4.2. Path PerformanceOnce you have a picture of the path your traffic is taking, the next step in testing is to get some basic performance numbers. Evaluating path performance will mean doing three types of measurements. Bandwidth measurements will give you an idea of the hardware capabilities of your network, such as the maximum capacity of your network. Throughput measurements will help you discover what capacity your network provides in practice, i.e., how much of the maximum is actually available. Traffic measurements will give you an idea of how the capacity is being used. My goal in this section is not a definitive analysis of performance. Rather, I describe ways to collect some general numbers that can be used to see if you have a reasonable level of performance or if you need to delve deeper. If you want to go beyond the quick-and-dirty approaches described here, you might consider some of the more advanced tools described in Chapter 9, "Testing Connectivity Protocols". The tools mentioned here should help you focus your efforts.
4.2.1. Performance MeasurementsSeveral terms are used, sometimes inconsistently, to describe the capacity or performance of a link. Without getting too formal, let's review some of these terms to avoid potential confusion. Two factors determine how long it takes to send a packet or frame across a single link. The amount of time it takes to put the signal onto the cable is known as the transmission time or transmission delay. This will depend on the transmission rate (or interface speed) and the size of the frame. The amount of time it takes for the signal to travel across the cable is known as the propagation time or propagation delay. Propagation time is determined by the type of media used and the distance involved. It often comes as a surprise that a signal transmitted at 100 Mbps will have the same propagation delay as a signal transmitted at 10 Mbps. The first signal is being transmitted 10 times as fast, but, once it is on a cable, it doesn't propagate any faster. That is, the difference between 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps is not the speed the bits travel, but the length of the bits. Once we move to multihop paths, a third consideration enters the picture -- the delay introduced from processing packets at intermediate devices such as routers and switches. This is usually called the queuing delay since, for the most part, it arises from the time packets spend in queues within the device. The total delay in delivering a packet is the sum of these three delays. Transmission and propagation delays are usually quite predictable and stable. Queuing delays, however, can introduce considerable variability. The term bandwidth is typically used to describe the capacity of a link. For our purposes, this is the transmission rate for the link. If we can transmit onto a link at 10 Mbps, then we say we have a bandwidth of 10 Mbps. is a measure of the amount of data that can be sent over a link in a given amount of time. Throughput estimates, typically obtained through measurements based on the bulk transfer of data, are usually expressed in bits per second or packets per second. Throughput is frequently used as an estimate of the bandwidth of a network, but bandwidth and throughput are really two different things. Throughput measurement may be affected by considerable overhead that is not included in bandwidth measurements. Consequently, throughput is a more realistic estimator of the actual performance you will see. Throughput is generally an end-to-end measurement. When dealing with multihop paths, however, the bandwidths may vary from link to link. The bottleneck bandwidth is the bandwidth of the slowest link on a path, i.e., the link with the lowest bandwidth. (While introduced here, bottleneck analysis is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 12, "Troubleshooting Strategies".) Additional metrics will sometimes be needed. The best choice is usually task dependent. If you are sending real-time audio packets over a long link, you may want to minimize both delay and variability in the delay. If you are using FTP to do bulk transfers, you may be more concerned with the throughput. If you are evaluating the quality of your link to the Internet, you may want to look at bottleneck bandwidth for the path. The development of reliable metrics is an active area of research.
4.2.2. Bandwidth MeasurementsWe will begin by looking at ways to estimate bandwidth. Bandwidth really measures the capabilities of our hardware. If bandwidth is not adequate, you will need to reexamine your equipment.
220.127.116.11. ping revisitedThe preceding discussion should make clear that the times returned by ping, although frequently described as propagation delays, really are the sum of the transmission, propagation, and queuing delays. In the last chapter, we used ping to calculate a rough estimate of the bandwidth of a connection and noted that this treatment is limited since it gives a composite number. We can refine this process and use it to estimate the bandwidth for a link along a path. The basic idea is to first calculate the path behavior up to the device on the closest end of the link and then calculate the path behavior to the device at the far end of the link. The difference is then used to estimate the bandwidth for the link in question. Figure 4-4 shows the basic arrangement.
Figure 4-4. Link traffic measurementsThis process requires using ping four times. First, ping the near end of a link with two different packet sizes. The difference in the times will eliminate the propagation and queuing delays along the path (assuming they haven't changed too much) leaving the time required to transmit the additional data in the larger packet. Next, use the same two packet sizes to ping the far end of the link. The difference in the times will again eliminate the overhead. Finally, the difference in these two differences will be the amount of time to send the additional data over the last link in the path. This is the round-trip time. Divide this number by two and you have the time required to send the additional data in one direction over the link. The bandwidth is simply the amount of additional data sent divided by this last calculated time. 
The formula for bandwidth is BW = 16 x (Pl-Ps)/(t2l-t2s-t1l+t1s). The larger and smaller packet sizes are Pl and Ps bytes, t1l and t1s are the ping times for the larger and smaller packets to the nearer interface in seconds, and t2l and t2s are the ping times for the larger and smaller packets to the distant interface in seconds. The result is in bits per second.Table 4-1 shows the raw data for the second and third hops along the path shown in Figure 4-1. Packets sizes are 100 and 1100 bytes.
Table 4-1. Raw data
Table 4-2 shows the calculated results. The time difference was divided by two (RRT correction), then divided into 8000 bits (the size of the data in bits), and then multiplied by 1000 (milliseconds-to-seconds correction.). The results, in bps, were then converted to Mbps. If several sets of packets are sent, the minimums of the times can be used to improve the estimate.
Table 4-2. Calculated bandwidth
Clearly, doing this manually is confusing, tedious, and prone to errors. Fortunately, several tools based on this approach greatly simplify the process. These tools also improve accuracy by using multiple packets.
18.104.22.168. pathcharOne tool that automates this process is pathchar. This tool, written by Van Jacobson several years ago, seems to be in a state of limbo. It has, for several years, been available as an alpha release, but nothing seems to have been released since. Several sets of notes or draft notes are available on the Web, but there appears to be no manpage for the program. Nonetheless, the program remains available and has been ported to several platforms. Fortunately, a couple of alternative implementations of the program have recently become available. These include bing, pchar, clink, and tmetric. One strength of pathchar and its variants is that they can discover the bandwidth of each link along a path using software at only one end of the path. The method used is basically that described earlier for ping, but pathchar uses a large number of packets of various sizes. Here is an example of running pathchar :
As pathchar runs, it first displays a message describing how the probing will be done. From the third line of output, we see that pathchar is using 45 different packet sizes ranging from 64 to 1500 bytes. (1500 is the local host's MTU.) It uses 32 different sets of these packets for each hop. Thus, this eight-hop run generated 11,520 test packets plus an equal number of replies. The bandwidth and delay for each link is given. pathchar may also include information on the queuing delay (links 5 and 6 in this example). As you can see, pathchar is not always successful in estimating the bandwidth (see the links numbered 4 and 7) or the delay (see link numbered 1). With this information, we could go back to Figure 4-1 and fill in link speeds for most links. As pathchar runs, it shows a countdown as it sends out each packet. It will display a line that looks something like this:bsd1# pathchar 22.214.171.124 pathchar to 126.96.36.199 (188.8.131.52) mtu limited to 1500 bytes at local host doing 32 probes at each of 45 sizes (64 to 1500 by 