I'm experimenting on an LTE connection for checking the maximum rate of bandwidth can be achieved in the uplink.While creating iperf sessions i observed that i'm not able to go beyond 100Kbps in the uplink when the UDP packet size is set as 1400.Apparently when i increased the packet size to 50000 i was able to achieve 2 Mbps in the same link.
Can someone guide me why this performance difference is observed ?When i tried this in a wired channel there i was able to achieve 10Mbps with UDP packet size set as 1400 itself.
What could be the reason for this?
Will trying TCP/IP instead of UDP increase the data throughput?
It probably matters where fragmentation is done - application or IP stack. Your observations show you that IP stack is more efficient.
TCP will be slower. TCP's built-in congestion control will not allow you to send packets until some of already sent have been ACK-ed. That adds round-trip time to performance considerations.
UDP has no such restrictions. It can (ab)use the network to its full potential.
Related
Most articles are about how to increase a UDP socket's receive buffer size to handle more packets, but I need a solution to decrease the UDP receive buffer to accept only 1 packet at a time and discard/drop all other packets until that packet is read.
I'm trying to do this for Linux, and did some network stack tuning, like setting the RCVBUFF and RCVBUFFFORCE socket options, but that didn't work. I cannot reduce RCVBUFF lower than 2046B (maybe 1 memory page), even when setting the udp_rmem_min to 0.
Why i can’t set UDP RCVBUF lower than 2046?
Does UDP packet loss percentage might increase considering packet size? For example if I send 100'000 packets, in first try byte[] size is 30, but second 300. Could packet size play role in it's drop ability or packet loss percentage is not its size dependent?
The packet loss is depending on the size of the packet. This has several reasons.
IP packets can go up to 64k approximately, but they are fragmented up to the MTU of ethernet and if one of those packets gets lost , the whole IP packet is dropped. For larger packets if the traffic is high the probability is higher that the larger packet will be dropped. The MTU is around 1500 bytes.
There is more to it than just that. Internally a protocol stack is implemented using internal buffers that are a lot smaller than the mtu, this can vary from 300 bytes and larger. But the point is that these buffers are also a limited resource. If the network device runs out of buffers, then the packet will be dropped as well.
If you don't know the MTU on the network in question according to the link below a 512-byte UDP payload is considered reasonable to allow a margin for other header information that you may not have anticipated.
What is the largest Safe UDP Packet Size on the Internet
Because you're sending larger packets, yes it could increase the chances that packets are dropped.
Now if you compare sending 100000 packets of 30 bytes or 10000 packets of 300 bytes, even though the user data is the same the total size of the packets is larger due to the headers.
I'm wondering if there are tweaks I can do to a TCP socket, except disabling Nagle, in order to get the lowest possible latency for a client-server protocol with predominantly small packets.
Client packet are mostly smaller than 100 bytes, server packets 100-300 bytes in size.
I'm using java on the server end and (objective-) c on the client side.
You may want to consider reducing delayed ack timeout (if possible). Even though Nagle is turned off, in a situation where you send packets infrequently and packet loss has occurred, delayed ack could cause delay in packet loss detection then retransmission delay.
I am setting the multicast UDP socket receiver buffer size to a big value to avoid packet drop. I tried to use a small buffer size, I did not see any latency diff. I am wondering how does it impact latency? When the app is fast enough to handle incoming packets, does bigger socket buffer size really impact latency and why?
UDP latency is going to depend more on the network that you're passing the traffic through than the local configuration. Small buffer size will mean you drop packets more often for high throughput streams but that isn't technically a latency issue. Latency will be affected by your local machine by how fast you can pull packets out of the buffer which will be negligible.
It doesn't impact latency at all. It just uses extra memory, that's why it's tuneable.
I intend to write an application where I will be needing to calculate the network bandwidth along with latency and packet loss rate. One of the constraints is to passively measure the bandwidth (using the application data itself).
What I have read online and understood from a few existing applications is that almost all of them use active probing techniques (that is, generating a flow of probe packets) and use the time difference between arrival of the first and last packets to calculate the bandwidth.
The main problems with such a technique are that it floods the network with probe packets, which runs longer and is not scalable (since we need to run the application at both ends).
One of the suggestions was to calculate the RTT of a packet by echoing it back to the sender and calculate the bandwidth using the following equation:
Bandwidth <= (Receive Buffer size)/RTT.
I am not sure how accurate this could be as the receiver may not always echo back the packet on time to get the correct RTT. Use of ICMP alone may not always work as many servers disable it.
My main application runs over a TCP connection so I am interested in using the TCP connection to measure the actual bandwidth offered over a particular period of time. I would really appreciate if anybody could suggest a simple technique (reliable formula) to measure the bandwidth for a TCP connection.
It is only possible to know the available bandwidth by probing the network. This is due to that a 80% utilized link will still send echo-packets without delay, i.e. it will appear to be 0% occupied.
If you instead just wish to measure the bandwidth your application is using, it is much easier. E.g. keep a record of the amount of data you have transferred in the last second divided into 10ms intervals.
Active probing technique and its variants are bandwidth estimation algorithm. You dont want to use these algorithm to measure bandwidth. Note the difference between 'measure' and 'estimate'.
If you want to use tcp to measure bandwidth, you should be aware that tcp bandwidth is influenced by latency.
The easiest way to measure bandwidth using tcp is by sending tcp packets and measure the transferred bandwidth. It will flood the network. None of the non flooding algorithm reliable in high speed network. Plus, non flooding algorithm assume the channel is clear from traffic. If there is other traffic inside the channel, the result would be skewed. Im not suprised if the result would not make sense.