Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server(s)

Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:45 pm

hi tom, wonderful job for providing this test server.
however I can't connect to your 207.32.195.2, is it down again?

thanks

Yup - it was down again.
I did a system - reboot. It should be up again

The last thing I spotted in the logs was: ... 91.39.152.5 via dude
The way I look at it is that no matter what 91.39.152.5 was doing, it should not of caused a crash (if there was anything related between dude and the crash).
Question for admin of 91.39.152.5 - cat you bang away again at my 207.32.195.2 - I would like to test to see if there is something that will repeat the crash

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:19 pm

Question for others who use x86 ROS

Am I the only person experiencing x86 ROS problems ?
or
Am I the only person pushing an x86 ROS beyond 1 gig throughput with a 10-gig network interface in a virtual environment ?

On a related note...
I have many times tried x86 ROS in a 10-gig multi-Ethernet environment under sustained loads from 500 meg to 8 gig. I have never been able to trust an x86 ROS because they often just lock-up and stop routing. I know my hardware is good and my hypervisor (ESXi) is good because the same VMware boxes also run dozens of PfSense virtual routers/firewalls at the same loads (up to 8 gig sustained).

Sometimes I wonder are the X86 ROS lockup problems are because ROS does not support or have paravirtual drivers (for things like Ethernet & hdd),
i
This btest server 207.32.195.2 has been driving me nuts - since I started it this year - it has locked up well over 100 times !!!!!!!! I have replaced all hardware and rebuilt everything at least a dozen times.
If I had to give ROS (x86) a score for reliability under load , I am sorry to say it would be low (close to zero).
If I had to give PfSense a score for reliability under load, I would give it a score close to 100.
I uave used both for many years. I really like and totally trust Mikrotik wireless products and Mikrotik hardware. I just can't say the same about their x86 ROS products - not good.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:57 am

Have you tried chr instead x86? Not sure, maybe could be better in your situation..

Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:12 pm

Have you tried chr instead x86? Not sure, maybe could be better in your situation..

Yes and no

I have tried it. I do not have a CHR license key. The free version has built-in speed limitations. Without looking it up again I think it was something like 1-meg (or somewhere slowwww and un-useable).

So - yes - I could run CHR with the free license, but btest will top out at the whimpy speeds of about 1-meg tops (or what ever the CHR free license sets the maximum throughput at).

A note - Right now - I do have many remote admins performing regular btest tests several times a day at speeds greater than 1-gig. So, that tells me that those testing at speeds greater than 1-gig are probably on 10-gig hardware and probably on 10-gig Internet connections (like me).

North Idaho Tom Jones

Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:20 pm

You can get unlimited trial chr license for free. It will just block updates after two months.... For testing it is great.

Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:37 pm

As of 8/23/2016 9:15 AM PST the btest server is now running on CHR
(CHR, 64-bit, VMXNET-3, 4-Gig ram memory, 128 MB hard disk, 2-CPUs)
I am running VMware ESXi version 6.0.0 to host the Mikrotik ROS CHR btest server

License; not-configured (it will eventually time-out for updates)

btests to itself:
When performing a btest to 127.0.0.1 UDP, it hits 17.5 Gbps (without simple-queue enabled)
When performing a btest to 207.32.195.2 UDP, it hits 17.5 Gbps (without simple-queue enabled)

For Mikrotik admin public best testing, I currently have simple queues enabled:
/queue simple
add burst-limit=2200M/3500M burst-threshold=250M/250M burst-time=6m40s/10m max-limit=250M/250M name=3.5-Gig-send--and--2.2-Gig-receive target=""

To test to it, the same info applies:
IP address 207.32.195.2
user: btest
passowrs: btest

Everybody is welcome to bang away at it. I think we would all like to find out how stable it is under gig+ btest loads
Please post your positive or negative results - thank you

North Idaho Tom Jones

format19 · Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:15 pm

Using 207.32.195.2
I cant seem to get more than 300-800Kbps on TCP Download?

Are others having an issue like this ?
Thanks

novelty22 · Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:52 pm

Using 207.32.195.2
I cant seem to get more than 300-800Kbps on TCP Download?

Are others having an issue like this ?
Thanks

That's about what I'm getting as well

Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:39 pm

TCP verses UDP

UDP is a fire a packet and forget protocol. With UDP you can send many packets. Over long distance links UDP should somewhat retain pretty fast speeds.

TCP is a fire a packet and wait for an ACK from the remote side protocol. With TCP, you have to wait for the remote ACK to be received prior to sending the next packet. As distance and hops and network routers increase, TCP will slow down.

Additional information:
TCP uses RED (Random Early Detect) which helps govern speeds. When there is no ACK received in a short time, the sending unit starts to learn how fast it can send before there are packet drops.
UDP does not use RED. Some protocols using UDP might send many many packets and receive a summary of received packets.

UDP is: fire - fire - fire -fire - fire - fire - fire
TCP is: fire - wait for ACK - fire - wait for ACK - fire - wait for ACK - fire - wait for ACK - fire - wait for ack - fire - wait for ACK - fire - wait for ACK
(Just looking at the two above lines I typed in - I hope you can get an idea why UDP is sometimes a better protocol and why TCP is sometimes a better protocol.

North Idaho Tom Jones

biland · Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:03 am

i love this Tool
but today i also get only 700 to Max 900 Kbps on tcp receive,, down here in Mexico..
upload is working fine

gwitowski · Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:01 pm

Hello. I'm from Poland. Your server is doing a great job, but for a few days, my score is 800 - 900 Kbps. If you can then do something with it. Thank you.

Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:23 pm

Hello. I'm from Poland. Your server is doing a great job, but for a few days, my score is 800 - 900 Kbps. If you can then do something with it. Thank you.

re for a few days ...
Are you stating something like -- for a few days it is now slower results - or faster results

A few days ago - I changed the 207.32.195.2 btest server
It was a x86 ROS 32-bit server
It is now a CCR ROS 64-bit server

North Idaho Tom Jones

gwitowski · Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:05 am

Hello. I'm from Poland. Your server is doing a great job, but for a few days, my score is 800 - 900 Kbps. If you can then do something with it. Thank you.
re for a few days ...
Are you stating something like -- for a few days it is now slower results - or faster results

A few days ago - I changed the 207.32.195.2 btest server
It was a x86 ROS 32-bit server
It is now a CCR ROS 64-bit server

North Idaho Tom Jones

Hello. Previously, it was OK. I have a link 200Mbps / 200Mbps, and my results are only 800 - 900 Kbps if I test download from your server to me. Upload to your server is OK.

Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:13 pm

Hello. I'm from Poland. Your server is doing a great job, but for a few days, my score is 800 - 900 Kbps. If you can then do something with it. Thank you.
re for a few days ...
Are you stating something like -- for a few days it is now slower results - or faster results

A few days ago - I changed the 207.32.195.2 btest server
It was a x86 ROS 32-bit server
It is now a CCR ROS 64-bit server

North Idaho Tom Jones

Hello. Previously, it was OK. I have a link 200Mbps / 200Mbps, and my results are only 800 - 900 Kbps if I test download from your server to me. Upload to your server is OK.

OK - I see the problem/issue also.
The new CHR ROS 64-bit server is the problem.
This morning (Friday 8 AM PST), I went back to the x86 ROS 32-bit system.
Now I am seeing great btest speeds again (faster than 7 Gig) btest results.
Please test and verify you are now testing at full speeds.

I am just not sure how I feel about the CHR ROS 64-bit system. Without a full paid-for license, it is not useable for close to 1-meg throughput or greater.

North Idaho Tom Jones

gwitowski · Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:28 am

Hello. I'm from Poland. Your server is doing a great job, but for a few days, my score is 800 - 900 Kbps. If you can then do something with it. Thank you.
re for a few days ...
Are you stating something like -- for a few days it is now slower results - or faster results

A few days ago - I changed the 207.32.195.2 btest server
It was a x86 ROS 32-bit server
It is now a CCR ROS 64-bit server

North Idaho Tom Jones

Hello. Previously, it was OK. I have a link 200Mbps / 200Mbps, and my results are only 800 - 900 Kbps if I test download from your server to me. Upload to your server is OK.
OK - I see the problem/issue also.
The new CHR ROS 64-bit server is the problem.
This morning (Friday 8 AM PST), I went back to the x86 ROS 32-bit system.
Now I am seeing great btest speeds again (faster than 7 Gig) btest results.
Please test and verify you are now testing at full speeds.

I am just not sure how I feel about the CHR ROS 64-bit system. Without a full paid-for license, it is not useable for close to 1-meg throughput or greater.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Today is Ok. Thank you for solving the problem. Your server is doing a really good job.

jrpaz · Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:22 pm

Doing good work sir!

Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:31 am

Sorry you had not so good experience with chr. I am running dude in testing mode so far on chr with trial unlimited free license and I don't see any interface performance problems.

Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:51 pm

Only free license is limited to 1Mbps, you can run 60-day trial to get this limitation off.
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CHR#Free_licenses

dsliesrn · Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:19 pm

Hi, I can not connect to the server. It is down?

Thanks

Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:55 pm

Hi, I can not connect to the server. It is down?

Thanks

YES - It was down again
I rebooted it this morning.
FYI - I am still currently running the 32-BIT ROS x86 version.
Sometime, I plan to try again to test out the 64-bit version - when I have time.

North Idaho Tom Jones

tljatrezmaildotcom · Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:36 pm

I use this test server all the time - it works great

Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:45 am

10-gig fiber network outage & spanning-tree fall back to a low-speed microwave up-link.
So - I had to turn off the 207.32.195.2 btest server to help conserve bandwidth for my customers.
Sorry about that - It should be backup around 8 am California time (my time zone here in North Idaho).