32) 0 184.108.40.206 (220.127.116.11) | 4.3 Mb/s, 1.55 ms (5.88 ms) 1 cisco (18.104.22.168) | 1.5 Mb/s, -144 us (13.5 ms) 2 22.214.171.124 (126.96.36.199) | 10 Mb/s, 242 us (15.2 ms) 3 e0.r01.ia-gnwd.Infoave.Net (188.8.131.52) | 1.2 Mb/s, 3.86 ms (32.7 ms) 4 184.108.40.206 (220.127.116.11) | ?? b/s, 2.56 ms (37.7 ms) 5 18.104.22.168 (22.214.171.124) | 45 Mb/s, 1.85 ms (41.6 ms), +q 3.20 ms (18.1 KB) *4 6 atm1-0-5.r01.ncchrl.infoave.net (126.96.36.199) | 17 Mb/s, 0.94 ms (44.3 ms), +q 5.83 ms (12.1 KB) *2 7 h10-1-0.r01.ia-chrl.infoave.net (188.8.131.52) | ?? b/s, 89 us (44.3 ms), 1% dropped 8 dns1.InfoAve.Net (184.108.40.206) 8 hops, rtt 21.9 ms (44.3 ms), bottleneck 1.2 Mb/s, pipe 10372 bytes
The 1: refers to the hop count and will be incremented for each successive hop on the path. The next number counts down, giving the number of sets of probes remaining to be run for this link. The third number is the size of the current packet being sent. Both the second and third numbers should be changing rapidly. The last two numbers give the number of packets that have been dropped so far on this link and the average round-trip time for this link. When the probes for a hop are complete, this line is replaced with a line giving the bandwidth, incremental propagation delay, and round-trip time. pathchar uses the minimum of the observed delays to improve its estimate of bandwidth. Several options are available with pathchar. Of greatest interest are those that control the number and size of the probe packet used. The option -q allows the user to specify the number of sets of packets to send. The options -m and -M control the minimum and maximum packet sizes, respectively. The option -Q controls the step size from the smallest to largest packet sizes. As a general rule of thumb, more packets are required for greater accuracy, particularly on busy links. The option -n turns off DNS resolution, and the option -v provides for more output. pathchar is not without problems. One problem for pathchar is hidden or unknown transmission points. The first link reports a bandwidth of 4.3 Mbps. From traceroute, we only know of the host and the router at the end of the link. This is actually a path across a switched LAN with three segments and two additional transmission points at the switches. The packet is transmitted onto a 10-Mbps network, then onto a 100-Mbps backbone, and then back onto a 10 Mbps network before reaching the first router. Consequently, there are three sets of transmission delays rather than just one, and a smaller than expected bandwidth is reported. You will see this problem with store-and-forward switches, but it is not appreciable with cut-through switches. (the sidebar "Types of Switches" if you are unfamiliar with the difference between cut-through and store-and-forward switches.) In a test in which another switch, configured for cut-through, was added to this network, almost no change was seen in the estimated bandwidth with pathchar. When the switch was reconfigured as a store-and-forward switch, the reported bandwidth on the first link dropped to 3.0 Mbps.1: 31 288 0 3
This creates a problem if you are evaluating an ISP. For example, it might appear that the fourth link is too slow if the contract specifies T1 service. This might be the case, but it could just be a case of a hidden transmission point. Without more information, this isn't clear. Finally, you should be extremely circumspect about running pathchar. It can generate a huge amount of traffic. The preceding run took about 40 minutes to complete. It was run from a host on a university campus while the campus was closed for Christmas break and largely deserted. If you are crossing a slow link and have a high path MTU, the amount of traffic can effectively swamp the link. Asymmetric routes, routes in which the path to a device is different from the path back, changing routes, links using tunneling, or links with additional padding added can all cause problems.
