.fr/. It should work. Download it with wget, make it executable with chmod, and you can directly run the binary. It works perfectly.


                  I found that, using default settings, the single connection speed fluctuates quite a bit. However, with 3+ parallel connections, the results are more consistent on my gigabyte switch. (consistently @ 910-920Mbps)






                  share|improve this answer




























                    20












                    20








                    20







                    Same as Oli's recommendation for iperf. Just want to add several points:




                    1. There are also windows clients that enables testing across
                      platforms.


                    2. -t <seconds> changes the test length. -P <n> changes the number of simultaneous connections. For example, iperf -c [target IP] -P 10 -t 30 tests 10 connections together for 30 seconds and gives aggregated results along with 10 separate connection speeds.

                    3. You don't need sudo. You can simply download the binary at http://iperf.fr/. It should work. Download it with wget, make it executable with chmod, and you can directly run the binary. It works perfectly.


                    I found that, using default settings, the single connection speed fluctuates quite a bit. However, with 3+ parallel connections, the results are more consistent on my gigabyte switch. (consistently @ 910-920Mbps)






                    share|improve this answer















                    Same as Oli's recommendation for iperf. Just want to add several points:




                    1. There are also windows clients that enables testing across
                      platforms.


                    2. -t <seconds> changes the test length. -P <n> changes the number of simultaneous connections. For example, iperf -c [target IP] -P 10 -t 30 tests 10 connections together for 30 seconds and gives aggregated results along with 10 separate connection speeds.

                    3. You don't need sudo. You can simply download the binary at http://iperf.fr/. It should work. Download it with wget, make it executable with chmod, and you can directly run the binary. It works perfectly.


                    I found that, using default settings, the single connection speed fluctuates quite a bit. However, with 3+ parallel connections, the results are more consistent on my gigabyte switch. (consistently @ 910-920Mbps)







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 5 '17 at 19:20









                    Eliah Kagan

                    83.2k22229369




                    83.2k22229369










                    answered May 14 '14 at 7:33









                    wujj123456wujj123456

                    30123




                    30123























                        7














                        Using this script you can easily test connection speed between your machine and some remote host.
                        Example of using:



                        $ scp-speed-test.sh user@remote_host 80000




                        • user@remote_host is your destination host (you must have ssh-access
                          to this host)


                        • 80000 is the approximate size of test file (in kbs), which will be
                          received to the remote host. It is not mandatory argument.






                        share|improve this answer





















                        • 3





                          This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

                          – sudo
                          Jan 26 '17 at 22:55













                        • Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

                          – Xen2050
                          Feb 20 '18 at 23:20


















                        7














                        Using this script you can easily test connection speed between your machine and some remote host.
                        Example of using:



                        $ scp-speed-test.sh user@remote_host 80000




                        • user@remote_host is your destination host (you must have ssh-access
                          to this host)


                        • 80000 is the approximate size of test file (in kbs), which will be
                          received to the remote host. It is not mandatory argument.






                        share|improve this answer





















                        • 3





                          This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

                          – sudo
                          Jan 26 '17 at 22:55













                        • Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

                          – Xen2050
                          Feb 20 '18 at 23:20
















                        7












                        7








                        7







                        Using this script you can easily test connection speed between your machine and some remote host.
                        Example of using:



                        $ scp-speed-test.sh user@remote_host 80000




                        • user@remote_host is your destination host (you must have ssh-access
                          to this host)


                        • 80000 is the approximate size of test file (in kbs), which will be
                          received to the remote host. It is not mandatory argument.