North Idaho Tom Jones

paams · Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:43 pm

Great Tool and Great Service. I really appreciate. Keep it up

Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Every morning - first thing, I check my Cacti bandwidth graphs for my entire network to see who is pulling what amount of abnormal bandwidth traffic.
It is sometimes WTF when you discover a huge spike on your Internet traffic by several gig-per-second then realize it was only the 207.32.195.2 btest server - lol

Which brings up a question I have to those who often use it.
My question is, for those with fast Internet accounts (high bandwidth), are your throughput btest results to 207.32.195.2 consistent ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:03 pm

Yesterday - I upgraded the 207.32.195.2 public access btest server. I tested it after the upgrade - everything looked good.

However ... I forgot to re-enable the simple-queue to limit the bandwidth test so that it can't consume my entire 10-gig internet feed...
Well ... Yesterday - somebody got a lengthy 6 gig+ btest -and- somebody else got a 4 gig+ btest - lol

My bad - lol.
I will try to not forget about the simple queue - because I do not want to saturate my 10-gig Internet feed or somebody else with a 10-gig feed testing to me and relying on my simple queue to not kill their feed also.

Related info - I have seen it hit up to 9.8 gig on a btest to somebody remote out on the Internet testing to me a few months ago...
And - if any of you ever want to perform a quick btest higher than 4-gig, let me know and I can setup something temporary just for you.

North Idaho Tom Jones

040mvz · Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:57 pm

Peaking the max of my 500/500MBIT FTTH with ISP KPN in The Netherlands!

Thanks a lot! this helped me great!

Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Peaking the max of my 500/500MBIT FTTH with ISP KPN in The Netherlands!

Thanks a lot! this helped me great!

You are most welcome.
That is exactly the reason I have this 207.32.195.2 btest server running. So that we can all test and verify our contracted Internet speeds - and take possible actions to correct an environment where we/you do not get what we are paying for.

North Idaho Tom Jones

PeterO · Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:47 pm

Works also perfectly from the Netherlands.
Got my full 200 Mb Down and 20 Mb Up!

Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:29 pm

Works also perfectly from the Netherlands.
Got my full 200 Mb Down and 20 Mb Up!

Thank you
Posting your test results also help me know my network is talking correctly to the Internet also.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:12 pm

FYI - This is a Cacti bandwidth graph of the last 24-hours of my 207.32.195.2 btest server.
The needle like spikes indicate a 5-minute average of the bandwidth (up/down).
Thus a 3 Gig btest executed for only a few seconds may only show a very small spike in the graphs.
The far right of the graph indicates a 180 meg btest. This could of been a 180 meg btest for 5 minutes - or a 360 meg btest for 2.5 minutes or 900 meg btest for 1 minute or a 1.8 gig btest for 30 seconds or a 2.7 gig btest for 20 seconds.

As you can see, the total traffic for 24 hours is actually pretty low (which averages out to a 24-hour total load of about 45 meg sustained over 24-hours), but the real-time-traffic-spikes can actually be very high - especially when I have the simple-queue disabled.

24-hours-btest-server.png

North Idaho Tom Jones

Chupaka · Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:05 pm

Tom, I heard this server is quite popular among RouterOS admins

If you do not mind, I'd like to make this topic sticky on the forum so it stay on top

Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:31 am

Tom, I heard this server is quite popular among RouterOS admins

If you do not mind, I'd like to make this topic sticky on the forum so it stay on top

Hey - you are more than welcome
Everybody is welcome to btest to it.
*** thank goodness for simple-queues

--- otherwise my network could saturate at 10 gig lol

Also - I am open to the idea of other test servers doing other mikrotik related things (tunnel test - vpn test - or what ever could help out the Mikrotik community )

North Idaho Tom Jones

Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:07 pm

Good news everybody

I just increased the simple-queue settings for the 207.32.195.2 btest server.

The btest server now supports 3.6 Gig testing speeds.

The new speed settings are supported for both send & receive tests (up & down settings are now identical)

I also increased the time duration for how long a 3.6 Gig test can run before it throttles down to a lower speed.

I also increased the sustainable extended btest server to now support a continuous 1/2 Gig (500 Meg)

NOTE: I have a few points I would like to clearly state:
- Do not abuse this btest server
- Do not use this btest server to create/generate unwanted & undesired saturation issues with your Internet provider
- If and when there are two or more tests occurring at the same time (two or more different remote Internet locations at the same time), the simple-queue will rate-limit the combined tests of everybody. Example - two admins can not test at 3.6 gig at the same time.
- If you run an extended test - you are also preventing others from bursting to 3.6 Gig or also running an extended btest
- You are welcome and encouraged to post your tested speeds and where you are located
- This btest server is solely intended to support the good purposes and good intentions of all Mikrotik admins

To use this btest server, perform a Mikrotik ROS bandwidth test to 207.32.195.2 (test user name is: btest -and- test password is: btest)

North Idaho Tom Jones
Below are some screen snapshots of the simple-queue settings:

Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:46 am

Sorry about that - It locked up again and I had to reboot it.

CZFan · Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:54 pm

Hi Tom,

Seems like an excellent tool for the Miktotik community, thx for providing

I am unable to connect though and not sure I am doing something wrong or if it is down at the moment, I am connecting to 207.32.195.2 with usr/pwd btest?

Kind regards from South Africa

lty1993 · Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:13 pm

Looks like the server down again, and I cannot even ping the server.

Screenshot from 2016-10-16 16-05-23.png

NetHorror · Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:10 pm

can`t connect

silversword · Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:50 pm

Thx Tom!

FYI testing from Atlanta, GA on AT&T Gigapower.
btest from mikrotik hardware (CPU throttled)
DSL reports and speedtest.net for comparison (fastpath enabled only way to get high speeds without CPU bottleneck)
Can't connect via UDP, only TCP. Wouldn't be surprised if AT&T is filtering UDP out at their interconnects so their backbone doesn't get flooded with infected devices.
VPN tunnel test anyone?

Tested with windows Mikrotik bandwidth test util (v0.1) and was only getting 10-20Mbps, not sure why.

jasko · Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:19 pm

Hello Tom,

Thanks you to offer this tool for free.

Here are the results of my test:
[img]

btest.png

[/img]

I would ask you: How to configure a user to just have permission on the banwidth-test tool of the server?

thanks in advantage

Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:50 pm

jasko - re I would ask you: How to configure a user to just have permission on the banwidth-test tool of the server?

Rather than type the answer to your question, I just made some image snapshots.
Is this what you was asking for ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

btest-user.png

Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:54 pm

silversword - re: Can't connect via UDP, only TCP

Interesting ...
Are you behind a firewall ?
Is your test device on a live IP address ?

devices/programs/computers/servers talking on the Internet need both TCP and UDP

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:20 pm

Can't hurt asking ...

Anybody want to donate a Mikrotik with a 10-gig port to replace my x86 32-bit 207.32.195.2 btest server ?

I would like to find a hardware solution Mikrotik something that can btest up to near 10-gig (or at least 4-gig).

I would like to see the stability & throughput difference .

anybody - Mikrotik how about you ????

North Idaho Tom Jones

silversword · Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:13 am

silversword - re: Can't connect via UDP, only TCP

Interesting ...
Are you behind a firewall ?
Is your test device on a live IP address ?

No firewall, live public IP from AT&T Uverse, the Gigapower division.

It's consumer 1Gbit, so I'm sure they have protection mechanisms for large quantities of UDP traffic aiming across the Atlantic

If I had a closer server with btest listening I'd test that...nothing setup atm.

Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:46 am

silverswood

What do you get when you do the same traceroute again but this time using UDP instead of icmp ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

silversword · Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:59 am

What do you get when you do the same traceroute again but this time using UDP instead of icmp ?

....you can traceroute with UDP. My "learned something new" for the day! Makes sense if you think about it though.

Re-testing apparently it's only the receive part I'm not getting...though quite slow, guessing a 1Mbps limit.

Considering you're trying to "receive" a UDP, there must be a tcp control channel for the btest that is telling the btest server to send udp at you, so somewhere it must be dropping it. I'll send you a PM with my IP and btest server if you'd like to test.

Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:06 pm

silverswood

Based on your last traceroute - I just noticed you are coming from an RFC-1918 NAT network (10.x.x.x).
This implies you have a firewall/NAT device between your Mikrotik and the Internet.
The firewall/NAT device may need a port-forward so that Mikrotik UDP packets from the Internet are forwarded to your internal Mikrotik.
This may be starting to sound more complex to configure than the time you may want to invest just to be able to perform a btest to-and-from my 207.32.195.2 btest server.

What might be easier would be to move and reconfigure your Mikrotik to be the live IP address NAT device for your RFC-1918 internal 10.x.x.x network. Then you should be able to perform UDP btests in both directions - and it may give you more control over what your network is doing.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Jeroen1000 · Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:07 pm

Just wanted to say thanks for your server. I've been able to test both my connections. One weird Mikrotik thing found: when uploading (10 megabit) the test server process makes a routerbord 450G's CPU spike to 100%. When just doing a speedtest on speedtest.net, it does not go over 10%

Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:02 am

Because btest is very cpu hungry while generating traffic.

silversword · Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:16 pm

Based on your last traceroute - I just noticed you are coming from an RFC-1918 NAT network (10.x.x.x).
This implies you have a firewall/NAT device between your Mikrotik and the Internet.
The firewall/NAT device may need a port-forward so that Mikrotik UDP packets from the Internet are forwarded to your internal Mikrotik.
This may be starting to sound more complex to configure than the time you may want to invest just to be able to perform a btest to-and-from my 207.32.195.2 btest server.

No, the 10. is the private side of the Mikrotik. traceroute must default to the default internal private bridge unless specified otherwise.

Running the btest directly from the Mikrotik using winbox.

jllz · Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:12 pm

So It looks like my routers running 6.37 and 6.37.1 just shows 0 my routers with older firmware work with it tho.

Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:14 am

Instead of trying BOTH, try send by itself then try receive by itself.
Also you might want to try and verify you can ping 207.32.195.2 (the btest server)

North Idaho Tom Jones

jllz · Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:17 pm

So looks like it works with tcp but not udp.

gardenstate · Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:00 pm

Thank you for this service, NI Tom Jones.

(BTW, grew up in the Panhandle up near Murray.)

Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:45 pm

Thank you for this service, NI Tom Jones.

(BTW, grew up in the Panhandle up near Murray.)

Murray Idaho - Originally started as a mining camp back in the 1880s. Lots of trees, mountains and critters. Small community but a very beautiful place.
I am actually in Plummer Idaho - about 30 minutes or so south of Coeur d'Alene.

North Idaho Tom Jones

netflow · Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:05 pm

Thanks for the service Tom. It is a great alternative to speedtest. I hope you can keep it running despite its increasing notoriety.

Note to other testers: Windows v0.1 client is not up to the level of the ROS client. It should be avoided for any realistic figures.

RonJohn63 · Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:05 pm

(Had to temporarily disable the FW rule on dropping all WAN packets.)

Otherwise, it matches well with my 150/10 cable tier.

[admin@MikroTik] /tool> /tool bandwidth-test address=207.32.195.2 user=btest password=btest \
 	duration=00:01:00 direction=receive random-data=yes protocol=udp
                status: done testing
              duration: 1m1s
            rx-current: 163.0Mbps
  rx-10-second-average: 163.0Mbps
      rx-total-average: 146.3Mbps
          lost-packets: 1571
           random-data: yes
             direction: receive
               rx-size: 1500
[admin@MikroTik] /tool> /tool bandwidth-test address=207.32.195.2 user=btest password=btest \
	duration=00:01:00 direction=transmit  random-data=yes protocol=udp
                status: done testing
              duration: 1m1s
            tx-current: 10.8Mbps
  tx-10-second-average: 10.8Mbps
      tx-total-average: 11.1Mbps
           random-data: yes
             direction: transmit
               tx-size: 1500

interpoint · Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:17 pm

Greetings from Ireland !!

Firstly: Many thanks for providing this very useful btest facility.

We also had problems with the CHR's running on VMware ESXi 6.0 using Hotlava 10G Cards.

We experienced the VMware host would "Pink Screen of Death" complaining about the Network card approx once every 6 weeks approx.

We gave up and moved to CHR1072. It is not as good for BGP convergence on a CCR1072, however it doesn't crash - which is way more important

BGP Convergence of 1080219 routes to the Internet is around 20 minutes after startup. Single core limitation.

Did this test from one of our CCR1072's - she was RX'ing at 1G of live traffic at the time when I ran this test.

We have a 10G connection to the Internet on the CCR1072

Interesting that I can pull 2Gbps (on the RX) from your test server but can only manage 1.2Gbps (TX) to your test server.

[XXXXX@CCR1] > /tool bandwidth-test direction=receive local-tx-speed=2000M remote-tx-speed=2000M user=btest password=btest protocol=udp address=207.32.195.2
status: running
duration: 10s
rx-current: 1917.1Mbps
rx-10-second-average: 1918.8Mbps
rx-total-average: 1918.8Mbps
lost-packets: 0
random-data: no
direction: receive
rx-size: 1500

[XXXXX@CCR1] > /tool bandwidth-test direction=transmit local-tx-speed=2000M remote-tx-speed=2000M user=btest password=btest protocol=udp address=207.32.195.2
status: running
duration: 14s
tx-current: 1219.2Mbps
tx-10-second-average: 1180.7Mbps
tx-total-average: 1153.7Mbps
random-data: no
direction: transmit
tx-size: 1500

I have 19 hops between your router and mine.

capture.jpg

Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:26 pm

interpoint

Greetings from Ireland !!

Firstly: Many thanks for providing this very useful btest facility.
....

Hey - thanks for the feedback.

I am very interested in possibly changing the 207.32.195.2 btest server from a 32-bit ROS system running under VMware ESXi 6.something to a physical mikrotik hardware solution with 10-gig network cards.
I know that btest only uses 1 CPU when there are multi-cores available. Thus a btest server comes down to CPU clock speed to function well as a btest server.
So - I would like to ask you a favor please
On any of your Mikrotik platforms with 10-gig Ethernet, what do you get when you do a UDP btest to 127.0.0.1 ???
If I can find something that cat run at or near 10-gig, I want to try to switch the 207.32.195.2 btest server over to it - then see if it can handle the load while still delivering same speed results.

again - thanks for your post

North Idaho Tom Jones

Makoto · Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:51 am

Hi,

is servers still runing ? I did try few times last couple of days but never able to connect !

It would be so cool if Mikrotik has someting like that for at least 100Mbit test:)!

Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:42 pm

Hi,

is servers still runing ? I did try few times last couple of days but never able to connect !

It would be so cool if Mikrotik has someting like that for at least 100Mbit test:)!

Yea it's running. Uptime about a week or so.

Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:52 pm

Hi,

is servers still runing ? I did try few times last couple of days but never able to connect !

It would be so cool if Mikrotik has someting like that for at least 100Mbit test:)!

Have you been able to test to it in the past ?
Can you ping it ?
Is your Mikrotik behind a firewall ?

RonJohn63 · Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:01 pm

Hi,

is servers still runing ? I did try few times last couple of days but never able to connect !

It would be so cool if Mikrotik has someting like that for at least 100Mbit test:)!

I had the same problem, then enabled logging on the FW rule chain=input action=drop tcp-flags="" in-interface=ether1 log=no log-prefix="" and saw tons of drops.

Thus, I added this just above that rule:

add action=accept chain=input comment="IP address of public bandwidth tester" protocol=udp src-address=207.32.195.2

Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:12 am

Well - my x86 ROS 32-bit locked up again and I had to restart it

It locked up at California USA time 2016/11/08 17:49:23 ((( 5:49 PM ))

It is back up now

I am glad I don't use this as a primary high-bandwidth router.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Makoto · Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:38 am

Hi,

no I did not able to test in the past but I am able to ping the server, maybe it is firewall but not mine !
In a few days I am geting new dedicate line I whill try then!

Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:39 pm

Hi,

no I did not able to test in the past but I am able to ping the server, maybe it is firewall but not mine !
In a few days I am geting new dedicate line I whill try then!

Hmmm

Please post a tracefoute from your mikrotik

North Idaho Tom Jones

Makoto · Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:48 am

Hi

timeout at the moment

!

I can try again later

Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:43 pm

Hi

timeout at the moment !

I can try again later

Yup - my Mikrotik ROS x86 32-bit btest server was locked up again. I reset it and it should be running again.

I have a question to everybody - does anybody have a Mikrotik anything that is actually standing up to gig+ sustained routed bandwidth loads (like what my btest server goes through) ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

jasko · Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:29 pm

jasko - re I would ask you: How to configure a user to just have permission on the banwidth-test tool of the server?

Rather than type the answer to your question, I just made some image snapshots.
Is this what you was asking for ?

North Idaho Tom Jones
btest-user.png

Thanks Tom,
that was the answer I need

Great work!!

HumanDamned · Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:11 am

Subject: Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server
Here are the details for my server:
- x86 ROS hosted on VMware ESXi server (with 10-gig connection to the Internet)
- Burstable to 250 Meg up/down
- Sustained traffic is limited to 100 Meg up/down (after about 30 to 60 seconds)
- Your maximum connection time for testing is not to exceed 10 minutes.
- IP Address: 207.32.195.2
- btest user authentication needed: User: btest Password: btest
- You may NOT winbox to this machine - you may bandwidth test to it.

Hi and Thanks for the server, but i cant understand why Btest to your server shows average TCP Tx Rx 15.0 Mbps/49.5 Mbps and speedtest.net - Tx Rx 661 Mbps/641 Mbps ?
The result are so much different...

Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:53 am

Subject: Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server
Here are the details for my server:
- x86 ROS hosted on VMware ESXi server (with 10-gig connection to the Internet)
- Burstable to 250 Meg up/down
- Sustained traffic is limited to 100 Meg up/down (after about 30 to 60 seconds)
- Your maximum connection time for testing is not to exceed 10 minutes.
- IP Address: 207.32.195.2
- btest user authentication needed: User: btest Password: btest
- You may NOT winbox to this machine - you may bandwidth test to it.
Hi and Thanks for the server, but i cant understand why Btest to your server shows average TCP Tx Rx 15.0 Mbps/49.5 Mbps and speedtest.net - Tx Rx 661 Mbps/641 Mbps ?
The result are so much different...

My guess would be the speedtest.net server you are testing to might be closer than my btest server.
Try a speedtest.net speedtest using Seattle and see if that looks near the same as my btest server.
Also - are you btest ing using UDP or TCP? UDP should be faster.

North Idaho Tom Jones

HumanDamned · Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:16 pm

My guess would be the speedtest.net server you are testing to might be closer than my btest server.
Try a speedtest.net speedtest using Seattle and see if that looks near the same as my btest server.
Also - are you btest ing using UDP or TCP? UDP should be faster.

Oh, I see, it's in USA, then maybe that is the reason. I'm using TCP because speedtest also uses TCP, just wanted to compare the results.
Today results are - Btest up 31.8 Mbps/ down 66.4 Mbps and speedtest to Seattle up 697 Mbps/ down 141 Mbps.
Really crazy =)

gunguy7007 · Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:16 pm

Thank you, this helps a ton in troubleshooting.

Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:55 am

I just updated the 207.32.195.2 btest server (on 11/22/2016 3:PM California time) to the new ROS release v6.37.2

North Idaho Tom Jones

Yarisken · Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:55 pm

Thx for the tool

. Working great here.

kevgits · Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:54 pm

Hi,

I'm trying to ping the server from Kenya and it's timing out. Could you kindly confirm if it's running?

