Hubbry Logo
Measuring network throughputMeasuring network throughputMain
Open search
Measuring network throughput
Community hub
Measuring network throughput
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Measuring network throughput
Measuring network throughput
Measuring network throughput
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Throughput of a network can be measured using various tools available on different platforms. This page explains the theory behind what these tools set out to measure and the issues regarding these measurements.

Reasons for measuring throughput in networks. People are often concerned about measuring the maximum data throughput in bits per second of a communications link or network access. A typical method of performing a measurement is to transfer a 'large' file from one system to another system and measure the time required to complete the transfer or copy of the file. The throughput is then calculated by dividing the file size by the time to get the throughput in megabits, kilobits, or bits per second.

Unfortunately, the results of such an exercise will often result in the goodput, which is less than the maximum theoretical data throughput, leading to people believing that their communications link is not operating correctly. In fact, there are many overheads accounted for in throughput in addition to transmission overheads, including latency, TCP Receive Window size and system limitations, which means the calculated goodput does not reflect the maximum achievable throughput.[1]

Theory: Short summary

[edit]

The Maximum bandwidth can be calculated as follows:

where RWIN is the TCP Receive Window and RTT is the round-trip time for the path. The Max TCP Window size in the absence of TCP window scale option is 65,535 bytes. Example: Max Bandwidth = 65535 bytes / 0.220 s = 297886.36 B/s × 8 = 2.383 Mbit/s. Over a single TCP connection between those endpoints, the tested bandwidth will be restricted to 2.376 Mbit/s even if the contracted bandwidth is greater.

Bandwidth test software

[edit]

Bandwidth test software is used to determine the maximum bandwidth of a network or internet connection. It is typically undertaken by attempting to download or upload the maximum amount of data in a certain period of time, or a certain amount of data in the minimum amount of time. For this reason, Bandwidth tests can delay internet transmissions through the internet connection as they are undertaken, and can cause inflated data charges.

Nomenclature

[edit]
Bit rates (data-rate units)
Name Symbol Multiple
bit per second bit/s 1 1
Metric prefixes (SI)
kilobit per second kbit/s 103 10001
megabit per second Mbit/s 106 10002
gigabit per second Gbit/s 109 10003
terabit per second Tbit/s 1012 10004
Binary prefixes (IEC 80000-13)
kibibit per second Kibit/s 210 10241
mebibit per second Mibit/s 220 10242
gibibit per second Gibit/s 230 10243
tebibit per second Tibit/s 240 10244
Main article: Orders of magnitude (data)

The throughput of communications links is measured in bits per second (bit/s), kilobits per second (kbit/s), megabits per second (Mbit/s) and gigabits per second (Gbit/s). In this application, kilo, mega and giga are the standard SI prefixes indicating multiplication by 1000 (kilo), 1000000 (mega), and 1000000000 (giga).

File sizes are typically measured in bytes — kilobytes, megabytes, and gigabytes being usual, where a byte is eight bits. In modern textbooks one kilobyte is defined as 1000 byte, one megabyte as 1000000 byte, etc., in accordance with the 1998 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard. However, the convention adopted by Windows systems is to define 1 kilobyte is as 1024 (or 210) bytes, which is equal to 1 kibibyte. Similarly, a file size of 1 megabyte is 1024 × 1024 byte, equal to 1 mebibyte, and 1 gigabyte is 1024 × 1024 × 1024 byte = 1 gibibyte.

Confusing and inconsistent use of suffixes

[edit]

It is usual for people to abbreviate commonly used expressions. For file sizes, it is usual for someone to say that they have a 64 k file (meaning 64 kilobytes), or a 100 meg file (meaning 100 megabytes). When talking about circuit bit rates, people will interchangeably use the terms throughput, bandwidth and speed, and refer to a circuit as being a 64 k circuit, or a 2 meg circuit — meaning 64 kbit/s or 2 Mbit/s (see also the List of connection bandwidths). However, a 64 k circuit will not transmit a 64 k file in one second. This may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with telecommunications and computing, so misunderstandings sometimes arise. In actuality, a 64 kilobyte file is 64 × 1024 × 8 bits in size and the 64 k circuit will transmit bits at a rate of 64 × 1000 bit/s, so the amount of time taken to transmit a 64 kilobyte file over the 64 k circuit will be at least (64 × 1024 × 8) / (64 × 1000) seconds, which works out to be 8.192 seconds.

Compression

[edit]

Some equipment can improve matters by compressing the data as it is sent. This is a feature of most analog modems and of several popular operating systems. If the 64 k file can be shrunk by compression, the time taken to transmit can be reduced. This can be done invisibly to the user, so a highly compressible file may be transmitted considerably faster than expected. As this invisible compression cannot easily be disabled, it therefore follows that when measuring throughput by using files and timing the time to transmit, one should use files that cannot be compressed. Typically, this is done using a file of random data, which becomes harder to compress the closer to truly random it is.

Assuming your data cannot be compressed, the 8.192 seconds to transmit a 64-kilobyte file over a 64-kilobit/s communications link is a theoretical minimum time that will not be achieved in practice. This is due to the effect of overheads, which are used to format the data in an agreed manner so that both ends of a connection have a consistent view of the data.

There are at least two issues that aren't immediately obvious for transmitting compressed files:

  1. The throughput of the network itself isn't improved by compression. From the end-to-end (server to client) perspective compression does improve throughput. That's because information content for the same amount of transmission is increased through compression of files.
  2. Compressing files at the server and client takes more processor resources at both the ends. The server has to use its processor to compress the files, if they aren't already done. The client has to decompress the files upon receipt. This can be considered an expense (for the server and client) for the benefit of increased end to end throughput(although the throughput hasn't changed for the network itself.)[2]

Overheads and data formats

[edit]

[3]

A common communications link used by many people is the asynchronous start-stop, or just asynchronous, serial link. If you have an external modem attached to your home or office computer, the chances are that the connection is over an asynchronous serial connection. Its advantage is that it is simple — it can be implemented using only three wires: Send, Receive and Signal Ground (or Signal Common). In an RS-232 interface, an idle connection has a continuous negative voltage applied. A zero bit is represented as a positive voltage difference with respect to the Signal Ground and a one bit is a negative voltage with respect to signal ground, thus indistinguishable from the idle state. This means you need to know when a one bit starts to distinguish it from idle. This is done by agreeing in advance how fast data will be transmitted over a link, then using a start bit to signal the start of a byte — this start bit will be a zero bit. Stop bits are one bits i.e., negative voltage.

Actually, more things will have been agreed in advance — the speed of bit transmission, the number of bits per character, the parity and the number of stop bits (signifying the end of a character). So a designation of 9600-8-E-2 would be 9600 bits per second, with eight bits per character, even parity and two stop bits.

A common set-up of an asynchronous serial connection would be 9600-8-N-1 (9600 bit/s, 8 bits per character, no parity and 1 stop bit) - a total of 10 bits transmitted to send one 8-bit character (one start bit, the 8 bits making up the byte transmitted and one stop bit). This is an overhead of 20%, so a 9600 bit/s asynchronous serial link will not transmit data at 9600/8 bytes per second (1200 byte/s) but actually, in this case, 9600/10 bytes per second (960 byte/s), which is considerably slower than expected.

It can get worse. If parity is specified and we use 2 stop bits, the overhead for carrying one 8-bit character is 4 bits (one start bit, one parity bit and two stop bits) - or 50%. In this case a 9600 bit/s connection will carry 9600/12 byte/s (800 byte/s). Asynchronous serial interfaces commonly will support bit transmission speeds of up to 230.4 kbit/s. If it is set up to have no parity and one stop bit, this means the byte transmission rate is 23.04kbyte/s.

The advantage of the asynchronous serial connection is its simplicity. One disadvantage is its low efficiency in carrying data. This can be overcome by using a synchronous interface. In this type of interface, a clock signal is added on a separate wire, and the bits are transmitted in synchrony with the clock — the interface no longer has to look for the start and stop bits of each individual character — however, it is necessary to have a mechanism to ensure the sending and receiving clocks are kept in synchrony, so data is divided up into frames of multiple characters separated by known delimiters. There are three common coding schemes for framed communications — HDLC, PPP, and Ethernet

HDLC

[edit]

When using HDLC, rather than each byte having a start, optional parity, and one or two stop bits, the bytes are gathered together into a frame. The start and end of the frame are signalled by the 'flag', and error detection is carried out by the frame check sequence. If the frame has a maximum-sized address of 32 bits, a maximum-sized control part of 16 bits and a maximum-sized frame check sequence of 16 bits, the overhead per frame could be as high as 64 bits. If each frame carried but a single byte, the data throughput efficiency would be extremely low. However, the bytes are normally gathered together, so that even with a maximal overhead of 64 bits, frames carrying more than 24 bytes are more efficient than asynchronous serial connections. As frames can vary in size because they can have different numbers of bytes being carried as data, this means the overhead of an HDLC connection is not fixed.[4]

PPP

[edit]

The point-to-point protocol (PPP) is defined by the Internet Request For Comment documents RFC 1570, RFC 1661 and RFC 1662. With respect to the framing of packets, PPP is quite similar to HDLC, but supports both bit-oriented as well as byte-oriented ("octet-stuffed") methods of delimiting frames while maintaining data transparency.[5]

Ethernet

[edit]

Ethernet is a "local area network" (LAN) technology, which is also framed. The way the frame is electrically defined on a connection between two systems is different from the typically wide-area networking technology that uses HDLC or PPP implemented, but these details are not important for throughput calculations. Ethernet is a shared medium, so that it is not guaranteed that only the two systems that are transferring a file between themselves will have exclusive access to the connection. If several systems are attempting to communicate simultaneously, the throughput between any pair can be substantially lower than the nominal bandwidth available.[6]

Other low-level protocols

[edit]

Dedicated point-to-point links are not the only option for many connections between systems. Frame Relay, ATM, and MPLS based services can also be used. When calculating or estimating data throughputs, the details of the frame/cell/packet format and the technology's detailed implementation need to be understood.[7]

Frame relay

[edit]

Frame Relay uses a modified HDLC format to define the frame format that carries data.[8]

Asynchronous Transfer Mode]

[edit]

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) uses a radically different method of carrying data. Rather than using variable-length frames or packets, data is carried in fixed size cells. Each cell is 53 bytes long, with the first 5 bytes defined as the header, and the following 48 bytes as payload. Data networking commonly requires packets of data that are larger than 48 bytes, so there is a defined adaptation process that specifies how larger packets of data should be divided up in a standard manner to be carried by the smaller cells. This process varies according to the data carried, so in ATM nomenclature, there are different ATM Adaptation Layers. The process defined for most data is named ATM Adaptation Layer No. 5 or AAL5.

Understanding throughput on ATM links requires a knowledge of which ATM adaptation layer has been used for the data being carried.[9]

MPLS

[edit]

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) adds a standard tag or header known as a 'label' to existing packets of data. In certain situations it is possible to use MPLS in a 'stacked' manner, so that labels are added to packets that have already been labelled. Connections between MPLS systems can also be 'native', with no underlying transport protocol, or MPLS labelled packets can be carried inside frame relay or HDLC packets as payloads. Correct throughput calculations need to take such configurations into account. For example, a data packet could have two MPLS labels attached via 'label-stacking', then be placed as payload inside an HDLC frame. This generates more overhead that has to be taken into account that a single MPLS label attached to a packet which is then sent 'natively', with no underlying protocol to a receiving system.[10]

Higher-level protocols

[edit]

Few systems transfer files and data by simply copying the contents of the file into the 'Data' field of HDLC or PPP frames — another protocol layer is used to format the data inside the 'Data' field of the HDLC or PPP frame. The most commonly used such protocol is Internet Protocol (IP), defined by RFC 791. This imposes its own overheads.

Again, few systems simply copy the contents of files into IP packets, but use yet another protocol that manages the connection between two systems — TCP (Transmission Control Protocol), defined by RFC 1812. This adds its own overhead.

Finally, a final protocol layer manages the actual data transfer process. A commonly used protocol for this is the File Transfer Protocol.[11]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Measuring network throughput

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Network throughput measurement refers to the process of quantifying the actual rate at which data is successfully transmitted from one point to another across a communication network, typically expressed in units such as bits per second (bps), megabits per second (Mbps), or gigabits per second (Gbps). This metric captures the effective data transfer performance under real operating conditions, distinguishing it from theoretical bandwidth, which represents the maximum possible capacity of the network link or path without accounting for inefficiencies like protocol overhead, retransmissions, or congestion. Accurate measurement is essential for network diagnostics, , optimization, and ensuring in applications ranging from file transfers to real-time streaming. Key aspects of network throughput include three primary bandwidth-related metrics: capacity, defined as the maximum data rate sustainable on the narrowest link (bottleneck) in the path using maximum transmission unit (MTU)-sized packets; available bandwidth, the unused portion of capacity over a specific time interval, varying with traffic load; and bulk transfer capacity (BTC), the highest achievable throughput for a single TCP bulk transfer, influenced by round-trip time (RTT), window size, and loss rates. These metrics are interrelated, with throughput often limited by the minimum capacity along the path or by competing traffic reducing available bandwidth. Factors such as latency, jitter, packet loss, and buffer delays further degrade throughput from its theoretical maximum, necessitating standardized testing to isolate and quantify these effects. Measurement techniques broadly fall into active and passive categories. Active methods involve injecting test traffic into the network to probe performance, such as using packet trains or streams to estimate capacity via dispersion-based approaches (e.g., packet pair or train techniques that analyze inter-packet spacing at the receiver) or variable packet size methods that correlate packet length with RTT to identify per-hop bottlenecks. Passive techniques monitor existing traffic using protocol analyzers like or to capture and analyze data rates without introducing additional load. For TCP-specific throughput, which dominates much of , the IETF recommends a framework involving baseline RTT and bottleneck bandwidth measurements, followed by sustained TCP transfers with socket buffers tuned to at least the bandwidth-delay product (BDP = RTT × bottleneck bandwidth / 8). Common tools for active measurement include Iperf, a widely used open-source utility that generates TCP or UDP traffic between endpoints to report achieved throughput, loss, and , configurable for unidirectional or bidirectional tests exceeding 30 seconds to reach equilibrium. Other tools like Pathload and PathChirp estimate available bandwidth through self-induced congestion via rate-varying packet streams, while Pathrate uses dispersion for capacity. For comprehensive evaluation, tests should be conducted during off-peak periods, with multiple runs to account for variability, and integrated with management protocols like SNMP for ongoing monitoring.

Core Concepts

Definition and Importance

Network throughput refers to the rate at which data is successfully delivered over a in a network, typically measured in bits per second (bps). This metric captures the actual volume of transferred between two points within a specified time frame, accounting for factors like protocol but excluding errors or retransmissions. Unlike theoretical maximums, it emphasizes practical performance under real conditions. Measuring network throughput is crucial for evaluating overall performance in modern applications, including video streaming, large file transfers, and real-time communications like video conferencing, where it directly influences by determining load times and smoothness. High throughput ensures for growing data demands, reduces operational costs by optimizing resource use, and helps identify bottlenecks that could degrade . For instance, as of 2025, typical residential connections provide speeds of 100-1000 Mbps, sufficient for household streaming but prone to drops from interference on , while enterprise optic links often sustain 10 Gbps or more, supporting high-volume data centers but revealing issues like congestion during peak usage.

Throughput vs Bandwidth and Latency

Bandwidth refers to the theoretical maximum data rate that a network link or path can support, often specified as the nominal capacity of the physical or protocol layer, such as a 1 Gbps Ethernet link speed. In contrast, throughput represents the actual rate of successful data transfer achieved under real-world conditions, including factors like traffic load and errors, which is typically lower than the bandwidth. Latency, meanwhile, is the delay experienced by a data packet as it travels from source to destination, commonly measured as round-trip time (RTT) in milliseconds. These metrics are interrelated in : bandwidth sets an upper limit on possible throughput, as the actual data rate cannot exceed the link's capacity, while latency influences throughput particularly in scenarios with bursty , where queueing delays accumulate and reduce effective transfer rates. For instance, in a 100 Mbps bandwidth link, throughput might drop to 80 Mbps due to packet errors requiring retransmissions, illustrating how impairments prevent full utilization of available capacity. Similarly, high latency contributes to in applications like (VoIP), where variations in packet arrival times lead to audio disruptions and degraded call quality. A common pitfall is interchangeably using "bandwidth" to describe actual performance in marketing or troubleshooting, leading to misconceptions about network capabilities; for example, a connection's bandwidth without disclosing throughput limitations under load can mislead users on expected speeds. , a related , measures only the useful application-layer data within throughput, excluding protocol overheads.