220.127.116.11. bingOne alternative to pathchar is bing, a program written by Pierre Beyssac. Where pathchar gives the bandwidth for every link along a path, bing is designed to measure point-to-point bandwidth. Typically, you would run traceroute first if you don't already know the links along a path. Then you would run bing specifying the near and far ends of the link of interest on the command line. This example measures the bandwidth of the third hop in Figure 4-1:
The output begins with the addresses and packet sizes followed by lines for each pair of probes. Next, bing returns round-trip times and packet loss data. Finally, it returns several estimates of throughput.bsd1# bing -e10 -c1 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 BING 126.96.36.199 (188.8.131.52) and 184.108.40.206 (220.127.116.11) 44 and 108 data bytes 1024 bits in 0.835ms: 1226347bps, 0.000815ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.671ms: 1526080bps, 0.000655ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.664ms: 1542169bps, 0.000648ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.658ms: 1556231bps, 0.000643ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.627ms: 1633174bps, 0.000612ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.682ms: 1501466bps, 0.000666ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.685ms: 1494891bps, 0.000669ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.605ms: 1692562bps, 0.000591ms per bit 1024 bits in 0.618ms: 1656958bps, 0.000604ms per bit --- 18.104.22.168 statistics --- bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max 44 10 10 0% 3.385 3.421 3.551 108 10 10 0% 3.638 3.684 3.762 --- 22.214.171.124 statistics --- bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max 44 10 10 0% 3.926 3.986 4.050 108 10 10 0% 4.797 4.918 4.986 --- estimated link characteristics --- estimated throughput 1656958bps minimum delay per packet 0.116ms (192 bits) average statistics (experimental) : packet loss: small 0%, big 0%, total 0% average throughput 1528358bps average delay per packet 0.140ms (232 bits) weighted average throughput 1528358bps resetting after 10 samples.
The observant reader will notice that bing reported throughput, not bandwidth. Unfortunately, there is a lot of ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding these terms.In this particular example, we have specified the options -e10 and -c1, which limit the probe to one cycle using 10 pairs of packets. Alternatively, you can omit these options and watch the output. When the process seems to have stabilized, enter a Ctrl-C to terminate the program. The summary results will then be printed. Interpretation of these results should be self-explanatory. bing allows for a number of fairly standard options. These options allow controlling the number of packet sizes, suppressing name resolution, controlling routing, and obtaining verbose output. See the manpage if you have need of these options. Because bing uses the same mechanism as pathchar, it will suffer the same problems with hidden transmission points. Thus, you should be circumspect when using it if you don't fully understand the topology of the network. While bing does not generate nearly as much traffic as pathchar, it can still place strains on a network.
126.96.36.199. Packet pair softwareOne alternative approach that is useful for measuring bottleneck bandwidth is the packet pair or packet stretch approach. With this approach, two packets that are the same size are transmitted back-to-back. As they cross the network, whenever they come to a slower link, the second packet will have to wait while the first is being transmitted. This increases the time between the transmission of the packets at this point on the network. If the packets go onto another faster link, the separation is preserved. If the packets subsequently go onto a slower link, then the separation will increase. When the packets arrive at their destination, the bandwidth of the slowest link can be calculated from the amount of separation and the size of the packets. It would appear that getting this method to work requires software at both ends of the link. In fact, some implementations of packet pair software work this way. However, using software at both ends is not absolutely necessary since the acknowledgment packets provided with some protocols should preserve the separation. One assumption of this algorithm is that packets will stay together as they move through the network. If other packets are queued between the two packets, the separation will increase. To avoid this problem, a number of packet pairs are sent through the network with the assumption that at least one pair will stay together. This will be the pair with the minimum separation. Several implementations of this algorithm exist. bprobe and cprobe are two examples. At the time this was written, these were available only for the IRIX operating system on SGI computers. Since the source code is available, this may have changed by the time you read this. Compared to the pathchar approach, the packet pair approach will find only the bottleneck bandwidth rather than the bandwidth of an arbitrary link. However, it does not suffer from the hidden hop problem. Nor does it create the levels of traffic characteristic of pathchar. This is a technology to watch.
