Bandwidth meter tests¶
In this page some sample result of the bw meter executions are reported. In particular the results are compared with iperf and an HTTP download to see how much the obtained throughput varies in the different cases.
All the experiments have been executed between two nodes, directly connecteed via wireless ad-hoc. Different devices have been used for the tests. Major details about this are given later.
The scenarios where the tests have been executed are the following:
- bw meter from node to node
- iperf from node to node. Iperf was running on the nodes themselves
- HTTP download from an host behind the first node node to another one behind the second node. In particular:
- host is connected to the Ethernet port of the node
- Ethernet interface is bridged with the batman-adv soft interface
Test in scenarios 1 and 2 were executed alternatively (one bw meter, one iperf, one bw meter, one iperf, ...) while the HTTP downloads have been executed all together later on.
note: results given by the http download seem to be wrong. There is probably something wrong in the setup which is slowing everything down.
Environment 1¶
One OM2P-HS and one OM2P-LC nodes using ath9k based wifi devices connected in ad-hoc mode on 2.4GHz.
The HS is 802.11n (2x2) capable
The LC is 802.11n (1x1) capable
Results¶
The table below shows the results in all the 3 scenarios.
All the results are expressed in Mbps.
HS -> LC
| bw_meter | iperf | http |
|---|---|---|
| 30.30 | 27.4 | 16.80 |
| 30.02 | 27.4 | 16.80 |
| 29.98 | 26.4 | 16.96 |
| 30.69 | 26.8 | 16.96 |
| 20.65 | 26.5 | 18.00 |
| 30.26 | 26.7 | 17.28 |
| 31.87 | 25.7 | 16.88 |
| 19.35 | 26.2 | 16.32 |
| 21.53 | 25.7 | 16.64 |
| 30.78 | 26.2 | 16.56 |
| 22.34 | 26.1 | 15.36 |
| 31.81 | 26.3 | 16.16 |
| 24.46 | 26.2 | 15.76 |
| 23.02 | 27.0 | 16.40 |
| 30.52 | 29.5 | 15.92 |
| 30.48 | 33.8 | 16.24 |
| 30.43 | 34.0 | 16.56 |
| 20.56 | 34.1 | 16.48 |
| 23.90 | 33.5 | 16.64 |
| 22.95 | 33.9 | 17.04 |
LC -> HS
| bw_meter | iperf | http |
|---|---|---|
| 30.30 | 26.6 | 14.48 |
| 30.46 | 26.6 | 14.40 |
| 20.06 | 26.7 | 14.24 |
| 21.98 | 26.3 | 14.40 |
| 22.32 | 25.1 | 14.24 |
| 30.90 | 25.0 | 14.48 |
| 32.12 | 25.7 | 14.48 |
| 21.72 | 26.5 | 14.48 |
| 21.30 | 26.4 | 14.56 |
| 31.02 | 25.4 | 14.64 |
| 23.50 | 26.5 | 14.32 |
| 22.54 | 26.1 | 14.48 |
| 25.14 | 26.2 | 14.24 |
| 20.89 | 25.0 | 14.40 |
| 28.61 | 25.3 | 14.48 |
| 28.30 | 25.7 | 14.32 |
| 23.25 | 26.8 | 14.64 |
| 29.35 | 26.0 | 14.32 |
| 29.95 | 25.6 | 14.48 |
| 29.16 | 26.4 | 14.40 |
Environment 2¶
two OM5P node using ath9k based wifi devices connected in ad-hoc mode on 5GHz using HT40+ (channel 40MHz wide).
The OM5P is 802.11n (2x2) capable
Results¶
The table below shows the results in all the 3 scenarios.
All the results are expressed in Mbps.
For this environment, one more scenario has been tested: iperf host to host, meaning that an iperf session has been launched between the two hosts connected to the nodes (same configuration as the HTTP download scenario).
OM5P -> OM5P
| bw_meter | iperf | http | iperf/h2h |
|---|---|---|---|
| 135.52 | 36.2 | 32.96 | 83.0 |
| 144.46 | 36.6 | 33.28 | 80.6 |
| 145.53 | 36.4 | 30.64 | 81.1 |
| 162.07 | 36.5 | 28.96 | 82.5 |
| 148.56 | 36.6 | 30.56 | 83.3 |
| 156.16 | 36.5 | 29.52 | 80.4 |
| 141.38 | 36.6 | 29.84 | 82.5 |
| 161.64 | 36.6 | 29.36 | 81.9 |
| 143.59 | 36.4 | 33.04 | 83.6 |
| 163.20 | 36.5 | 29.20 | 83.8 |
| 162.87 | 36.7 | 31.52 | 81.9 |
| 163.94 | 36.6 | 30.16 | 80.1 |
| 162.24 | 36.6 | 31.04 | 82.4 |
| 143.91 | 36.5 | 30.80 | 80.6 |
| 160.92 | 36.6 | 31.04 | 81.6 |
| 148.86 | 36.6 | 31.12 | 84.2 |
| 164.32 | 36.4 | 28.88 | 81.5 |
| 142.23 | 36.4 | 27.92 | 81.6 |
| 154.22 | 36.4 | 29.84 | 80.9 |
| 153.94 | 36.4 | 30.64 | 82.4 |