Theoretical Foundations

Mathematical Models

The basic mathematical model for network throughput defines it as the ratio of the data payload size to the transmission time, expressed as T=PtT = \frac{P}{t}, where TT is throughput in bits per second, PP is the payload size in bits, and tt is the total transmission time in seconds. This formula derives from the fundamental concept of rate in information transfer, applicable to both continuous traffic streams, where tt approximates the steady-state propagation and serialization delay, and bursty traffic, where tt includes variable inter-arrival times modeled as t=∑(di+qi)t = \sum (d_i + q_i), with did_i as individual packet delays and qiq_i as queuing components. For continuous traffic, assuming constant bit rate, the derivation simplifies to T≈BT \approx B, where BB is the link bandwidth, as payload fills the pipe without gaps. In bursty scenarios, such as packet-switched networks, throughput drops below BB due to idle periods, yielding T=Ptotal∑tiT = \frac{P_{\text{total}}}{\sum t_i}, where summation accounts for bursts separated by silences. The Shannon-Hartley theorem provides an upper bound on achievable throughput in noisy channels, stating that the channel capacity C=Blog⁡2(1+SNR)C = B \log_2 (1 + \text{SNR}), where CC is the maximum throughput in bits per second, BB is the bandwidth in hertz, and SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio. This model, derived by Claude Shannon in his 1948 seminal paper, quantifies how noise limits reliable data rates, with the logarithmic term reflecting the number of distinguishable signal levels amid interference. For instance, in additive white Gaussian noise channels, actual throughput approaches but never exceeds CC, establishing fundamental limits for error-free communication even as coding efficiency improves. Queueing theory models network throughput under congestion using the M/M/1 queue, a single-server system with Poisson arrivals at rate λ\lambda (packets per second) and exponential service times at rate μ\mu (packets per second), where the stable throughput is T=λT = \lambda (provided ρ<1\rho < 1), and ρ=λμ\rho = \frac{\lambda}{\mu} is the utilization factor. Introduced in Kendall's notation for classifying queueing systems, the M/M/1 model's steady-state throughput derivation follows from the balance equations, yielding average queue length L=ρ1−ρL = \frac{\rho}{1 - \rho} and throughput equal to the arrival rate λ\lambda (equivalently μρ\mu \rho) under load. Leonard Kleinrock extended this to networks in his 1975 work, applying M/M/1 to predict throughput degradation in multi-hop topologies where μ\mu represents link capacity. Discrete event simulation (DES) models extend analytical approaches for throughput prediction in complex topologies by simulating events like packet arrivals and departures at discrete times, enabling evaluation of non-Markovian behaviors. Seminal applications in network performance trace to early works on computing systems, where DES traces event timelines to compute aggregate throughput as total data processed over simulated time.

Goodput and Effective Throughput

Goodput represents the rate at which useful data is successfully delivered to the application layer, excluding non-payload elements such as protocol headers, retransmissions, and error correction mechanisms. This metric provides a more accurate assessment of network efficiency than raw throughput by focusing solely on the data that contributes to the end-user's task, such as file content or application payloads. In essence, goodput quantifies the effective utilization of network resources for productive data transfer. A standard approximation for calculating goodput, assuming no packet losses, is given by the formula: Goodput=Throughput×Payload SizeTotal Packet Size\text{Goodput} = \text{Throughput} \times \frac{\text{Payload Size}}{\text{Total Packet Size}} This equation accounts for the fraction of each packet that carries actual data, subtracting fixed overheads like IP and headers. For instance, in an of 1500 bytes with a 1460-byte (after 40 bytes of IP/TCP headers), the ratio is approximately 0.973, meaning is about 97.3% of the measured throughput under ideal conditions. Raw throughput encompasses all bits transmitted over the link, including redundant or control data, whereas deducts these to reflect only beneficial . significantly impacts this distinction, as reliable protocols trigger retransmissions that consume bandwidth without advancing useful data delivery; error correction further exacerbates this by adding parity bits or recovery frames. In UDP streams, which forgo reliability for speed, remains high relative to throughput—often limited only by header overhead—but any losses directly reduce it without recovery. Conversely, TCP streams incur additional costs from acknowledgment packets and potential retransmissions; for example, on a 1 Gbps link with 1% , TCP might drop to 800-900 Mbps after accounting for roughly 10-15% overhead from ACKs and retries, while UDP could stay near 950 Mbps if losses are tolerated by the application. Effective throughput builds on as a broader, application-centric metric that incorporates layer-7 efficiencies, such as how well the protocol handles formatting, session , and content delivery. It evaluates the end-to-end value of transferred , factoring in inefficiencies like redundant requests or encoding that diminish usable output. For case studies, FTP achieves higher effective throughput in bulk file transfers—up to 20-30% better than HTTP for large files—due to its stream-oriented design with minimal per-transfer overhead, allowing sustained payload delivery. In contrast, HTTP's request-response model introduces substantial application-layer costs, such as multiple headers per object and connection setups, reducing effective throughput to 60-80% of raw capacity when fetching numerous small web resources, as seen in loads. Goodput rarely approaches the Shannon limit, the theoretical maximum capacity, due to these practical deductions. Measuring in live networks poses significant challenges, as it demands precise isolation of data amid mixed traffic, dynamic protocol behaviors, and varying loss rates, often requiring without introducing additional load. Unlike raw throughput, which tools like can capture via aggregate counters, necessitates application-aware monitoring to filter retransmits and overhead in real time, complicating deployment in production environments where traffic cannot be easily segmented. This isolation is particularly arduous in encrypted or multiplexed flows, where distinguishing useful bits from protocol artifacts risks inaccuracies or privacy issues.

Nomenclature and Units

Standard Units and Prefixes

Network throughput is fundamentally measured in bits per second (bps), the SI unit representing the number of binary digits transmitted or received per second. This unit forms the basis for all higher multiples, such as kilobits per second (kbps), megabits per second (Mbps), and gigabits per second (Gbps), where prefixes denote scaling factors. Historically, early relied on rates for analog modems, where one equaled one signal change per second, often aligning with bps in simple binary modulation schemes. As digital IP networks expanded in the , bps became the dominant standard for throughput, reflecting the precise counting of bits rather than signaling events. In networking, decimal prefixes from the (SI) are standard, with kilo- (k) denoting 10^3, mega- (M) 10^6, and (G) 10^9; thus, 1 Gbps equals 1,000 Mbps exactly. The (IEC) standardized binary prefixes in IEC 80000-13:2008 to distinguish powers of 2, such as kibi- (Ki) for 2^10 (1,024) and gibi- (Gi) for 2^30 (1,073,741,824), primarily for contexts like . For instance, 1 Gibps approximates 1.074 Gbps under decimal notation, highlighting a roughly 7.4% difference that underscores the need for prefix clarity in , where decimal usage prevails to avoid ambiguity. Best practices emphasize distinguishing bits from bytes in throughput reporting, as network speeds are quoted in bits while file transfers or storage rates often use bytes (1 byte = 8 bits). For example, a transfer rate of 100 megabytes per second (MB/s) equates to 800 megabits per second (Mbps), a conversion factor applied consistently to align metrics across domains.

Confusing Terminology and Suffixes

In measurements, inconsistent suffixes frequently cause , particularly with notations like "Kb" which may refer to kilobits as a or be shorthand for kilobits per second as a rate, leading to misinterpretation between static amounts and dynamic transfer speeds. This issue is exacerbated in informal reporting where the "/s" indicator for per-second rates is omitted, blurring the distinction between bandwidth capacity and actual throughput. Marketing materials often compound this by overusing vague "up to" claims, such as advertising "up to 8 Mb/s" for services that deliver an average of only 3.9 Mb/s, ignoring real-world variables like distance from or peak-hour congestion. Regional variations in standards further highlight these pitfalls, with the and differing in regulatory approaches to prefixes and advertising. In the , bodies like in the UK mandated from 2011 that ISPs advertise "average" speeds alongside "up to" maxima using decimal prefixes (e.g., 1 Mbps = 1,000,000 bits per second), following stricter rules to curb misleading claims seen in 2010 ads where promised speeds of up to 20 Mbps reached only 2% of customers at the upper range. In contrast, regulators like the FCC initially relied on voluntary disclosures until the adoption of mandatory broadband consumer labels in 2022 (effective 2024), but 2010 reports showed advertised "up to" speeds averaging 6.7 Mbps while actual medians hovered around 3 Mbps, with less emphasis on mandatory average reporting and more tolerance for decimal prefix usage in ISP promotions during the . Jargon inconsistencies, such as equating "speed" with "throughput" in consumer contexts, amplify user expectations and dissatisfaction. Consumers often interpret ISP-promoted " speed" as guaranteed throughput—the real data transfer rate— but it typically denotes theoretical bandwidth capacity, resulting in complaints when actual throughput falls short due to factors like latency or overhead, as evidenced by surveys showing 26% of users in 2009 feeling misled by such . To mitigate these issues, experts recommend strict adherence to IETF standards for consistent reporting, such as RFC 2544, which specifies throughput in bits per second (bps) or frames per second (fps) with clear decimal prefixes and full notation to avoid ambiguity. Regulatory tools like the FCC's nutrition labels and Ofcom's average speed requirements also promote transparency by requiring explicit conditions for "up to" claims, ensuring users understand the baseline units established in standard network nomenclature. As of 2024, the FCC's labels are mandatory, requiring providers to disclose typical speeds and other details; in October 2025, the FCC proposed simplifications to these requirements.

Factors Influencing Measurements

Protocol Overheads

Protocol overheads in network communications arise from structural elements necessary for reliable transmission, including header bytes that encode addressing, , and control information; framing sequences that define packet boundaries; and error detection mechanisms such as the (CRC), which verifies frame integrity in protocols like Ethernet. These components add fixed or variable non-payload bytes to each transmission unit, directly reducing the proportion of bandwidth available for actual . In Ethernet, the frame header consists of 14 bytes (including 6-byte source and destination MAC addresses plus a 2-byte type field), while the CRC adds 4 bytes for error detection, contributing to the total overhead. The impact of these overheads on throughput is captured by the general efficiency formula: Efficiency=PayloadPayload+Overhead\text{Efficiency} = \frac{\text{Payload}}{\text{Payload} + \text{Overhead}} This expression measures the fraction of transmitted bytes that carry useful , with lower indicating greater overhead-induced loss; for example, a 40-byte TCP/IP header on a 1460-byte yields approximately 96.5% . Layer-independent effects further compound this, such as bytes inserted to satisfy minimum frame sizes (e.g., Ethernet's 64-byte minimum) or alignment boundaries, which inflate small packets without adding value. Reliable protocols introduce additional overhead through acknowledgments, which generate separate control packets to confirm receipt, and sequencing fields in headers that track packet order, ensuring reassembly but consuming bandwidth for metadata. Quantifying overhead reveals typical bandwidth losses of 5-20% in stacks, varying with size and configuration; for standard 1500-byte MTU TCP/IP over Ethernet, the combined header, CRC, and interframe gap overhead equates to about 5% loss, rising to 15-20% for smaller s where fixed costs dominate. Historical advancements, such as outlined in RFC 1191 (1990), enabled larger frame sizes—often termed jumbo frames up to 9000 bytes—reducing relative overhead by amortizing header and framing costs across more bytes, potentially improving efficiency by 10-15% in high-throughput scenarios. In throughput testing, accurate baselines require subtracting these overheads from raw measurements to isolate ; for instance, RFC 6349 prescribes deducting 40 bytes for TCP/IP headers from the MTU in maximum throughput calculations, such as (MTU - 40) × 8 × maximum frames per second, ensuring evaluations reflect payload delivery rather than link capacity inflated by protocol artifacts.