C:\Users\TOSH>ping 207.32.195.2

Pinging 207.32.195.2 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

On the mikrotik it returns the error "can't connect".

fabvit · Fri Nov 25, 2016 6:05 pm

As of today for me too the server is not pingable (Rome, Italy)

dash · Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:37 pm

same here

Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:31 pm

x86 ROS under load has a MTBF (meat time before failure) of less than 1 day. This is across all versions of x86 ROS for the last year.

If you can not ping or btest to this server, it is 99.999 percent because it locked up again. This btest server sometimes has to be reset up to 3 times a day.

I can only hope that CHR or anything else is better at faster than gig btest speeds.

North Idaho Tom Jones

mp3turbo · Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:15 am

Tom, what locks up ? Is it the x86 ROS virtual machine or is the whole physical server crashing under the load ? Can you post DETAILED information about your HW config especially about NW cards their models etc, versions of BIOS, ILO/DRAC card firmware if you have HP/Dell hardware (or equivalent of other vendors') ? If you have white box ("home made" computer), please post motherboard name, BIOS version.

Ideally in both cases, screenshots of BIOS settings would be great. Especially PCI Latency Timer, if you have one.

I'm running virtualized x86 ROSes with 100.0% uptime for years and yes, I have big bandwidths.

Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:39 pm

Tom, what locks up ? Is it the x86 ROS virtual machine or is the whole physical server crashing under the load ? Can you post DETAILED information about your HW config especially about NW cards their models etc, versions of BIOS, ILO/DRAC card firmware if you have HP/Dell hardware (or equivalent of other vendors') ? If you have white box ("home made" computer), please post motherboard name, BIOS version.

Ideally in both cases, screenshots of BIOS settings would be great. Especially PCI Latency Timer, if you have one.

I'm running virtualized x86 ROSes with 100.0% uptime for years and yes, I have big bandwidths.

I am running the following configuration:
- Physical server: I have tried Dell but now I run on a SuperMicro (SAS 12 tb hdd and 127 gig ram and intel 10-gig nics and two Xeon CPUs 10-core each with a crap-load of CPU cache.)
- Boot operating system on physical server: VMware ESXi 6.0.0 (I have also run ESXi version 5.x
- btest server is an x86 ROS 32-bit server (have tried many different fresh installs from scratch).
- Virtual host (ROS) configuration: Memory 2 gig - CPUs (Tried 1,2,3 and 4) currently 1 - HDD thin 8 Gig - single Network card E1000E

I have rebuilt and replaces and reconfigured everything to do with the btest server dozens of times.

I currently have 20 other additional virtual host servers/routers also running on my VMware ESXi machine. None of the other virtual routers (PfSense) or other virtual servers (DNS, sendmail, apache, radius, syslog, cacti etc ...) ever lock up. The only thing that locks up is ROS - never anything else.

When ROS locks up, it appears to be a complete loss of the TCP/IP stack. When it is locked up, the console is still alive and there is still an Ethernet link - but anything to do with IP anything is dead. When locked up, ROS can not even ping it's local loopback address of 127.0.0.1

If I had to take a guess at what the problem is, I would start with a guess that the ROS lack of paravirtual network drivers/support is the biggest potential problem. In my opinion, any x86 operating system without full set of paravirtual (tools, HDD, network, KVM) is pretty much a trusted brick if you are building a house - and only a brick.

It is very frustrating !!! I pretty much give x86 ROS a rating (0 to 10) of a solid -8 (negative

, and I suggest in a virtual routing environment to instead use PfSense for stability to achieve a never crash virtual environment.

Don't get me wrong and think I am down/against Mikrotik - I totally love ROS and Mikrotik has the best bang for the buck when it comes to wireless products. I know - I have more than 1,000 Mikrotik wireless devices. But when it comes to central core greater than 1-gig throughput processing, this I don't feel Mikrotik is a solution. In my opinion, Mikrotik uses slow cheap wimpy weak CPUs and are unable to reliably compete in the 500 meg to over 10-gig market. I am under the option that Mikrotik has nothing that can reliably handle the sustained often greater than 1-gig btest loads my btest server gets every day. However - for small office and residential use (less than 300 meg), mikrotik has some good products to consider.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:46 pm

One thing I will add,

It appears that when somebody is running a btest at high speeds (800 meg up to 10-gig), is when the ROS TCP/IP stack dies.

and note - I have some PfSense virtual routers on the same VmWare server often holding that sustained amount of traffic (near 8-gig sustained) for sometimes several hours.

Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:58 pm

Subject: Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server
EDIT: Feb 24 2016 --- Now supports up to 3.5 Gig speedtest - read all the posts
EDIT: October 7th 2016 --- This btest server now supports 3.6 Gig for both send and receive tests - please read through all the posts

thx very much for the server Tom

I have tested successfully a gpon connection of 120mbps/60mbps udp and tcp with a RB750Gr2

Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:57 pm

Subject: Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server
EDIT: Feb 24 2016 --- Now supports up to 3.5 Gig speedtest - read all the posts
EDIT: October 7th 2016 --- This btest server now supports 3.6 Gig for both send and receive tests - please read through all the posts

thx very much for the server Tom

I have tested successfully a gpon connection of 120mbps/60mbps udp and tcp with a RB750Gr2

Re: I have tested successfully a gpon connection of 120mbps/60mbps udp and tcp with a RB750Gr2
chechito - right now you are new best friend

I am trying to bring up a Mikrotik SFP GPON in one of my Mikrotiks.
My head-end to terminate my customer GPON devices is an Adtran TA-5000

I have some questions I would like to ask you.
Is your GPON network using a Mikrotik SFP GPON in a Mikrotik ?
Or is your GPON non-Mikrotik and you simply have a Mikrotik connected ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:13 am

Re: I have tested successfully a gpon connection of 120mbps/60mbps udp and tcp with a RB750Gr2
chechito - right now you are new best friend

I am trying to bring up a Mikrotik SFP GPON in one of my Mikrotiks.
My head-end to terminate my customer GPON devices is an Adtran TA-5000

I have some questions I would like to ask you.
Is your GPON network using a Mikrotik SFP GPON in a Mikrotik ?
Or is your GPON non-Mikrotik and you simply have a Mikrotik connected ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

Sorry My isp brings a CPE which receive optical fiber directly, behind it i connect MIkrotik with ethernet copper

Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:25 pm

FYI: I just upgraded the Mikrotik ROS 32-bit public btest 207.32.195.2 server to version 6.37.3

When I did this - I know I bumped somebody off who was doing a btest at the time - sorry about that

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:57 pm

FYI: December 7th 2016
I just replaced the Mikrotik ROS 32-bit public btest 207.32.195.2 server.
It is now a CHR 64-bit system.
It is hosted on the same VMware ESXi server which hosted the older 32-bit x86 ROS server.

So far it appears to have the same throughput capabilities. A local btest to the loopback 127.0.0.1 comes out between 18 to 19 gig.

There is still a simple-queue which limits peak testing to 3.6 gig up or down (and also limits sustained testing down to about 500 meg).

You are welcome to hammer away on it.
I would like to find out and verify if CHR is more stable/reliable under the same peak loads when compared to the original 32-bit ROS btest server.

btest server: 207.32.195.2
user: btest
password: btest

Chupaka · Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:01 am

Just tested, 3.6G down (to me)/1875M up with UDP

Well... Wow

I'm from Belarus, it's 8500km from Idaho =) RTT is 185 ms

With TCP it's only 1550M down/540M up

By the way, "Lost Packets: 0" after 5 seconds at 3.6G

Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:46 am

Just tested, 3.6G down (to me)/1875M up with UDP

Well... Wow I'm from Belarus, it's 8500km from Idaho =) RTT is 185 ms

With TCP it's only 1550M down/540M up

By the way, "Lost Packets: 0" after 5 seconds at 3.6G

Hey - sounds like you have a greater than 3.6 gig internet feed
If you ever want to do a brief no bandwidth test - just let me know
It would be interesting to see what it can go up to ...
North Idaho Tom Jones

Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:34 pm

Interesting, since upgrading from 32-bit x86 ROS to CHR on December 7th 2016, the btest server has not locked-up/died.
Normally I would of performed up to 15 resets/reboots by now.
I can only guess that the paravirtulized 10-gig network card drivers "vmxnet3" are working correctly.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:51 pm

Hope ya don't mind if I ask ...

Would somebody happen to be running a CHR or 32-bit ROS on a Amazon Web Services (AWS) account ?

This is not a problem. I just happened to look at who was connected to the 207.32.195.2 btest server and spotted a connection from AWS.

My question for you, what kind of throughput and processing ability are you able to get with AWS ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

marting · Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:22 pm

Thank you for providing this server!

Although I wonder why ROS does not correctly track their own BTEST UDP/Receive connections. I have same issue with UDP Receving like some other in this thread. I allow ESTABLISHED&RELATED in input and forward chain. But I have to disable my REJECT chains for UDP for the BTEST packets not to drop. Of course I could allow my btest IPs but in my opinion this should be covered by the connection tracking.

yoozieck · Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:43 am

Hello,
Is there any problem with the 207.32.195.2 test server?
I cannot connect today, nor can't ping it, this is my traceroute:

but using ping.eu comes with transmitted/received packets 100% success.

Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:52 pm

Hello,
Is there any problem with the 207.32.195.2 test server?
I cannot connect today, nor can't ping it, this is my traceroute:

but using ping.eu comes with transmitted/received packets 100% success.

Yea - it was down
in fact my entire network was down
huge spanning tree issue and native vlan issues across hundreds of network devices.

It should be up and running normally now.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:20 pm

Heads up -
Because I am still having some network problems (non-related to Mikrotik anything), I have turned off the 207.32.195.2 public btest server.
It will remain turned off until mid next week.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:19 pm

new feature wish list for Mikrotik ROS and CHR

I would like to see a new feature option in the bandwidth test setting (for server and clinet), where there is a new setting for maximum amount of time a btest can be performed.

Example:
- Where somebody connected up to my 207.32.195.2 btest server (from their client ROS/CHR device) and no matter what, the test will terminate after a set number of HH:MM:SS has elapsed.

This would be great for both client and server in btest.

One of the potential issues I often see with my 207.32.195.2 btest server is that somebody starts a btest to me and lets it run all night long. This can force the simple-queue to kick in after a few minutes and then slow down everything to what ever I have my simple-queue set for. When this happens, a second remote person wanting to also run a btest to my server may not be able to connect or get slower-than-normal results - or possibly not able to run a btest at all.

North Idaho Tom Jones

yoozieck · Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:06 am

Heads up -
Because I am still having some network problems (non-related to Mikrotik anything), I have turned off the 207.32.195.2 public btest server.
It will remain turned off until mid next week.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thanks for your response.
I want to thank you, you are doing great work. Hope you'll get server running quick.
Merry Christmas from Poland to you, North Idaho Tom Jones, and to the whole forum

biland · Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:53 am

merry cristmas
and i love this server

on each mikrotik i can proof the speed for my client localy, without going there and show it on his windows..
does anybody know another server you can use, for the same mather (even slower, i dont mind)

Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:28 pm

I just turned back on the public 207.32.195.2 btest server

Please - no 10+ minute continuous extended bandwidth tests.
It's OK to use - but please don't do lengthy tests. Recently I've had some tests that have lasted for several hours or more.

I hope everybody had a good holiday - and will have a good New Years.

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:55 pm

here is what i was able to test at on a 10gbps comcast fiber connection. Thank you for the public btest site.

1-traceroute.png

2-udp-15-seconds.png

3-tcp-15-seconds.png

planetcoop · Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:04 pm

here are two other random speed tests from beta.speedtest.net and speedtest.googlefiber.net

4-beta-speedtest-net.png

5-speedtest-googlefiber.png

Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:17 pm

On your hop 9 - it looks like there is a pretty big latency hit in Seattle - which is where I go through.

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:08 am

I still think it looks good though. I have run a few tests with a dslreports.com admin and have had semi mixed results. Not Mikrotik related but just in general with high speed links. on my end, windows 10 is for sure the weak link. Some live Linux examples do better but anything above a few gigabit seem less reliable. I am using a CCR1036 with the 2 port sfp+.

Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:49 am

I still think it looks good though. I have run a few tests with a dslreports.com admin and have had semi mixed results. Not Mikrotik related but just in general with high speed links. on my end, windows 10 is for sure the weak link. Some live Linux examples do better but anything above a few gigabit seem less reliable. I am using a CCR1036 with the 2 port sfp+.

FYI -
Try turning off the firewalls on your Windows 10 machine and killing all in-necessary programs (anti-virus ...)
And try disabling hyper-threading on your Windows 10 machine
Sometimes - this will kick up the testing speeds on your Win 10 machine

Tom Jones

planetcoop · Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:27 am

Roger that. I am into tuning process queues on the intel nic. I have tested a variety of settings in the ccr and the hp switch. So far rss on the nic and buffer size seem to have the most impact on a single host. I have a number of servers and to the best of my testing tengb is great in aggregate. Although I dare to get the best desktop test yet.

macns · Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:53 am

Can't thank you enough for this. It has proven to be a most reliable tool whether we use it for debug or just rate checking.

Fri Dec 30, 2016 6:20 pm

Thought I would post a brief summary of the 207.32.195.2 btest server total data passed.
On average, since original activation in January 2016:

- The btest traffic averages out to the equivalent amount of data transferred as a sustained 40 meg load (yearly total average).
- It has had hundreds of btest testing faster than 1-gig (up and down)
- On average, somebody is testing to it about 20 percent of the time.
- At peak times, I have seen it busy all day with different testers
- CHR appears to work well as a btest server.
- I do not suggest an x86 ROS btest server - it tends to die under heavy btest loads.
- Because my Internet account is pretty fast, I have never felt any slowdown in my network while anybody is running a faster than gig btest.
- Surprisingly, I do not think the btest server has been used in a negative way by anybody to create problems & network congestion intended to make problems to other ISPs or Internet networks.

--- Also, thank you for posting your btest results and where you are in the world. I think this information helps everybody.

I plan to keep it running in 2018

EDIT - Kinda funny, I remember when I first proposed a day of public btest servers... Somebody commented "The day the Internet died." - lol

North Idaho Tom Jones

Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:32 pm

Hope you can keep it running in 2017 so far.
I am glad you gave the chance to chr as I suggested even you were not believe in it originally.
Happy new year to you and all over the world!

And please, do not copy one reply over dozen of threads. It was not nice from you...

Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:24 am

Hope you can keep it running in 2017 so far.
I am glad you gave the chance to chr as I suggested even you were not believe in it originally.
Happy new year to you and all over the world!

And please, do not copy one reply over dozen of threads. It was not nice from you...

Your point is noted

My poor excuse is - I was trying to put-to-rest several un-answered threads with the same related topic.

FYI - It would be nice if there were some additional static forum topics (instead of General) for key places to look/read/post on topics such as (GPON, ROS wish-lists, VPNs, 802.1q/Vlans, VRF, Walled-Garden/Captive-Portal/Rate-Limiting, how-other-ISPs-WISPs-Do-It, managing-large-quantities-of-Mikrotiks) which only contain these specific topics - instead of having a General where anything else often end up over and over again.
Just my two cents ...

North Idaho Tom Jones

Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:31 am

You could answer in one thread and link all others to it. Normally people would stay in there if they would like to reply so you could effectively join all the open topics to one which continues further. But never mind - just a sidenote.

planetcoop · Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:50 pm

Tom and crew,
I have setup a test CHR too. lets see what happens with results on this 10gbps uncapped CHR. I have limited the CHR to 50 concurrent sessions.

Host: btest.planetcoop.com
ipv4: 50.235.23.218
ipv6: 2001:559:8062::20
user and pass: btest

planetcoop · Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:00 pm

Tom, i didnt mean to hijack the forum post. i have seen a number of tests.

Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:19 pm

Tom, i didnt mean to hijack the forum post. i have seen a number of tests.

Hey - you are not hijacking anything ...
It's great that you are also offering a btest server also. (+1)

I think it benefits all Mikrotik admins , including you and myself.
You posts/messages are much welcome ...

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:57 pm

btest interface graphs:
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/

Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:17 am

btest interface graphs:
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/

Question - what are you using to collect the SNMP information on your CHR and making the web page public ?

Myself - I use Cacti on everything.

FYI - the "5 Minute Average" is almost not a real measurement. Let's say you have almost zero traffic for 4 minutes 40 seconds, then somebody hits the btest server at gig + speeds - know what I mean ...

North Idaho Tom Jones

dadoremix · Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:22 am

These graps are from mikrotik
Tools/graphing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:27 am

These graps are from mikrotik
Tools/graphing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

OK - I am gonna take a stab at it and see how to configure it on my btest server also ...
North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:30 am

These graps are from mikrotik
Tools/graphing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
OK - I am gonna take a stab at it and see how to configure it on my btest server also ...
North Idaho Tom Jones

Wow - that was easy

http://207.32.195.2/graphs/iface/ether1/

dadoremix · Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:52 am

Anyone have big speed/bw in eu?
Ping to your tom from me is 227ms from croatia
And net is 150/75Mbit
Max for buy is 500/500 by optik

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

planetcoop · Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:13 am

These graps are from mikrotik
Tools/graphing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
OK - I am gonna take a stab at it and see how to configure it on my btest server also ...
North Idaho Tom Jones
Wow - that was easy
http://207.32.195.2/graphs/iface/ether1/

I also use observium FREE and solarwinds Orion, not free. i also know you can share cacti graphs anonymously and its also FREE. I am trying to find out if observium can share anon links too.
Small Graph https://observium.planetcoop.com/graph. ... legend=yes
Large Graph https://observium.planetcoop.com/graph. ... width=1152

Chupaka · Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:42 pm

btest interface graphs:
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/

using 'read' group for 'btest' user is probably not a good idea. anybody can login to the router and see its configuration, even sensitive information

Boter · Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:01 pm

I've been looking for this for a long time. Thanks! I cant find icon to give the reputation. Just great. Now I can really test bandwidth without killing the cpu.

planetcoop · Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:45 pm

btest interface graphs:
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/
using 'read' group for 'btest' user is probably not a good idea. anybody can login to the router and see its configuration, even sensitive information

The good news is this is a dedicated chr for btest. The other side of it is to share info. Is there a way to restrict some of the more sensitive config parts while still allowing some read? In the mean time i have restricted the box btest user to a limited test group.

majestic · Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:13 pm

I just wanted to say, thank you for the access to your test servers. Its helped me dearly to tweak my QoS rules so I can now saturate the line without breakups.

planetcoop · Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:44 am

btest interface graphs:
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/
using 'read' group for 'btest' user is probably not a good idea. anybody can login to the router and see its configuration, even sensitive information
The good news is this is a dedicated chr for btest. The other side of it is to share info. Is there a way to restrict some of the more sensitive config parts while still allowing some read? In the mean time i have restricted the box btest user to a limited test group.

I have ironed out the permissions to "test" and "winbox". It looks like permissions have not been working most of the day but i was just able to reset them and complete several tests. Have fun testing and thank you for recommending the permissions review.

emikrotik · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:14 am

Hope ya don't mind if I ask ...

Would somebody happen to be running a CHR or 32-bit ROS on a Amazon Web Services (AWS) account ?

This is not a problem. I just happened to look at who was connected to the 207.32.195.2 btest server and spotted a connection from AWS.

My question for you, what kind of throughput and processing ability are you able to get with AWS ?

