Would be great to have an iperf compatible server/client on mikrotik.

-Eric

+1 would be a nice feature. I like iperf, do all my tests with it

+1

this would be great

I agree.

I agree...

+1

+1
very usefull in big provider networks

+1
Current bandwidth test feature seems very basic.

+1

+1

Yes thats what we need

+1

+1. It is a good idea.

+1

Oh please.

Or add jitter/latency and similar stats to bandwidth test. I guess iperf compatibility is easier.

+1

+1, have wished a lot of times to have it...

good idea! +1 too!
very useful tool, can test link quality with any other server

i'd love that as well !

+1 for IPerf. As addition to previous purposes: it's good to test wireless link from mobile running iperf client/server. And of course to test bandwidth between pc box and mikrotik.

This would be great to have for sure, especially being able to specify number of parallel client threads to run.

This would be a welcome addition.

+1

Absolutely essential. No other product in this class has the feature. We need an application that reports end-to-end jitter, OOS and latency for VoIP applications. RFC compliance is helpful. Its an older app, but its the one the ISPs understand - and if they "get-it", half my network problems would be solved.

Add: After doing some research on iperf, it can place a high load on the bus and to some degree processor when run at higher rates - such as those on today's 100Mbps/1Gbps LANS; it might just expose processor limitations. I wonder how the faster models RB800's+ would do?

So instead of giving Mikrotic my money (which is what I would prefer) we are spending hundreds of $US on two Jetway Barebones fanless 12 vdc boards w/Gb Ethernet interfaces and a Linux install for this purpose. Oh well..


+1

yep, iperf should be mandatory

+1
it would be really useful

+1 Also great for use with airmagnet

Ok, Mikrotik, can we have any rough statement to this? At least if iperf was denied, or if we can expect it in v7 since its beginning or in v6 yet since 6.39.2?

+1
Waiting reply from MT....

+1 for iPerf compatibility

i'm for this too

+1 here too

+1 Great idea !

Ok, Mikrotik, can we have any rough statement to this? At least if iperf was denied, or if we can expect it in v7 since its beginning or in v6 yet since 6.39.2?

To add, iperf3 should be fairly easy to add - My understanding is that it's being ported to some CPE in the states. Along the same lines, there is a binary that should be compatible for latency / Jitter called OWAMP, integration of that would be great as well assuming the clock is accurate enough to support it. I've done some work in making it work in VMs inside of other network hardware capable of running a virtualized perfSonar system in-skin. Having the binaries directly in the RouterOS would allow for a very robust meshing of tests back to a central perfSonar MU. I am in favor of having these things, it brings significant value.

Full disclosure: I work for the organization that writes iperf.

Maybe you can directly offer your help to mikrotik support so they will be able to integrate iperf soon. It would be awesome.

Having the binaries directly in the RouterOS would allow for a very robust meshing of tests back to a central perfSonar MU. I am in favor of having these things, it brings significant value.

That would be a killer feature to have built into ROS!

Yes +1 for Iperf !!!

Yes +1 for Iperf !!!

+1 ,

So I can see and test iperf, in addition to passing more traffic information, should consume less resources of the processor, and can thus show the actual throughput that the hardware is able to deliver

They will never do it, because then will also need to acknowledge the results ..

Hello,

we already have a bandwidth testing tool which is fully integrated into RouterOS and works properly with the RouterBOARD ethernet drivers. The tool is called 'Traffic generator' (available both in WinBox and from the command line interface). Please take a look. We hope you like it - https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:T ... _Generator

kasparskr

do you can release Traffic Generator for Windows?

+1 me too

+1

All my Kodi-boxes (based on libreelec) and my AVM FritzBox router do have iperf on board. No way to use BTest on them.

I will look into Traffic Generator if it gives us similar data. However, this would only be useful for internal analysis of our network - not the WAN.

We are constantly in a battle with ISPs. It is much better to use an application that they understand or they will dismiss its results. In other words, we need evidence of problems in a format they understand, trust and can reproduce. iperf does this.

If TG is strictly based on an IETF/RFC standard/best practice that is well known to ISPs, then this might work,

But thanks for the reply.

G

+1 IPerf3
Good arguments intermod

+1 iperf3 we use it throughout our network would be much easier to test with it on the mikrotiks directly.