Compression Effects

compression plays a crucial role in measurements by reducing the size of transmitted payloads, allowing more effective use of available bandwidth. The is typically defined as the ratio of the original uncompressed size to the compressed size, where a higher ratio indicates greater size reduction. Compression algorithms are categorized into lossless types, which preserve all original exactly (e.g., as specified in RFC 1952), and lossy types, which discard some information to achieve higher ratios (e.g., in video streaming protocols). By shrinking payload sizes, compression directly boosts effective throughput for compressible . For instance, a 2:1 effectively doubles the information transfer rate over a fixed bandwidth link, as the network carries half the volume for the same content. In HTTP transfers, enabling compression can reduce text-based response sizes by 60-80%, thereby increasing throughput and decreasing latency in bandwidth-constrained environments. This benefit is amplified in scenarios with high protocol overheads, where reduction offsets fixed header costs. When measuring network throughput, distinctions must be made between pre-compression and post-compression testing to accurately assess impacts. Pre-compression measurements evaluate the rate of original generation or consumption, while post-compression tests reflect the actual on-wire transmission . However, compression incurs CPU overhead for encoding and decoding, which can introduce delays and limit gains in real-time applications; studies show this favors compression on links slower than 10 Mbps but diminishes on faster networks due to processing bottlenecks. Limitations arise with incompressible data, yielding negligible or no throughput improvements. Encrypted traffic, resembling random noise, resists compression effectively, as block ciphers like AES produce outputs with high entropy that standard algorithms cannot reduce significantly. Historically, the (PPP) incorporated compression via the Compression Control Protocol (CCP) in RFC 1962, enabling negotiable algorithms but highlighting similar challenges with non-compressible payloads.

Measurement Methods and Tools

Active Testing Techniques

Active testing techniques for measuring network throughput involve the deliberate generation and transmission of synthetic traffic across a network path to assess performance metrics under controlled conditions. Unlike passive methods, which observe and analyze existing user traffic without introducing new flows, active testing injects test packets to simulate load and measure the maximum sustainable rate at which can be transferred reliably. This approach allows for repeatable evaluations in isolated environments but requires careful setup to isolate the device or link under test from external influences. A key distinction in active testing lies in the choice of transport protocol, with UDP and TCP serving different purposes based on their inherent characteristics. UDP-based testing measures raw bandwidth by sending datagrams at a fixed rate without acknowledgments or retransmissions, enabling direct assessment of the link's capacity up to the point of ; this is particularly useful for identifying physical or lower-layer limits. In contrast, TCP testing evaluates congestion-aware throughput by incorporating flow control, error recovery, and window scaling, providing a more realistic measure of application-level performance in managed IP networks; procedures often include ramp-up phases where the sending rate increases gradually to saturate the path without immediate loss. Best practices for active throughput testing emphasize structured methodologies to ensure accuracy and comparability. Techniques such as flood testing send frames at the maximum possible rate, iteratively reducing the rate via binary search until no losses occur, thereby determining the peak throughput; sustained stream tests then maintain this rate for validation. Tests should run bidirectionally with equal data rates in both directions to mimic real-world bidirectional flows, and final trial durations must be at least 60 seconds for stable results to account for variability, though initial search phases may use shorter trials. Error rate monitoring is essential, involving sequence number verification to detect frame loss, duplicates, or , often following the IETF RFC 2544 benchmarking framework for network interconnect devices. Tools like can implement these procedures for practical execution. Challenges in active testing include minimizing interference from background traffic, which can skew results by introducing uncontrolled or latency; for this reason, RFC 2544 is explicitly recommended only for isolated lab environments rather than production networks. In wireless contexts, such as IEEE 802.11ax () deployments, adaptations are needed to handle dense user scenarios and multi-user interference, where active tests must incorporate features like (OFDMA) to accurately capture per-user throughput without overestimating aggregate capacity. Real-world measurements in these environments reveal that active testing often yields lower throughput than theoretical maxima due to channel contention and coexistence with legacy devices.

Software Tools and Implementations

Software tools for measuring network throughput encompass both open-source and commercial implementations that facilitate active testing by simulating flows to quantify bandwidth capacity under controlled conditions. These tools vary in complexity, from simple command-line utilities to enterprise-grade platforms with graphical interfaces, enabling users to assess performance across diverse network environments such as LANs, WANs, and connections. Among open-source options, stands out as a cross-platform tool available for Windows, , Unix, and macOS systems, with versions 2 and 3 offering robust capabilities for TCP, UDP, and SCTP protocols. operates in client-server mode, allowing users to measure maximum achievable bandwidth, , and by generating synthetic traffic streams; for instance, iPerf3 supports bidirectional testing and JSON-formatted output for easier parsing in automated scripts. Netperf, another prominent open-source utility developed by , excels in detailed benchmarking for TCP, UDP, and stream-oriented protocols, providing metrics such as throughput in bits per second, round-trip latency, and transaction rates. It is particularly valued in settings for its flexibility in customizing test parameters, including message sizes and burst modes, to simulate application-specific workloads without requiring extensive setup. Commercial tools address enterprise needs with integrated monitoring and alerting features. Network Performance Monitor () delivers real-time throughput analysis through SNMP polling and flow data collection, supporting protocols like TCP and UDP via a user-friendly GUI that visualizes trends and bottlenecks across hybrid networks. Obkio, a cloud-native solution, employs agent-based synthetic testing to measure end-to-end throughput, emphasizing ease of deployment for remote monitoring and multi-point comparisons in distributed environments. Web-based implementations like Ookla's , launched in , provide accessible throughput measurements via browser-based tests that leverage and to download and upload files from global servers, supporting multi-threaded connections for accurate ISP performance evaluation. Implementation approaches differ significantly: command-line tools like and Netperf integrate seamlessly with automation scripts—such as Bash or Python—for scheduled testing in CI/CD pipelines, whereas GUI-driven options like and Obkio prioritize point-and-click configuration and dashboard visualizations for non-technical users. When selecting tools, key evaluation criteria include measurement accuracy against reference standards (e.g., conformance to RFC 6815 for active testing), user-friendliness in setup and interpretation of results, and multi-protocol support to accommodate evolving standards without .

Protocol-Specific Considerations

Layer 2 Protocols

Layer 2 protocols, operating at the , introduce specific framing, error detection, and addressing mechanisms that directly impact measurements by adding overhead and influencing effective data transmission rates. These protocols encapsulate higher-layer payloads into or cells, where overhead elements such as headers, trailers, and delimiters reduce the proportion of useful data relative to the total transmitted bits. Accurate throughput assessment requires accounting for these elements to isolate link-layer performance from upper-layer effects. In Ethernet, defined by , the frame structure includes a 7-byte and 1-byte start frame delimiter (SFD) for , followed by a 14-byte header (destination and source MAC addresses plus length/type), a variable , and a 4-byte (FCS) for (CRC) error detection. The minimum frame size is 64 bytes, enforcing padding for smaller than 46 bytes to ensure reliable in half-duplex modes. This results in higher relative overhead for small frames, potentially reducing effective throughput by up to 28% compared to the wire speed for minimum-sized frames. The standard (MTU) is 1500 bytes for the , but jumbo frames extend this to up to 9000 bytes in supported implementations, minimizing overhead per packet and improving throughput for bulk transfers by reducing the frequency of inter-frame gaps and headers. Measurements must adjust for these overheads, such as excluding the /SFD from calculations, to report line-rate utilization accurately. High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) and its derivative (PPP) use bit- or byte-oriented framing with flag sequences of 01111110 (0x7E) to delimit frames, adding two flag bytes per frame. HDLC frames include an address field, control field, variable information field, and 16- or 32-bit FCS for error detection, while PPP builds on this with additional protocol field compression options. For transparency in asynchronous links, PPP employs byte , escaping control characters like 0x7E with 0x7D followed by the complemented byte, which can increase overhead in data patterns with frequent special bytes. PPP's Link Control Protocol (LCP) handles initial negotiation of parameters like maximum receive unit and , introducing temporary overhead during link establishment but enabling optimized framing thereafter. Typical overhead for HDLC/PPP ranges from 5-8 bytes per frame, leading to 10-15% throughput loss on average for small to medium payloads over serial links due to flags, escapes, and FCS. Frame Relay employs virtual circuits identified by a 10-bit data link connection identifier (DLCI) in a 2-byte header, encapsulated within HDLC-like flags and FCS, to multiplex multiple logical connections over a physical link in wide area networks (WANs). This protocol, prevalent in enterprise WANs before the widespread adoption of MPLS, adds 4 bytes of header overhead plus flags, with (CIR) policing affecting bursty traffic throughput. (ATM), another historical WAN technology, segments data into fixed 53-byte cells comprising a 5-byte header for virtual path/circuit routing and a 48-byte payload, requiring for smaller segments to fill cells. Cell introduces up to 48 bytes of null data per cell, contributing 9-10% overhead even for full payloads and more for fragmented smaller units, which historically limited ATM's efficiency for data traffic compared to variable-length frame protocols. Throughput measurements in these protocols must consider virtual circuit multiplexing and to evaluate committed versus peak rates accurately. To isolate Layer 2 performance during throughput testing, modes redirect incoming frames back to the sender at the physical or MAC layer, bypassing higher protocols and enabling bidirectional link validation without external . This technique measures raw frame transmission rates and latency, often combined with injection—such as deliberate CRC/FCS corruption or bit —to assess protocol resilience and correction overhead. Tools supporting these methods ensure measurements reflect pure Layer 2 capacity, excluding or application influences.

