Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #268811 > unrolled thread

Re: using mbuffer: what am i doing wrong?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: using mbuffer: what am i doing wrong? Marc SCHAEFER <schaefer@alphanet.ch> - 2024-04-11 15:50 +0200
    Re: SOLVED (was: Re: using mbuffer: what am i doing wrong?) Marc SCHAEFER <schaefer@alphanet.ch> - 2024-04-14 18:10 +0200

#268811 — Re: using mbuffer: what am i doing wrong?

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:13:01PM +0200, DdB wrote:
> from my research, the abbreviated takeaway is:

I never used mbuffer, I use buffer combined with netcat-traditional:

   # receiver (TCP server on port 8000)
   nc -l -p 8000 | buffer -S 1048576 -s 32768 -o /dev/null

   # sender (TCP client on ephemeral port)
   nc localhost 8000 < /dev/zero

I just installed mbuffer:

   mbuffer -I 8000 -o /dev/null

   mbuffer -i /dev/zero -O 127.0.0.1:8000

and it also works.

> > sudo netstat | grep $port
> to return nothing

yes, but those work:

   netstat -a | grep :8000

   netstat --listen | grep :8000

Maybe it's just that by default netstat only shows sockets in the
ESTABLISHED state and not in the LISTEN state.

> What am i doing wrong?

If there is a timeout, I would suggest to investigate firewalls
on the server side.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#268834 — Re: SOLVED (was: Re: using mbuffer: what am i doing wrong?)

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 04:14:33PM +0200, DdB wrote:
> - the resulting transfer is way faster than say ... ssh.

AFAIK ssh is mono-threaded (like OpenVPN, unless you use the kernel
module).  wireguard is multi-threaded.

The symptom will be one CPU ("core") at 100% and the rest mostly
idle.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web