Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #11043

closed

pfSense GUI for iperf3 / perf

Added by Sergei Shablovsky over 3 years ago. Updated about 3 years ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
iperf
Target version:
-
Start date:
11/08/2020
Due date:
12/31/2020
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:

Description

Hi pfSense DevTeam !
We appreciate You work!

Please add the GUI for iperf3 / perf as pfSense-native package.

Because
1. This is the main tool for uplink bandwidth measuring (local area, same continent, overseas) for net admins;
2. A lot of users would be happy, because the most asking question to support and on a pfSense users forum are looks like "_something wrong with my bandwidth, please help_"

Features:
- selecting perf3 or perf
- Select Localization and Geographic region (in terms of iperf3 official devteam web https://iperf.fr/iperf-servers.php, and useful web https://iperf.cc

Thank You so much!

P.S. I am able to transform https://iperf.cc into GUI, if this may help.

Actions #1

Updated by Jim Pingle over 3 years ago

  • Project changed from pfSense to pfSense Packages
  • Category set to iperf
  • Status changed from New to Rejected

There is already a package for iperf3 with a GUI.

Actions #2

Updated by Sergei Shablovsky over 3 years ago

Jim Pingle wrote:

There is already a package for iperf3 with a GUI.

But not useful: no quick servers selection (but the list of servers stable for a months, eve years..)

Actions #3

Updated by Jim Pingle over 3 years ago

Maintaining a list of public servers is outside the scope of the package, and encouraging users to use a high-throughput package like this against a list of public servers is asking for trouble. Also see my answer on the other issue about relying on tests from the firewall itself (it's a bad practice).

Actions #4

Updated by Sergei Shablovsky about 3 years ago

Jim Pingle wrote:

Maintaining a list of public servers is outside the scope of the package, and encouraging users to use a high-throughput package like this against a list of public servers is asking for trouble. Also see my answer on the other issue about relying on tests from the firewall itself (it's a bad practice).

1. Maintaining the list of iperf/iperf3 servers is not a huge work, for last 4 YEARS list are the same +- 2 server
According to official iperf/iperf3 web https://iperf.fr/iperf-servers.php there are
2 servers - Americas
2 servers - Asia
8 servers - Europe

2. Pushing the fw adminstrator each time to go to official iperf/iperf3 web, then copy/past server address, then choose additional params - BAD USER EXPERIENCE. (Errors/misstype is server address and setting possible, extra time spending, etc...)
We need less typing and more thinking.

3. According "against a list of public servers is asking for trouble": from where sysadmins get the name of public servers ? Right, from the Google -> the same official iperf/iperf3 web https://iperf.fr/iperf-servers.php.
Another one but reasonable and important thing - all public iperf/iperf3 servers prepared on loading from many requests from the world. (I contact with some admins on that servers, they confirm about HUGE gap to overload.
So, absent of official servers list in pfSense iperf page - just nothing about making extra loading on the servers from iperf/iperf3 official list.

Thank You!

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF