Just FYI: Using Armbian/Xenial with our default settings without any tuning I get 930 MBits/sec on average with Pine64+:
Important:
Details: http://forum.armbian.com/index.php/topic...5-devices/
So when throughput differences between various Pine64 are reported without telling which distro (compiler switches affecting the benchmark tool's 'performance') and which cpufreq scaling governor is used (affecting speed of adjusting CPU clockspeed) only numbers without meaning were generated. Always check with htop CPU utilization since iperf/iperf3 are single threaded in one mode and keep in mind that thermal settings (overheating/throttling) therefore might affect 'network throughput'.
As an example: Pine64 running mainline kernel with new Ethernet driver written from scratch shows these iperf numbers: 430/620 Mbits/secs depending on direction. Why? Since with mainline kernel we still have no access to PMIC so dvfs / cpufreq scaling isn't working and the SoC is clocked conservatively with just 408 MHz instead of jumping between 480 and 1152 as with BSP kernel using our community settings. And that's the simple reason why 'network performance' is affected there: since iperf/iperf3 are bottlenecked by lower CPU clockspeed on mainline kernel. In reality iperf/iperf3 are reporting CPU clockspeed and not network throughput (and the same applies to IO performance as well, A64 is a tablet SoC where everything related to network and IO depends on CPU clockspeed -- mainline kernel means 408 MHz now and this explains the slower numbers).
Always know your tools and never trust them. Do active benchmarking
Code:
root@armbian:/var/git/Armbian# iperf3 -c 192.168.83.64
Connecting to host 192.168.83.64, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.83.115 port 60392 connected to 192.168.83.64 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec 0 356 KBytes
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 376 KBytes
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec 0 376 KBytes
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 376 KBytes
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec 0 376 KBytes
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 113 MBytes 947 Mbits/sec 0 376 KBytes
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 395 KBytes
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 395 KBytes
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 395 KBytes
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 395 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.10 GBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 940 Mbits/sec receiver
root@pine64:~# iperf3 -c 192.168.83.115
Connecting to host 192.168.83.115, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.83.64 port 39363 connected to 192.168.83.115 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 114 MBytes 954 Mbits/sec 0 1.05 MBytes
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 110 MBytes 922 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 2.00-3.01 sec 110 MBytes 918 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 3.01-4.00 sec 109 MBytes 917 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 4.00-5.01 sec 110 MBytes 918 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 5.01-6.01 sec 110 MBytes 923 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 6.01-7.00 sec 109 MBytes 918 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 110 MBytes 923 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 109 MBytes 912 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 110 MBytes 923 Mbits/sec 0 1.24 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 923 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 920 Mbits/sec receiverImportant:
- iperf/iperf3 act single threaded in one operation mode, so you might end up with network performance in reality bottlenecked by CPU and the benchmarking tool in question (test methodology being wrong)
- Different Linux distros use different compiler settings which might also affect performance (for example, the sysbench binary shows 'performance numbers' 30 percent better when running with Ubuntu Xenial compared to Debian Jessie -- just by using other compiler switches when creating the distro's packages). I leave it up to the audience to test this out with the various distros available for Pine64 whether/how iperf/iperf3 are also affected (testing is easy, just try out various distros with iperf/iperf3 against a host that is known to exceed 900 Mbits/sec, reduce Pine64's cpufreq to 480 MHz and record the numbers and you see how your benchmarking tool 'performs')
- The cpufreq governor might make a difference since for example with ondemand cpufreq scaling works way too slow if only network activity increases. So in case the wrong tool and methodology is combined (iperf instead of iperf3 and default test execution of 10 seconds) you get wrong numbers or at least misleading ones. Never use any of these benchmarking tools without also running tools like htop and also longsleep's pine64_health.sh or Armbian's 'sudo armbianmonitor -m' (or install RPi-Monitor, it's easy and costs you only a few minutes)
- With longsleep's network tuning script applied performance drops down to ~800 Mbits/sec in Armbian -- this should be avoided when running Armbian (see updated explanation in Armbian forum, only variation increases a lot)
- Armbian images are always created from scratch and have not been tampered with by humans. So such mistakes as known from the official Pine64 Linux images leading to ARP nightmares will not happen. We set the MAC address on first boot.
- My test setup consists of a x86 box connected to the same el cheapo Gbit switch as Pine64 and a couple of other SBC. Most importantly Pine64 is powered reliably (that means not using Micro USB but the pins on the Euler header) and stays cool. It's known that RTL8211E Gbit PHY as used on Pine64+ needs an additional 350mW, it's known that using Micro USB for DC-IN is crap (consumption increase leads to voltage drops), it's also known that an overheating SoC consumes more energy than a cool one (details) which might add to powering/undervoltage related problems
- Iperf/iperf3 numbers don't tell the whole story, they're useful to rule out severe problems but only when used in active benchmarking mode trying to check for the real bottlenecks.
Details: http://forum.armbian.com/index.php/topic...5-devices/
So when throughput differences between various Pine64 are reported without telling which distro (compiler switches affecting the benchmark tool's 'performance') and which cpufreq scaling governor is used (affecting speed of adjusting CPU clockspeed) only numbers without meaning were generated. Always check with htop CPU utilization since iperf/iperf3 are single threaded in one mode and keep in mind that thermal settings (overheating/throttling) therefore might affect 'network throughput'.
As an example: Pine64 running mainline kernel with new Ethernet driver written from scratch shows these iperf numbers: 430/620 Mbits/secs depending on direction. Why? Since with mainline kernel we still have no access to PMIC so dvfs / cpufreq scaling isn't working and the SoC is clocked conservatively with just 408 MHz instead of jumping between 480 and 1152 as with BSP kernel using our community settings. And that's the simple reason why 'network performance' is affected there: since iperf/iperf3 are bottlenecked by lower CPU clockspeed on mainline kernel. In reality iperf/iperf3 are reporting CPU clockspeed and not network throughput (and the same applies to IO performance as well, A64 is a tablet SoC where everything related to network and IO depends on CPU clockspeed -- mainline kernel means 408 MHz now and this explains the slower numbers).
Always know your tools and never trust them. Do active benchmarking