                        share|improve this answer















                        Using this script you can easily test connection speed between your machine and some remote host.
                        Example of using:



                        $ scp-speed-test.sh user@remote_host 80000




                        • user@remote_host is your destination host (you must have ssh-access
                          to this host)


                        • 80000 is the approximate size of test file (in kbs), which will be
                          received to the remote host. It is not mandatory argument.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited Aug 10 '15 at 7:23

























                        answered Aug 6 '15 at 19:40









                        VeLKerrVeLKerr

                        1631515




                        1631515








                        • 3





                          This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

                          – sudo
                          Jan 26 '17 at 22:55













                        • Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

                          – Xen2050
                          Feb 20 '18 at 23:20
















                        • 3





                          This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

                          – sudo
                          Jan 26 '17 at 22:55













                        • Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

                          – Xen2050
                          Feb 20 '18 at 23:20










                        3




                        3





                        This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

                        – sudo
                        Jan 26 '17 at 22:55







                        This seems to test the speed of the SCP application, which will be lower than a test at a lower layer. For example, nc uses L4. Of course, this is great if you care more about the speed of SCP.

                        – sudo
                        Jan 26 '17 at 22:55















                        Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

                        – Xen2050
                        Feb 20 '18 at 23:20







                        Has problems: This script writes & reads a file to disk - that's slower than ram, so can be an artificial slowdown. Also only sends zeros, in case they're compressed that's a big artificial speedup. If you do want pseudorandom data, don't use /dev/random (it can block) or urandom (link comments suggested that) they can be very slow too, instead use a dm-crypt (See cryptsetup's FAQ 2.19 How can I wipe a device with crypto-grade randomness?) maybe with a file in ram.

                        – Xen2050
                        Feb 20 '18 at 23:20













                        3














                        If you want to test your Ethernet LAN at a lower level you can use Etherate which is a free Linux CLI Ethernet testing tool:



                        https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate



                        Throwing it in the mix as tools like iPerf (which are very good!) operate over IP and TCP or UDP. Etherate tests directly over Ethernet / OSI layer 2.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          3














                          If you want to test your Ethernet LAN at a lower level you can use Etherate which is a free Linux CLI Ethernet testing tool:



                          https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate



                          Throwing it in the mix as tools like iPerf (which are very good!) operate over IP and TCP or UDP. Etherate tests directly over Ethernet / OSI layer 2.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            3












                            3








                            3







                            If you want to test your Ethernet LAN at a lower level you can use Etherate which is a free Linux CLI Ethernet testing tool:



                            https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate



                            Throwing it in the mix as tools like iPerf (which are very good!) operate over IP and TCP or UDP. Etherate tests directly over Ethernet / OSI layer 2.






                            share|improve this answer













                            If you want to test your Ethernet LAN at a lower level you can use Etherate which is a free Linux CLI Ethernet testing tool:



                            https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate



                            Throwing it in the mix as tools like iPerf (which are very good!) operate over IP and TCP or UDP. Etherate tests directly over Ethernet / OSI layer 2.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 26 '16 at 20:37









                            jwbensleyjwbensley

                            3604919




                            3604919























                                1














                                There are also some other nice command-line tools for bandwidth benchmarking between two hosts:



                                nuttcp



                                server$ nuttcp -S
                                client$ nuttcp -v -v -i1 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                nepim



                                 server$ nepim
                                client$ nepim -d -c 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                goben



                                 server$ goben
                                client$ goben -hosts 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address





                                share|improve this answer





















                                • 1





                                  How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                                  – Xen2050
                                  Feb 20 '18 at 23:28
















                                1














                                There are also some other nice command-line tools for bandwidth benchmarking between two hosts:



                                nuttcp



                                server$ nuttcp -S
                                client$ nuttcp -v -v -i1 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                nepim



                                 server$ nepim
                                client$ nepim -d -c 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                goben



                                 server$ goben
                                client$ goben -hosts 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address





                                share|improve this answer





















                                • 1





                                  How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                                  – Xen2050
                                  Feb 20 '18 at 23:28














                                1












                                1








                                1







                                There are also some other nice command-line tools for bandwidth benchmarking between two hosts:



                                nuttcp



                                server$ nuttcp -S
                                client$ nuttcp -v -v -i1 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                nepim



                                 server$ nepim
                                client$ nepim -d -c 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                goben



                                 server$ goben
                                client$ goben -hosts 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address





                                share|improve this answer















                                There are also some other nice command-line tools for bandwidth benchmarking between two hosts:



                                nuttcp



                                server$ nuttcp -S
                                client$ nuttcp -v -v -i1 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                nepim



                                 server$ nepim
                                client$ nepim -d -c 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address


                                goben



                                 server$ goben
                                client$ goben -hosts 1.1.1.1 ;# 1.1.1.1 is server's address






                                share|improve this answer














                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer








                                edited Feb 13 '18 at 7:53







                                user383919

















                                answered Feb 12 '18 at 20:15









                                EvertonEverton

                                1413




                                1413








                                • 1





                                  How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                                  – Xen2050
                                  Feb 20 '18 at 23:28














                                • 1





                                  How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                                  – Xen2050
                                  Feb 20 '18 at 23:28








                                1




                                1





                                How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                                – Xen2050
                                Feb 20 '18 at 23:28





                                How are these different from each other, and from iperf? Do they work the same, what do they do? nuttcp is in Debian & apparently "nuttcp is based on nttcp, which in turn was an enhancement by someone at Silicon Graphics (SGI) on the original ttcp, which was written by Mike Muuss at BRL sometime before December 1984, to compare the performance of TCP stacks by U.C. Berkeley and BBN to help DARPA decide which version to place in the first BSD Unix release."

                                – Xen2050
                                Feb 20 '18 at 23:28











                                0














                                as I pointed out in my comment at best answer, that solution is not good enough be cause client/server is not optimized to ... squeeze every bit of speed



                                my solution:



                                make a ramdisk on both sides (therefore, you aren't limited by storage speed and I suggest you made them with ramfs not tmpfs, so they won't go in swap ... just be careful not to leave at least 512M free memory for system, this is REQUIRED if you have giga ethernet, at that speed even SSDs may slow things down)
                                install apache on server, then create a link to ramdisk, create few large files on ramdisk (100M-1G, you can create them with dd from /dev/random or copy if you have some at hand)
                                then go client side and download them (also on that side's ramdisk) with an advanced download program, I used lftp



                                oh well, difference was major, from 75mbps reported by iperf and 9.5M/s netcat



                                to 11.18M/s with my solution:



                                1591129421 bytes transferred in 136 seconds (11.18M/s)





                                share|improve this answer




























                                  0














                                  as I pointed out in my comment at best answer, that solution is not good enough be cause client/server is not optimized to ... squeeze every bit of speed



                                  my solution:



                                  make a ramdisk on both sides (therefore, you aren't limited by storage speed and I suggest you made them with ramfs not tmpfs, so they won't go in swap ... just be careful not to leave at least 512M free memory for system, this is REQUIRED if you have giga ethernet, at that speed even SSDs may slow things down)
                                  install apache on server, then create a link to ramdisk, create few large files on ramdisk (100M-1G, you can create them with dd from /dev/random or copy if you have some at hand)
                                  then go client side and download them (also on that side's ramdisk) with an advanced download program, I used lftp



                                  oh well, difference was major, from 75mbps reported by iperf and 9.5M/s netcat



                                  to 11.18M/s with my solution:



                                  1591129421 bytes transferred in 136 seconds (11.18M/s)





                                  share|improve this answer


























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0







                                    as I pointed out in my comment at best answer, that solution is not good enough be cause client/server is not optimized to ... squeeze every bit of speed



                                    my solution:



                                    make a ramdisk on both sides (therefore, you aren't limited by storage speed and I suggest you made them with ramfs not tmpfs, so they won't go in swap ... just be careful not to leave at least 512M free memory for system, this is REQUIRED if you have giga ethernet, at that speed even SSDs may slow things down)
                                    install apache on server, then create a link to ramdisk, create few large files on ramdisk (100M-1G, you can create them with dd from /dev/random or copy if you have some at hand)
                                    then go client side and download them (also on that side's ramdisk) with an advanced download program, I used lftp



                                    oh well, difference was major, from 75mbps reported by iperf and 9.5M/s netcat



                                    to 11.18M/s with my solution:



                                    1591129421 bytes transferred in 136 seconds (11.18M/s)





                                    share|improve this answer













                                    as I pointed out in my comment at best answer, that solution is not good enough be cause client/server is not optimized to ... squeeze every bit of speed



                                    my solution:



                                    make a ramdisk on both sides (therefore, you aren't limited by storage speed and I suggest you made them with ramfs not tmpfs, so they won't go in swap ... just be careful not to leave at least 512M free memory for system, this is REQUIRED if you have giga ethernet, at that speed even SSDs may slow things down)
                                    install apache on server, then create a link to ramdisk, create few large files on ramdisk (100M-1G, you can create them with dd from /dev/random or copy if you have some at hand)
                                    then go client side and download them (also on that side's ramdisk) with an advanced download program, I used lftp



                                    oh well, difference was major, from 75mbps reported by iperf and 9.5M/s netcat



                                    to 11.18M/s with my solution:



                                    1591129421 bytes transferred in 136 seconds (11.18M/s)






                                    share|improve this answer












                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer










                                    answered Jul 27 '18 at 7:24









                                    THESorcererTHESorcerer

                                    10114




                                    10114























                                        -4














                                        It's easy plug your computer on the first box, plug the other box to the first box. Then from your computer ping the first box save the result, ping the other box and do the substraction.






                                        share|improve this answer



















                                        • 10





                                          That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                                          – Oli
                                          Oct 17 '10 at 17:18











                                        • Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                                          – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                                          Dec 7 '17 at 17:48






                                        • 1





                                          Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                                          – wullxz
                                          Apr 25 '18 at 10:01
















                                        -4














                                        It's easy plug your computer on the first box, plug the other box to the first box. Then from your computer ping the first box save the result, ping the other box and do the substraction.






                                        share|improve this answer



















                                        • 10





                                          That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                                          – Oli
                                          Oct 17 '10 at 17:18











                                        • Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                                          – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                                          Dec 7 '17 at 17:48






                                        • 1





                                          Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                                          – wullxz
                                          Apr 25 '18 at 10:01














                                        -4












                                        -4








                                        -4







                                        It's easy plug your computer on the first box, plug the other box to the first box. Then from your computer ping the first box save the result, ping the other box and do the substraction.






                                        share|improve this answer













                                        It's easy plug your computer on the first box, plug the other box to the first box. Then from your computer ping the first box save the result, ping the other box and do the substraction.







                                        share|improve this answer












                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer










                                        answered Oct 17 '10 at 17:16









                                        Nyamiou The GaleanthropeNyamiou The Galeanthrope

                                        2,3131425




                                        2,3131425








                                        • 10





                                          That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                                          – Oli
                                          Oct 17 '10 at 17:18











                                        • Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                                          – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                                          Dec 7 '17 at 17:48






                                        • 1





                                          Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                                          – wullxz
                                          Apr 25 '18 at 10:01














                                        • 10





                                          That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                                          – Oli
                                          Oct 17 '10 at 17:18











                                        • Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                                          – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                                          Dec 7 '17 at 17:48






                                        • 1





                                          Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                                          – wullxz
                                          Apr 25 '18 at 10:01








                                        10




                                        10





                                        That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                                        – Oli
                                        Oct 17 '10 at 17:18





                                        That shows network latency which is only one part of speed. For example my phone's 3G connection has huge latency (100-300ms) but it can still manage a throughput of 5mbps.

                                        – Oli
                                        Oct 17 '10 at 17:18













                                        Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                                        – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                                        Dec 7 '17 at 17:48





                                        Not my fault if he asked speed but wanted throughput.

                                        – Nyamiou The Galeanthrope
                                        Dec 7 '17 at 17:48




                                        1




                                        1





                                        Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                                        – wullxz
                                        Apr 25 '18 at 10:01





                                        Latency is reaction-time, not speed.

                                        – wullxz
                                        Apr 25 '18 at 10:01


















                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f7976%2fhow-do-you-test-the-network-speed-between-two-boxes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                                        ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                                        Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?