4.2.3. Throughput MeasurementsEstimating bandwidth can provide a quick overview of hardware performance. But if your bandwidth is not adequate, you are limited in what you can actually do -- install faster hardware or contract for faster service. In practice, it is often not the raw bandwidth of the network but the bandwidth that is actually available that is of interest. That is, you may be more interested in the throughput that you can actually achieve. Poor throughput can result not only from inadequate hardware but also from architectural issues such as network design. For example, a broadcast domain that is too large will create problems despite otherwise adequate hardware. The solution is to redesign your network, breaking apart or segmenting such domains once you have a clear understanding of traffic patterns. Equipment configuration errors may also cause poor performance. For example, some Ethernet devices may support full duplex communication if correctly configured but will fall back to half duplex otherwise. The first step toward a solution is recognizing the misconfiguration. Throughput tests are the next logical step in examining your network. Throughput is typically measured by timing the transfer of a large block of data. This may be called the bulk transfer capacity of the link. There are a number of programs in this class besides those described here. The approach typically requires software at each end of the link. Because the software usually works at the application level, it tests not only the network but also your hardware and software at the endpoints. Since performance depends on several parts, when you identify that a problem exists, you won't immediately know where the problem is. Initially, you might try switching to a different set of machines with different implementations to localize the problem. Before you get too caught up in your testing, you'll want to look at the makeup of the actual traffic as described later in this chapter. In extreme cases, you may need some of the more advanced tools described later in this book. One simple quick-and-dirty test is to use an application like FTP. Transfer a file with FTP and see what numbers it reports. You'll need to convert these to a bit rate, but that is straightforward. For example, here is the final line for a file transfer:
Convert 1,294,522 bytes to bits by multiplying by 8 and then dividing by the time, 1.44 seconds. This gives about 7,191,789 bps. One problem with this approach is that the disk accesses required may skew your results. There are a few tricks you can use to reduce this, but if you need the added accuracy, you are better off using a tool that is designed to deal with such a problem. ttcp, for example, overcomes the disk access problem by repeatedly sending the same data from memory so that there is no disk overhead.1294522 bytes received in 1.44 secs (8.8e+02 Kbytes/sec)
188.8.131.52. ttcpOne of the oldest bulk capacity measurement tools is ttcp. This was written by Mike Muuss and Terry Slattery. To run the program, you first need to start the server on the remote machine using, typically, the -r and -s options. Then the client is started with the options -t and -s and the hostname or address of the server. Data is sent from the client to the server, performance is measured, the results are reported at each end, and then both client and server terminate. For example, the server might look something like this:
The client side would look like this:bsd2# ttcp -r -s ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001 tcp ttcp-r: socket ttcp-r: accept from 184.108.40.206 ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 18.35 real seconds = 892.71 KB/sec +++ ttcp-r: 11483 I/O calls, msec/call = 1.64, calls/sec = 625.67 ttcp-r: 0.0user 0.9sys 0:18real 5% 15i+291d 176maxrss 0+2pf 11478+28csw
The program reports the amount of information transferred, indicates that the connection is being made, and then gives the results, including raw data, throughput, I/O call information, and execution times. The number of greatest interest is the transfer rate, 892.71 KB/sec (or 893.26 KB/sec). This is about 7.3 Mbps, which is reasonable for a 10-Mbps Ethernet connection. (But it is not very different from our quick-and-dirty estimate with FTP.) These numbers reflect the rate at which data is transferred, not the raw capacity of the line. Relating these numbers to bandwidth is problematic since more bits are actually being transferred than these numbers would indicate. The program reports sending 16,777,216 bytes in 18.35 seconds, but this is just the data. On Ethernet with an MTU of 1500, each buffer will be broken into 6 frames. The first will carry an IP and TCP