Hello,

we already have a bandwidth testing tool which is fully integrated into RouterOS and works properly with the RouterBOARD ethernet drivers. The tool is called 'Traffic generator' (available both in WinBox and from the command line interface). Please take a look. We hope you like it - https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:T ... _Generator

Can I run 'iperf -s' on a computer, use Mikrotik Traffic generator to send traffic to this computer and read meaningful measures on either device (Mikrotik host or computer) ?

+1 for iperf3

I do not see how I can run client or server of TG for Windows or Linux (as well as bandwidth-test).

+1 for iperf3

to have an iperf compatible server/client on mikrotik would be a good thing.

-1

don't put development effort in tools that do not belong on a router !

I get that.

One key reason we purchase MT products is because they provide so many diagnostic features. Setting up an end-to-end iperf test today requires we visit each endpoint and leave equipment there specifically to run iperf (we never have access to client servers to use). And it must be custom-configured each time. Then go pick it up. This does not work from a business perspective.

If it was not for the diagnostic features I could buy any manufacturer's router....

G

don't put development effort in tools that do not belong on a router !

Nah, let's make it useful and comfortable. You've already lost the fight for pure router anyway. Existing BTest, CAPsMAN, Dude, GPS, Graphing, KVM or MetaROUTER, NTP server, User manager, Web proxy, ... and if you're real purist, you'll probably find other stuff that proper router shouldn't have.

+1 for iperf with charts

don't put development effort in tools that do not belong on a router !

Nah, let's make it useful and comfortable. You've already lost the fight for pure router anyway. Existing BTest, CAPsMAN, Dude, GPS, Graphing, KVM or MetaROUTER, NTP server, User manager, Web proxy, ... and if you're real purist, you'll probably find other stuff that proper router shouldn't have.

very good, I don't see a better answer than yours. however, does this topic have any relevance or would it reach the people of the development area?

+++1

+1 for iperf3

Indeed, +1!

+1 for iperf

by the time mikrotik implement this, its going to be iperf6. so , +1 for iperf6 from my part :)

+1 iperf

+1 iperf

+1 iperf!

+100

Closest thing we have to a standard. Hope not adding it is not some kind of "NIH" (Not Invented Here) thing.

Also, many, many of us have no other equipment to test with for remote sites - the Mik is the only thing we fully control.

Alternately, improve the built-in "bwtest" and release source for the server so we can run it on something we control.

+1

It would be awesome to have this tool available. I imagine it could eventually take the place of bandwidth test / btest with a command line and WinBox version. There are many circumstances where I want to test performance to or from various parts of a network that support iperf.

Containers make a lot possible. A simple Linux environment, install iperf and off you go.

Basic rules for testing remain valid IMHO: don't run the test SW on the device you are testing.

Containers make a lot possible. A simple Linux environment, install iperf and off you go.

I agree, but containers are only available on certain implementations and are going to be less resource-efficient than having such a feature integrated. Since so many devices have it integrated, it makes more sense [to me] that this tool be integrated.

btest is already integrated. Why have a second tool for the same ?

btest is already integrated. Why have a second tool for the same ?

btest is useful, but iperf has more functionality. Also, iperf is a common linux tool that works with many other networking devices.

Still, there is little use to run it ON a network device when you want to test THROUGH that same device.
As you say it is a common Linux tool so chances are high there is already a Linux device in the network able to act as iperf server (I have a VM doing just that, it also tests outside bandwidth using speedtest and phyton scripts so I can keep tabs on my ISP if they deliver what I pay for).

PS no need to completely quote a preceding post. Everyone can follow the conversation ...

I'll stop quoting in this thread for your benefit. I make it a practice to quote so my responses are clear (as it is so often that responses are unclear).

I understand there is no reason to run the test on a network device that I want to test through; and that understanding needs to be used with iperf or with btest. When one has 100s of devices and needs to test certain components of the network - then I find benefit to consciously choosing from which point to start and end my test. This is how I currently use btest, choosing one point to another. I don't always go to an edge device, especially when trying to isolate a problem. I have iperf on a VM at my edge already, which is useful. However, it doesn't allow me to isolate problems as readily as if iperf was available in RouterOS.

I'm having slightly the same problem, I need the ookla speedtest to run on the router. But my router doesn't support containers so I decided to buy a cheap MiniPC for 200k rupiah and run the container containing the speedtest program on it.

Minipc is connected to my small router via cable and I gave it internet access. Then I run netwatch to give commands to the speedtest container so I can see the speedtest results in mikrotik system log.

If you are interested in the speedtest implementation on Mikrotik then you can see my thread at ookla speedtest container (viewtopic.php?t=193053).

I think something similar can also be implemented with iperf.