North Idaho Tom Jones

Hello,

I am running CHR 3.37.3 on a t2.medium instance on AWS Singapore 1b.

Download I am getting ~140Mbps
Upload I am getting 1Mbps

Is anyone else getting slow upload speeds from AWS Singapore?

When I run a cli bandwidth from a centos 7 box behind CHR I am only getting 1Mbps download/upload.

planetcoop · Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:51 am

Hope ya don't mind if I ask ...

Would somebody happen to be running a CHR or 32-bit ROS on a Amazon Web Services (AWS) account ?

This is not a problem. I just happened to look at who was connected to the 207.32.195.2 btest server and spotted a connection from AWS.

My question for you, what kind of throughput and processing ability are you able to get with AWS ?

North Idaho Tom Jones
Hello,

I am running CHR 3.37.3 on a t2.medium instance on AWS Singapore 1b.

Download I am getting ~140Mbps
Upload I am getting 1Mbps

Is anyone else getting slow upload speeds from AWS Singapore?

When I run a cli bandwidth from a centos 7 box behind CHR I am only getting 1Mbps download/upload.

Verify the license as a demo license is limited to 1mb/s and i cant remember what i had seen before, but i think it was a TX limit or a RX limit, not both. I have also run the CHR prior to production release like an RC and had odd btest numbers.

Chupaka · Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:03 pm

Is there a way to restrict some of the more sensitive config parts while still allowing some read?

looks like 'sensitive' permission is what you're looking for

uncheck it

planetcoop · Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:15 am

So, not sure who pulled this off, but a 9.9Gbps out bound test for several minutes? I realize the whole test was not that fast but happen to capture some data. I have also save a copy of the larger Observium graph for the time. I then though to capture the CPU load on the CCR 1036 that was performing the NAT from public to private IPv4 space in LAN. Notice in the year of 10Gbps internet I have not seen that kind of CPU load and sustained bandwidth usage.

btest-1.png

btest-2.png

btest-3.png

macsrwe · Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:23 pm

Thank you! Discovered my go-to speed-test servers were both out of service, just as I needed to use them to test and accept a speed upgrade cutover. Found yours in the nick of time. I need a good external speed-test server for about three minutes a half dozen times a year. Really, really hope you are able to keep offering this service without suffering abuse problems.

emikrotik · Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:42 am

Hope ya don't mind if I ask ...

Would somebody happen to be running a CHR or 32-bit ROS on a Amazon Web Services (AWS) account ?

This is not a problem. I just happened to look at who was connected to the 207.32.195.2 btest server and spotted a connection from AWS.

My question for you, what kind of throughput and processing ability are you able to get with AWS ?

North Idaho Tom Jones
Hello,

I am running CHR 3.37.3 on a t2.medium instance on AWS Singapore 1b.

Download I am getting ~140Mbps
Upload I am getting 1Mbps

Is anyone else getting slow upload speeds from AWS Singapore?

When I run a cli bandwidth from a centos 7 box behind CHR I am only getting 1Mbps download/upload.
Verify the license as a demo license is limited to 1mb/s and i cant remember what i had seen before, but i think it was a TX limit or a RX limit, not both. I have also run the CHR prior to production release like an RC and had odd btest numbers.

Thank you. This was the issue, after purchasing a P1 license I am now getting good transfer speeds.

On a t2.xlarge instance in Singapore I was getting ~370Mbps upload/download.
On a t2.nano instance in Singapore I am getting ~600Mbps download and ~190Mbps upload.

planetcoop · Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:50 pm

Here are some more stats:
Mikrotik Interface
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/
Mikrotik Processor
https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/cpu/
Observium Interface Daily
https://observium.planetcoop.com/graph. ... width=1152
Observium Processor Daily
https://observium.planetcoop.com/graph. ... width=1152

gotsprings · Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:12 pm

Just tried this for the first time. THANK YOU!!!

Numbers match speedtest.

I am in the DC metro area.

Your server tested from one of my APs.
65.6 Mbps/59.1 Mbps

My laptop against the Fios Server
65.48 / 57.88

Zorro · Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:39 am

ROS still not scale well over multi-core and many-core processors. (as does Linux they built ROS around)
orginal Tilera "Zero Overhead Linux" tailored by them for platform are built Enteriely differently with lot of stuff "in userspace", which Completely interfere with "minimal footprint/bloating" ROS approach and "ductape netfilter to kernel" -esque minimalism

to achieve similar scalability without moving to similar framework MT may adopt LWKT from DragonflyBSD and DFBSD kernel in future.
combined with Erlang-written code it allow achieve Impressive scalabilty in many-core, and in Distributed systems.

alexandrecorrea · Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:45 am

Nice service !!! btw, our CCR1036-8g-2S+ can only btest 2.5gbit/s (cpu running btest goes to 100%).

planetcoop · Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:51 am

Nice service !!! btw, our CCR1036-8g-2S+ can only btest 2.5gbit/s (cpu running btest goes to 100%).

Nice test, i see the traffic. What connection type did you test with, Comcast Gigabit-Pro? I ask due to the locations you listed in your profile.

My server is in Roseville, CA

alexandrecorrea · Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:59 am

Testing from Brazil (city: Sacramento, State: Minas Gerais)

17 hops away !!!

bbbbbbbbbb.png

router interface:

ccccccccccccc.png

Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:04 pm

Questions re the Mikrotik CCR1036-8g-2S and btest throughput

Q1: What kind of UDP bandwidth btest speed to you get when you test to 127.0.0.1 (your local loopback address) ?

Q2: Can the CCR1036-8g-2S be over clocked ? (Winbox -> System -> Routerboard -> Settings -> CPU Frequency)

If so, I have found the following results on all of my Mikrotik devices:
- #1; Overclocking to the second to fastest speed always works
- #2; Overclocking to the fastest speed -almost- always works (sometimes it is not stable and then I have to back down to the second to fastest speed available)
- #3; Overclocking always improves throughput. (to verify this - best to 127.0.0.1 at the default CPU speed - then btest again to 127.0.0.1 with the CPU overclocked).
- #4; Overclocking almost never increases Ethernet switched ports, but always increases Ethernet software bridged ports (and increases routing throughput).
- #5; I have about 100 Mikrotik APs (5 GHz running NV2) and throughput on all of them has increased some when the APs and/or/also Clients are overclocked.
- #6; I have a very busy, heavy traffic WDS link between two Mikrotik 922UAGS-5HPacD (AC only & HT chain 0-and-1 & NV2 & channel width 20/40/80) distance about 13 km & average link connect speed greater than 468 meg) , when both ends are overclocked to the maximum, it always runs much faster.
- - - If you test this , please post any btest throughput results. I am interested if others are also seeing a difference.

North Idaho Tom Jones

alexandrecorrea · Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Q1: 900Mbit/s (cpu core goes to 100%)

Q2: max 1200mhz

Questions re the Mikrotik CCR1036-8g-2S and btest throughput

Q1: What kind of UDP bandwidth btest speed to you get when you test to 127.0.0.1 (your local loopback address) ?

Q2: Can the CCR1036-8g-2S be over clocked ? (Winbox -> System -> Routerboard -> Settings -> CPU Frequency)

If so, I have found the following results on all of my Mikrotik devices:
- #1; Overclocking to the second to fastest speed always works
- #2; Overclocking to the fastest speed -almost- always works (sometimes it is not stable and then I have to back down to the second to fastest speed available)
- #3; Overclocking always improves throughput. (to verify this - best to 127.0.0.1 at the default CPU speed - then btest again to 127.0.0.1 with the CPU overclocked).
- #4; Overclocking almost never increases Ethernet switched ports, but always increases Ethernet software bridged ports (and increases routing throughput).
- #5; I have about 100 Mikrotik APs (5 GHz running NV2) and throughput on all of them has increased some when the APs and/or/also Clients are overclocked.
- #6; I have a very busy, heavy traffic WDS link between two Mikrotik 922UAGS-5HPacD (AC only & HT chain 0-and-1 & NV2 & channel width 20/40/80) distance about 13 km & average link connect speed greater than 468 meg) , when both ends are overclocked to the maximum, it always runs much faster.
- - - If you test this , please post any btest throughput results. I am interested if others are also seeing a difference.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:51 pm

FYI re: Q1

Slightly unrelated to a Mikrotik CCR1036-8g-2S

My Mikrotik CHR (public 207.32.195.2 btest server) - Virtual machine running on a very busy VMware ESXi server :

Just now tested: 18.2 Gbps

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:07 pm

I did ok on a busy server and 4 core CHR @ 16.8Gbps. From what i have seen the btest application is single core per session test. its worth mention that my topology is a ccr1036 with 2sfp+ on the edge running IPv4 nat and IPv6 L3. The CHR is behind that with a nat'ed IPv4 and Public IPv6 address.
You can see the individual CPU cores on the CCR:
https://observium.planetcoop.com/graph. ... width=1152
You can see the individual CPU cores on the CHR:
https://observium.planetcoop.com/graph. ... width=1152

Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:03 pm

The VMware ESXi box I run my CHR on is a SuperMicro has two 10-core Xeon processors with HyperThreading enabled ( 40 logical processors ).
My VMware Summery reports:
20 CPUs x 2.999 Ghz
Intel Xeon CPU E5-2690 V2 @ 3.00 GHz
Logical Processors: 40

My CHR has only one CPU and 2 Gig RAM and one VMXNET-3 network card allocated to it via my VmWare ESXi hyper-visor.

In my opinion - It's not only CPU clock speed that counts , it's also the amount of CPU cache built into the processor. CPU cache memory is way way way faster than external RAM on the motherboard. I am pretty confident that most of my active CHR stuff is probably running mostly in CPU cache most of the time.