header for 40 more bytes. Each of the other 5 will have an IP header for 20 more bytes each. And each will be packaged as an Ethernet frame costing an additional 18 bytes each. And don't forget the Ethernet preamble. All this additional overhead should be included in a calculation of raw capacity. Poor throughput numbers typically indicate congestion but that may not always be the case. Throughput will also depend on configuration issues such as the TCP window size for your connection. If your window size is not adequate, it will drastically affect performance. Unfortunately, this problem is not uncommon for older systems on today's high-speed links. The -u option allows you to check UDP throughput. A number of options give you some control over the amount and the makeup of the information transferred. If you omit the -s option, the program uses standard input and output. This option allows you to control the data being sent.bsd1# ttcp -t -s 220.127.116.11 ttcp-t: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001 tcp -> 18.104.22.168 ttcp-t: socket ttcp-t: connect ttcp-t: 16777216 bytes in 18.34 real seconds = 893.26 KB/sec +++ ttcp-t: 2048 I/O calls, msec/call = 9.17, calls/sec = 111.66 ttcp-t: 0.0user 0.5sys 0:18real 2% 16i+305d 176maxrss 0+2pf 3397+7csw
In fact, ttcp can be used to transfer files or directories between machines. At the destination, use ttcp -r | tar xvpf - and, at the source, use tar cf - directory| ttcp -t dest_machine.The nice thing about ttcp is that a number of implementations are readily available. For example, it is included as an undocumented command in the Enterprise version of Cisco IOS 11.2 and later. At one time, a Java version of ttcp was freely available from Chesapeake Computer Consultants, Inc., (now part of Mentor Technologies, Inc.). This program would run on anything with a Java interpreter including Windows machines. The Java version supported both a Windows and a command-line interface. Unfortunately, this version does not seem to be available anymore, but you might want to try tracking down a copy.
22.214.171.124. netperfAnother program to consider is netperf, which had its origin in the Information Networks Division of Hewlett-Packard. While not formally supported, the program does appear to have informal support. It is freely available, runs on a number of Unix platforms, and has reasonable documentation. It has also been ported to Windows. While not as ubiquitous as ttcp, it supports a much wider range of tests. Unlike with ttcp, the client and server are two separate programs. The server is netserver and can be started independently or via inetd. The client is known as netperf. In the following example, the server and client are started on the same machine:
This tests the loop-back interface, which reports a throughput of 326 Mbps. In the next example, netserver is started on one host:bsd1# netserver Starting netserver at port 12865 bsd1# netperf TCP STREAM TEST to localhost : histogram Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 16384 16384 16384 10.00 326.10
Then netperf is run with the -H option to specify the address of the server:bsd1# netserver Starting netserver at port 12865
This is roughly the same throughput we saw with ttcp. netperf performs a number of additional tests. In the next test, the transaction rate of a connection is measured:bsd2# netperf -H 126.96.36.199 TCP STREAM TEST to 188.8.131.52 : histogram Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 16384 16384 16384 10.01 6.86
The program contains several scripts for testing. It is also possible to do various stream tests with netperf. See the document that accompanies the program if you have these needs.bsd2# netperf -H 184.108.40.206 -tTCP_RR TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST to 220.127.116.11 : histogram Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 16384 1 1 10.00 655.84 16384 16384
18.104.22.168. iperfIf ttcp and netperf don't meet your needs, you might consider iperf. iperf comes from the National Laboratory for Applied Network Research (NLANR) and is a very versatile tool. While beyond the scope of this chapter, iperf can also be used to test UDP bandwidth, loss, and jitter. A Java frontend is included to make iperf easier to use. This utility has also been ported to Windows. Here is an example of running the server side of iperf on a FreeBSD system:
Here is the client side under Windows:bsd2# iperf -s -p3000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Server listening on TCP port 3000 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 4] local 172.16.2.236 port 3000 connected with 22.214.171.124 port 1133 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 5.6 MBytes 4.5 Mbits/sec ^C
Notice the use of Ctrl-C to terminate the server side. In TCP mode, iperf is compatible with ttcp so it can be used as the client or server. iperf is a particularly convenient tool for investigating whether your TCP window is adequate. The -w option sets the socket buffer size. For TCP, this is the window size. Using the -w option, you can step through various window sizes and see how they impact throughput. iperf has a number of other strengths that make it worth considering.C:\>iperf -c126.96.36.199 -p3000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 188.8.131.52, TCP port 3000 TCP window size: 8.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 28] local 184.108.40.206 port 1133 connected with 220.127.116.11 port 3000 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 28] 0.0-10.0 sec 5.6 MBytes 4.5 Mbits/sec
18.104.22.168. Other related toolsYou may also want to consider several similar or related tools. treno uses a traceroute-like approach to calculate bulk capacity, path MTU, and minimum RTP. Here is an example:
treno is part of a larger Internet traffic measurement project at NLANR. treno servers are scattered across the Internet. In general, netperf, iperf, and treno offer a wider range of features, but ttcp is generally easier to find.bsd2# treno 22.214.171.124 MTU=8166 MTU=4352 MTU=2002 MTU=1492 .......... Replies were from sloan.lander.edu [126.96.36.199] Average rate: 3868.14 kbp/s (3380 pkts in + 42 lost = 1.2%) in 10.07 s Equilibrium rate: 0 kbp/s (0 pkts in + 0 lost = 0%) in 0 s Path properties: min RTT was 13.58 ms, path MTU was 1440 bytes XXX Calibration checks are still under construction, use -v
4.2.4. Traffic Measurements with netstatIn the ideal network, throughput numbers, once you account for overhead, will be fairly close to your bandwidth numbers. But few of us have our networks all to ourselves. When throughput numbers are lower than expected, which is usually the case, you'll want to account for the difference. As mentioned before, this could be hardware or software related. But usually it is just the result of the other traffic on your network. If you are uncertain of the cause, the next step is to look at the traffic on your network. There are three basic approaches you can take. First, the quickest way to get a summary of the activity on a link is to use a tool such as netstat. This approach is described here. Or you can use packet capture to look at traffic. This approach is described in Chapter 5, "Packet Capture". Finally, you could use SNMP-based tools like ntop. SNMP tools are described in Chapter 7, "Device Monitoring with SNMP". Performance analysis tools using SNMP are described in Chapter 8, "Performance Measurement Tools". The program netstat was introduced in Chapter 2, "Host Configurations". Given that netstat's role is to report network data structures, it should come as no surprise that it might be useful in this context. To get a quick picture of the traffic on a network, use the -i option. For example:
The output shows the number of packets processed for each interface since the last reboot. In this example, interface ep0 has received 13,971,293 packets (Ipkts) with no errors (Ierrs), has sent 1,223,799 packets (Opkts) with 1 error (Oerrs), and has experienced no collisions (Coll). A few errors are generally not a cause for alarm, but the percentage of either error should be quite low, certainly much lower than 0.1% of the total packets. Collisions can be higher but should be less than 10% of the traffic. The collision count includes only those involving the interface. A high number of collisions is an indication that your network is too heavily loaded, and you should consider segmentation. This particular computer is on a switch, which explains the absence of collision. Collisions are seen only on shared media. If you want output for a single interface, you can specify this with the -I option. For example:bsd2# netstat -i Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll lp0* 1500 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0 ep0 1500 <Link> 00.60.97.06.22.22 13971293 0 1223799 1 0 ep0 1500 205.153.63 bsd2 13971293 0 1223799 1 0 tun0* 1500 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0 sl0* 552 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0 ppp0* 1500 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0 lo0 16384 <Link> 234 0 234 0 0 lo0 16384 127 localhost 234 0 234 0 0
(This was run a couple of minutes later so the numbers are slightly larger.) Implementations vary, so your output may look different but should contain the same basic information. For example, here is output under Linux:bsd2# netstat -Iep0 Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll ep0 1500 <Link> 00.60.97.06.22.22 13971838 0 1223818 1 0 ep0 1500 205.153.63 bsd2 13971838 0 1223818 1 0
As you can see, Linux breaks down lost packets into three categories -- errors, drops, and overruns. Unfortunately, the numbers netstat returns are cumulative from the last reboot of the system. What is really of interest is how these numbers have changed recently, since a problem could develop and it would take a considerable amount of time before the actual numbers would grow enough to reveal the problem.lnx1# netstat -i Kernel Interface table Iface MTU Met RX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVR TX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP TX-OVR Flg eth0 1500 0 7366003 0 0 0 93092 0 0 0 BMRU eth1 1500 0 289211 0 0 0 18581 0 0 0 BRU lo 3924 0 123 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 LRU
System Performance Tuning by Mike Loukides contains a script that can be run at regular intervals so that differences are more apparent.One thing you may want to try is stressing the system in question to see if this increases the number of errors you see. You can use either ping with the -l option or the spray command. (spray is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9, "Testing Connectivity Protocols".) First, run netstat to get a current set of values:
Next, send a large number of packets to the destination. In this example, 1000 UDP packets were sent:bsd2# netstat -Iep0 Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll ep0 1500 <Link> 00.60.97.06.22.22 13978296 0 1228137 1 0 ep0 1500 205.153.63 bsd2 13978296 0 1228137 1 0
Notice that this exceeded the capacity of the network as 464 packets were dropped. This may indicate a congested network. More likely, the host is trying to communicate with a slower machine. When spray is run in the reverse direction, no packets are dropped. This indicates the latter explanation. Remember, spray is sending packets as fast as it can, so don't make too much out of dropped packets. Finally, rerun nestat to see if any problems exist:bsd1# spray -c1000 188.8.131.52 sending 1000 packets of lnth 86 to 184.108.40.206 ... in 0.09 seconds elapsed time 464 packets (46.40%) dropped Sent: 11267 packets/sec, 946.3K bytes/sec Rcvd: 6039 packets/sec, 507.2K bytes/sec
No problems are apparent in this example. If problems are indicated, you can get a much more detailed report with the -s option. You'll probably want to pipe the output to more so it doesn't disappear off the top of the screen. The amount of output data can be intimidating but can give a wealth of information. The information is broken down by protocol and by error types such as bad checksums or incomplete headers. On some systems, such as FreeBSD, a summary of the nonzero values can be obtained by using the -s option twice, as shown in this example:bsd2# netstat -Iep0 Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll ep0 1500 <Link> 00.60.97.06.22.22 13978964 0 1228156 1 0 ep0 1500 205.153.63 bsd2 13978964 0 1228156 1 0
A summary for a single protocol can be obtained with the -p option to specify the protocol. The next example shows the nonzero statistics for TCP:bsd2# netstat -s -s ip: 255 total packets received 255 packets for this host 114 packets sent from this host icmp: ICMP address mask responses are disabled igmp: tcp: 107 packets sent 81 data packets (8272 bytes) 26 ack-only packets (25 delayed) 140 packets received 77 acks (for 8271 bytes) 86 packets (153 bytes) received in-sequence 1 connection accept 1 connection established (including accepts) 77 segments updated rtt (of 78 attempts) 2 correct ACK header predictions 62 correct data packet header predictions udp: 115 datagrams received 108 broadcast/multicast datagrams dropped due to no socket 7 delivered 7 datagrams output
This can take a bit of experience to interpret. Begin by looking for statistics showing a large number of errors. Next, identify the type of errors. Typically, input errors are caused by faulty hardware. Output errors are a problem on or at the local host. Data corruption, such as faulty checksums, frequently occurs at routers. And, as noted before, congestion is indicated by collisions. Of course, these are generalizations, so don't read too much into them.bsd2# netstat -p tcp -s -s tcp: 147 packets sent 121 data packets (10513 bytes) 26 ack-only packets (25 delayed) 205 packets received 116 acks (for 10512 bytes) 122 packets (191 bytes) received in-sequence 1 connection accept 1 connection established (including accepts) 116 segments updated rtt (of 117 attempts) 2 correct ACK header predictions 88 correct data packet header predictions
Copyright © 2002 O'Reilly & Associates. All rights reserved.