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:02 pm

Really close in hardware

Chupaka · Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:43 am

Q1: 900Mbit/s (cpu core goes to 100%)

huh... my ccr-1036-2g-2s+ shows ~400 Mbps... ROS v6.33

whitbread · Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:59 pm

RB2011UiAS and RB951G show same results with ~380 Mbps

Funny thing is my RB951Ui shows ~470Mbps

dgnevans · Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:05 pm

1100ahx2 no firewall or queues 1050 mbps
ccr1009 with nat firewal mangle and queues 580 mbps
ccr1009 our the box with just fast track 1180 mbps

revellion · Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:28 pm

Great service!.

Tested a 1gbit Bidi link using your BTest server.

984mbit RX/TX with IPv6 traffic

.

Close to maximum of the gig link for the event it's gonna host in a few weeks..

Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:04 pm

Please use these public btest servers for brief periods of time.
When one person performs an extended 4-hour-long 400 meg btest, you are preventing everybody else from btesting at the same time because of Simple QOS rate-limiting settings.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:00 pm

I just upgraded my pubic btest server from 6.38.1 to 6.38.3
((( This is a virtual CHR hosted on a VMware ESXi physical server )))

My public btest server info:
TomjNorthIdaho btest server:
ipv4: 207.32.195.2
user and pass: btest
traffic graph of this btest server: http://207.32.195.2/graphs/iface/ether1/

Also - a second public btest server hosted by: planetcoop
planetcoop btest server:
Host: btest.planetcoop.com
ipv4: 50.235.23.218
ipv6: 2001:559:8062::20
user and pass: btest
traffic graph of this btest server: https://btest.planetcoop.com:10443/graphs/iface/ether1/

You are welcome and encouraged to post your btest throughput results - and please let us know where you are located:
Also; A Reputation +1 is always welcome.

Please - limit your btests to short periods of time. We are also using some of our bandwidth for our customers also.

Thank you

North Idaho Tom Jones

mikelindj · Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:57 am

VM RouterOS 6.38.1 on a Singtel Fibre Optic line in Singapore.
I'm support to get 300mbps up and down.

This is pretty close.

Although in another deployment where I've got 2m down 16m up, my users complain of 0.69mbps.
Any idea? Similar vm deployment.

Chupaka · Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:59 pm

Using 207.32.195.2
I cant seem to get more than 300-800Kbps on TCP Download?

Are others having an issue like this ?

upto gigabit w/o any problem

Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:20 pm

Using 207.32.195.2
I cant seem to get more than 300-800Kbps on TCP Download?

Are others having an issue like this ?

TCP and UDP are different types of Internet communications protocols.

UDP is a "Fire and Forget" protocol. The sending device will send a packet or packets and not wait for the intended remote receiver device to acknowledge that anything was received. Kinda like shooting a machine gun - it just sends.

TCP is a "Fire and wait for from the intended remote receiver device to return an acknowledgement (ACK) that a packet was received". After the ACK is received back by the original sending device, then the next TCP packet is sent - and the wait for answer routine begins again. Kinda like shooting a single bullet from a rifle and waiting for somebody to tell you that you hit the target before you shoot again.

UDP can be great for something like a movie stream where if something gets missed , then you just continue on sending the rest of the movie. Thus there is no real guarantee that what you sent was verified that it was received.

TCP can be great for something like pulling up a web page. The web server gets acknowledgement (ACKs) back from the workstation that the web page was properly received. Thus you get fewer communication mistakes.

Let's assume the following (below) are some data packets you want to send - which protocol would you want to use ?
- Packet 1 "Hello Robert , please "
- Packet 2 "don't "
- Packet 3 "call me on the phone"
If using UDP and "Packet 2" is dropped/lost, then the entire message could be understood as something totally different"
If using TCP, the entire communications session can be much slower because there is a wait time for everything.

Now in your scenario where "I cant seem to get more than 300-800Kbps on TCP Download" , the answer could be that you are many hops away (somewhere on the other side of the world), and waiting time for a round-trip answer takes an extended period of time. With UDP, there could be multiple packets going through the Internet that the sender sent and has not been received yet - because those multiple packets are still traveling through the Internet.

There are also some other possible causes of slow TCP traffic such as QOS, priority, network saturation, firewall behavior, symmetric or asymmetric paths through the Internet and others.

I hope I partially answered your question.
((( lol - if you absolutely need faster TCP bandwidth to 207.32.195.2, then mabey you need to move to North Idaho - lol )))

North Idaho Tom Jones

olkitu · Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:24 pm

Nice testing server!

CCR1072-1G-8S+ and 10Gbps Fiber link just we open from Finland. Maybe need get up also similar speedtest server here for testing

Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:42 am

olkitu

Re: ...Maybe need get up also similar speedtest server here for testing...

So you thinking about setting up a public btest server ?
I suspect it would be very useful to all Mikrotik admins - especially near your part of the world.

North Idaho Tom Jones

louisk · Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:28 pm

Hi there, I have been trying to test my CCR1009 connected to a 2Gbit fiber connection and I have tried both servers listed in this thread. I can consistently get 2GB's down (about 2.1-2.3 actually), but never really more than 1Gb up. Is there something I am doing wrong? I had the ISP come test, and they validated 2GB in each direction using their own tests so they claim the problem is in the CCR router.

Is there a way for me to reliably test 2GB in each direction? I am doing UDP testing.

olkitu · Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:30 am

olkitu

Re: ...Maybe need get up also similar speedtest server here for testing...

So you thinking about setting up a public btest server ?
I suspect it would be very useful to all Mikrotik admins - especially near your part of the world.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Yeah it's nice but let see when i have time to buy licence for 10G+ CHR and put that to VPS... We are ISP and Hosting Company so we have own peering what is 10G+ now. Also we are sell Mikrotik devices here Finland... Also need QOS rules because someone can use that make connection down... Also need server with 10G+ port, now mostly we have only 1G+...

This connection shared also to our customer also

olkitu · Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:32 am

Hi there, I have been trying to test my CCR1009 connected to a 2Gbit fiber connection and I have tried both servers listed in this thread. I can consistently get 2GB's down (about 2.1-2.3 actually), but never really more than 1Gb up. Is there something I am doing wrong? I had the ISP come test, and they validated 2GB in each direction using their own tests so they claim the problem is in the CCR router.

Is there a way for me to reliably test 2GB in each direction? I am doing UDP testing.

I think on this free open servers have upload limits... Also where are u? So example here Finland cannot get 10G+ because too long line and too much peering... Thats why need also speedtest server here so can test

- Both server is in US

planetcoop · Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:13 am

Hi there, I have been trying to test my CCR1009 connected to a 2Gbit fiber connection and I have tried both servers listed in this thread. I can consistently get 2GB's down (about 2.1-2.3 actually), but never really more than 1Gb up. Is there something I am doing wrong? I had the ISP come test, and they validated 2GB in each direction using their own tests so they claim the problem is in the CCR router.

Is there a way for me to reliably test 2GB in each direction? I am doing UDP testing.

Let me guess Comcast gigabit-pro? Either way where are you located and what kind of configuration do you have on the ccr? Like NAT or only layer-3? firewall rules or even regex operations?

Groov · Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:32 am

Ukraine Dnepr

Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:59 pm

3 Gig btest - wow, you definitely have high-speed Internet access.

North Idaho Tom Jones

npmarshall · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:38 am

Nevada - performed with a CCR1036-8G-2S+. Thank you very much.

kei888 · Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:39 am

Thank you so much for this.

More power!

God bless!

Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:45 am

O come on now ...

It's one thing to run a brief bandwidth test to the public btest server at 207.32.195.2
But it's another thing to run a sustained btest for hours or days non-stop.

Although I have the bandwidth, the simple queues on this btest server will drop down in throughput rates when you keep a sustained btest running. Thus if anybody else tries to btest to the same server, they will never be able to see their peak throughput (because you have the simple queue slowing down the btest server for the next person wanting to test.)

So with that, 216.218.22.xx and 94.142.173.xx , you are more than welcome to btest to 207.32.195.2 - however please make these btest tests brief so the next person can also btest at full speed.

Thank you

North Idaho Tom Jones

Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:15 am

Yo , planetcoop

Thought I would ask ...

Are you up for a btest server to btest server test ? (my 207.32.195.2 btest server to your 50.235.23.218 btest server) ?

If you have the bandwidth and available resources ...
Sometime tomorrow morning, I would like to run a 4 hours long btest ( both directions - UDP - with up and down speeds set to 1250M ).

I would like to stress test and hold both directions slightly faster than 1-gig. This way I can verify we are on 10-gig routers and switches end to end and that my normal ISP client traffic does not take any slowdown hits during this hours long test.

I was thinking about starting sometime after 8 AM PST tomorrow Friday. But I will wait for your permission btest first.

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:53 am

let it rip...

You can try to PM me or email me if you want, i wouldn't mind an offline conversation.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:13 pm

let it rip... You can try to PM me or email me if you want, i wouldn't mind an offline conversation.

The btest is running now

Say - shoot me an email with your contact info - and I will call you

My email address is < tjones -at- cdatribe-nsn -dot- gov

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:15 pm

you should have an email from me and i have confirmed the test @ 1.35Gbps?

confirmed.png

planetcoop · Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:04 pm

Previous testing

planetcoop · Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:06 pm

Tom, today's test

Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:41 pm

btest-4-hours.png

Here are the results of the 4-hour long Mikrotik btest test we just performed:

Public btest server 207.32.195.2 to public btest server 50.235.23.218

This 4-hour long extended btest through the Internet used the following settings:
Local Tx Speed 1250M (aka 1.25 Gig)
Remote Tx Speed 1250M (aka 1.25 Gig)

Amount of data transmitted was more than 2.7 TB -&- amount of data received was more than 2.7 TB

North Idaho Tom Jones

Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:07 pm

FYI: public btest server was just software upgraded moments ago.
As of April 28th, 2017 1PM PST, the Mikrotik CHR-P10 is now running CHR-ROS version v6.39

by the way - - - If there are any other Mikrotik admins willing to run a public btest server , please post and let us know. If you do, we can offer some advice for how to limit the maximum btest bandwidth so that your networks continue running correctly during a btest session.

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:31 pm

FYI: public btest server was just software upgraded moments ago.
As of April 28th, 2017 1PM PST, the Mikrotik CHR-P10 is now running CHR-ROS version v6.39

by the way - - - If there are any other Mikrotik admins willing to run a public btest server , please post and let us know. If you do, we can offer some advice for how to limit the maximum btest bandwidth so that your networks continue running correctly during a btest session.

North Idaho Tom Jones

I update my edge and btest at 5:30AM PST in preparation for today's btests. So far no issues.

planetcoop · Wed May 03, 2017 5:24 pm

BUMPED to 6.39.1 current.

Wed May 03, 2017 6:08 pm

BUMPED to 6.39.1 current.

wombat · Fri May 12, 2017 7:18 pm

Hi,

Why doesn't work only UDP receive direction? All the time only "0 bps" with Both or TCP no problem.

Sob · Fri May 12, 2017 7:36 pm

Firewall, most likely. UDP packets from BTest server look like unsolicited traffic.

planetcoop · Fri May 12, 2017 9:12 pm

I have posted some high speed feedback for new device considerations in the other post, just mentioning it here to also check out. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=121533

Fri May 12, 2017 9:32 pm

Re: ... Firewall, most likely. UDP packets from BTest server look like unsolicited traffic. ...

I agree

The 207.32.195.2 btest server does not have any firewall rules.
The 207.32.195.2 btest server is not behind another firewall.
The 207.32.195.2 btest server is directly connected to the Internet.

If somebody is having problems with a TCP and/or UDP btest in either or both directions, then you may want to examine your firewall rules.

North Idaho Tom Jones

wombat · Fri May 12, 2017 10:54 pm

Ok, i have default firewall. When i disable drop rule. So it works good. Have I bad firewall rules?

planetcoop · Fri May 12, 2017 11:08 pm

no, typically you do not want the internet or random networks hitting the input chain. you would have to allow for this with a rule additional to default rules but you can also enable/disable rules based on testing or other requirements.

As Tom said in his previous post about the btest, mine is not as accessible due to ipv4 limitations i have. Mine is NAT4 behind an address on a ccr1036 and is also available on ipv6 directly routed through the ccr1036. In my own testing the NATipv4 configuration is not a limitation in testing and has a port range to support testing.

Fri May 12, 2017 11:19 pm

Most probably it is better than nothing. Just add accepting rule for the traffic from the ip addresses you want to get packets from.

k6ccc · Tue May 30, 2017 9:48 pm

First of all, thanks guys for offering these bandwidth tests.
I'm trying to set this up as a script with the output to a file which will then be E-Mailed to me. The idea being that once a day, the router will perform the test. If I see substantial changes in performance, I can investigate. For testing this, I am using the following commands:
[admin@RB750Gr3 #2] /tool> bandwidth-test 50.235.23.208 direction=both duration=15s random-data=yes user=btest password=btest

This produces a correct output after 15 seconds:
status: done testing
duration: 16s
tx-current: 12.1Mbps
tx-10-second-average: 12.1Mbps
tx-total-average: 11.8Mbps
rx-current: 121.2Mbps
rx-10-second-average: 95.4Mbps
rx-total-average: 68.8Mbps
lost-packets: 0
random-data: yes
direction: both
tx-size: 1500
rx-size: 1500

Then I change the command to:
[admin@RB750Gr3 #2] /tool> bandwidth-test 50.235.23.208 direction=both duration=15s random-data=yes user=btest password=btest file="BW_test.txt"

This produces the file BW_test.txt as expected, but not with the expected data. All I get in the output file is:
# may/30/2017 11:28:43 by RouterOS 6.39.1
# software id = [redacted]
#
status: connecting
duration: 0s
tx-current: 0bps
tx-10-second-average: 0bps
tx-total-average: 0bps
rx-current: 0bps
rx-10-second-average: 0bps
rx-total-average: 0bps
lost-packets: 0
random-data: yes
direction: both
tx-size: 1500
rx-size: 1500

I never get any results after connecting.

Any suggestions about what I'm missing???

BTW, this is from the Los Angeles area on my newly installed Spectrum cable based connection (massive improvement over my DSL!)

Thanks

k6ccc · Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:14 pm

BTW, ignore my typo of the IP address that I'm using for my testing. I really am using 50.235.23.218

planetcoop · Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:23 pm

I have updated my CHR btest 50.235.23.218 to 6.39.2: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=122322

Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:22 pm

I have updated my CHR btest 207.32.195.2 to 6.39.2

Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:29 pm

btest002.png

btest001.png

FYI - below is a cacti graph of my 207.32.195.2 btest server

planetcoop · Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:44 pm

Anyone notice the pickup in testing between both servers and the sustained testing?

bleeding.png

Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:43 am

Anyone notice the pickup in testing between both servers and the sustained testing?
bleeding.png

On the 207.32.195.2 btest server, I have been seeing some btest sessions that appear to not quit after a few minutes.
I have seen some btest sessions that will go 24 hours non-stop.

Hay everybody - please do not run sustained btest tests. These btest servers are intended for brief btest testing.
When one person holds a continued non-stop btest, then other Mikrotik admins can get skewed results to the same btest server.

Example - on my 207.32.195.2 btest server, I have a simple-queue that will auto drop the bandwidth after a minute or so to around 500 meg in both directions.
When somebody holds an extended btest test, the simple-queue kicks in. Then when a 2nd Mikrotik admin starts a btest, then both admins are sharing a 500 meg max throughput session.
I often see 5 btest tests at the same time - this means that when one person has triggered the simple-queue (because of a lengthy btest) , then all 5 Mikrotik admins can only get a slice to the 500 meg (due to simple-queue).
When nobody in btesting, the simple-queue clears itself and the first person to execute a btest test can actually hit 2-gig and faster for a minute-or-so until the simple-queue kicks in again.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:49 am

Re - the sustained btest Mikrotik tests

We know who the extended non-stop btest testers are. We just use our Winbox and go to Tools - BTest server - Sessions (there is your IP testing to our btest server)

Please play nice and fair for other btest testers and please do not hold extended non-stop btest tests.

If you have a special need, we can and are willing to set-up something special for temporary extended testing.

North Idaho Tom Jones

Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:56 am

Re - the sustained btest Mikrotik tests

Yo Mikrotk ROS programmers ... Is there a possibility of a newer ROS to have a new option in the btest server ?
[ ] Enabled
[ ] Authenticate
Allocate UDP Ports from: [ 2000 ]
Max Sessions: [ 100 ]
Timeout per btest session in seconds [ 300 ]

Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:23 am

I really did not want to do this - but I had a customer trying to use the btest server
So I had to simple-queue a continuous non-stop btest from a remote location

138-117-109-222.png

planetcoop · Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:17 am

Here is the raw filter i am thinking of. ID the user source address with a timer of 5 minutes and then block all traffic for 2 hours until the next time.

raw filters.png

planetcoop · Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:19 am

I have enabled my rules.

raw filters tested.png

Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:21 am

Here is the raw filter i am thinking of. ID the user source address with a timer of 5 minutes and then block all traffic for 2 hours until the next time.
raw filters.png

Looks interesting

Does it block only the single IP address for 2 hours and allow everybody else to still test ?

I am gonna have to take a look at this !

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:25 am

yes, source ip addresses

/ip firewall raw
add action=accept chain=prerouting comment="testers accepted" src-address-list=tester
add action=drop chain=prerouting comment="previous testers drop" src-address-list=previous
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=tester address-list-timeout=5m chain=prerouting comment="add to tester" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=tcp
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=tester address-list-timeout=5m chain=prerouting comment="add to tester" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=udp
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=previous address-list-timeout=2h chain=prerouting comment="add to previous" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=tcp
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=previous address-list-timeout=2h chain=prerouting comment="add to previous" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=udp

raw filters results.png

Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:28 am

yes, sent you an email if you want to call

/ip firewall raw
add action=accept chain=prerouting comment="testers accepted" src-address-list=tester
add action=drop chain=prerouting comment="previous testers drop" src-address-list=previous
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=tester address-list-timeout=5m chain=prerouting comment="add to tester" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=tcp
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=tester address-list-timeout=5m chain=prerouting comment="add to tester" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=udp
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=previous address-list-timeout=2h chain=prerouting comment="add to previous" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=tcp
add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=previous address-list-timeout=2h chain=prerouting comment="add to previous" dst-port=2000-2100 protocol=udp

It's almost the end of my work day and I am getting tired...
Do you need to enter a specific IP address , or is it automatic ?

planetcoop · Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:32 am

Post wars, its automagic and RAW is wirespeed

Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:43 am

Post wars, its automagic and RAW is wirespeed

I am heading home
Tomorrow I will make a backup and give it a try.

With that - a note to all Mikrotik admins who btest to the 207.32.195.2 server , I am going to be testing the above changes tomorrow.
I will post a final config and then ask for user input on how well it is performing.

North Idaho Tom Jones

planetcoop · Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:35 am

Forum and friends. I have just banned any address related to AS14868 and any related AS as i was just hit with a massive wave of btests.
https://ipinfo.io/AS14868

This isnt a business btest server, but rather a CHR in my home. It is free to use and conduct random tests. Please do not use my personal network for business deployments or use without my expressed permission.

abuse.png

planetcoop · Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:46 am

Well, this is getting fun. I have now blocked 176.0.0.0-201.0.0.0. Sorry for the inconvenience to the rest of my fellow testers.

pukkita · Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:05 am

Hello guys!

It's sad how some people spoils others good will and hard work

I helped another forum user to apply queues to bw-test.

Posting here as this is the most dense-packed thread on bw-test.