Layer 3 and Higher Protocols

The (IP) operates at Layer 3 of the and introduces overhead that directly affects network throughput measurements. The IPv4 header has a minimum size of 20 bytes, while the header is fixed at 40 bytes, both excluding optional fields that can increase this further. This header overhead reduces the effective payload capacity per packet, particularly noticeable in scenarios with small packet sizes, where it can consume up to 10-20% of the total frame on typical Ethernet links, thereby lowering overall throughput. IP fragmentation occurs when a packet exceeds the path's (MTU), splitting it into smaller fragments that must be reassembled at the destination. Each fragment carries its own (20 bytes for IPv4), multiplying the overhead and increasing vulnerability to loss, as the entire original packet is dropped if any fragment fails delivery. This process can degrade throughput by 20-50% in fragmented traffic scenarios due to reassembly delays and retransmission requirements, especially in high-latency networks. The IP checksum, computed over the header (16 bits in IPv4), adds minor processing overhead but ensures integrity; however, it does not cover the payload, shifting reliability burdens to higher layers. Measuring throughput in dual-stack environments, where both IPv4 and coexist, presents challenges due to differing header sizes and processing paths. A 2025 study found with average latency about 13 ms higher than IPv4 (approximately 8% higher assuming typical IPv4 latency of around 160 ms) and throughput approximately 5% lower, with variations depending on network conditions. Earlier studies reported larger differences, such as 19% higher latency (194 ms vs. 164 ms) and up to 33% lower throughput across over 1,700 sites, along with slightly lower rates for . These disparities necessitate protocol-specific testing to isolate IPv4/IPv6 performance impacts. At the , the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) imposes additional throughput constraints through mechanisms designed for reliability and congestion avoidance. TCP acknowledgments (ACKs) require bidirectional traffic, with every second segment typically carrying an ACK, doubling small-packet overhead and reducing net throughput by 5-15% in interactive applications. Window scaling, defined in RFC 7323, extends the receive window beyond 65,535 bytes using a shift count in the TCP options (3 bytes), enabling high-bandwidth-delay product networks to achieve throughputs exceeding 10 Gbps without frequent window adjustments. TCP congestion control algorithms, such as Reno and Cubic, dynamically adjust the congestion window to prevent network overload, but they can limit throughput during loss events. Reno halves the window on (triple duplicate ACK or timeout), recovering slowly in high-bandwidth paths and limiting throughput to approximately 30% of available capacity in lossy links with 1% rates. Cubic, a loss-based algorithm, uses a for window growth, outperforming Reno by 20-30% in long-fat networks (high bandwidth-delay products) by more aggressively probing capacity post-congestion. delays small packets to coalesce them, reducing overhead but introducing up to 200 ms latency in bursty traffic, which can halve interactive throughput in applications like SSH. The (UDP) at Layer 4 offers minimal overhead with an 8-byte header, enabling higher throughput than TCP in one-way transfers since it lacks ACKs, retransmissions, or flow control. However, without built-in reliability, UDP measurements must account for unrecovered losses, which can reduce effective throughput by 10-40% in impaired paths without application-layer corrections. (MPLS), often layered over IP, adds a 4-byte label per packet (20-bit label, 3-bit experimental use, 1-bit bottom-of-stack flag) to enable fast forwarding. This overhead is equivalent to 0.5-2% of a 1500-byte packet but accumulates in label stacks (up to 2-4 labels in complex VPNs), potentially necessitating MTU adjustments to avoid fragmentation and maintain throughput. At higher layers, protocols like leverage (RFC 9000) to integrate transport and security, reducing compared to TCP/TLS. 's 1-RTT handshake and multiplexed streams can improve performance over in lossy networks by reducing . Studies indicate gains such as 12.4% faster response times or up to 5% reduced page load times in real-world use. End-to-end throughput measurements for such application-layer protocols emphasize full-path latency and loss. As of 2024, adoption has grown, comprising a notable portion of on major platforms, enhancing overall network .

References

  1. https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/throughput
  2. https://www.caida.org/catalog/papers/2003_bwestmetrics/bwestmetrics.pdf
  3. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6349
  4. https://nilesecure.com/network-management/what-is-network-throughput-how-to-measure-and-improve-it
  5. https://obkio.com/blog/what-is-network-throughput/
  6. https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/business-vs-residential-internet
  7. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5136.html
  8. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt
  9. https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/feature/Network-bandwidth-vs-throughput-Whats-the-difference
  10. https://netbeez.net/blog/impact-of-packet-loss-jitter-and-latency-on-voip/
  11. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf
  12. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8238
  13. http://daedalus.cs.berkeley.edu/publications/sigcomm96.pdf
  14. https://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=3197437&seqNum=2
  15. https://www.packetpushers.net/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-throughput-goodput/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256874285_Experimented_Goodput_Measurement_of_Standard_TCP_Versions_over_Large-Bandwidth_Low-Latency_Bottleneck
  17. https://www.dnsstuff.com/network-throughput-bandwidth
  18. https://www.goanywhere.com/blog/comparing-transfer-methods-http-vs-ftp
  19. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7550952/
  20. https://www.obkio.com/blog/goodput-vs-throughput/
  21. https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/bits-per-second
  22. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
  23. https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/what-is-baud-rate
  24. https://www.iec.ch/prefixes-binary-multiples
  25. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/bits-vs-bytes
  26. https://www.verizon.com/home/internet/guides/what-is-the-difference-between-mbps-and-kbps/
  27. https://obkio.com/blog/network-speed-bandwidth-throughput/
  28. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jul/28/ofcom-broadband-providers-misleading-speeds
  29. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10760069
  30. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/your-worst-fears-confirmed-real-broadband-speeds-half-of-whats-advertised/
  31. https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabels
  32. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2544
  33. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-simplify-broadband-nutrition-labels-consumers
  34. https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Documents/DocumentArchives/1997_docs/71522.pdf
  35. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/rvr/papers/MaskingOverheadLayering.pdf
  36. https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/19976/trying-to-find-out-exact-tcp-overhead-cost
  37. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1191.html
  38. https://www.tamos.net/~rhay/wp/overhead/overhead.htm
  39. https://www.ioriver.io/terms/data-compression-ratio
  40. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1952
  41. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wan/data-compression/14156-compress-overview.html
  42. http://www.princeton.edu/~rblee/HPpapers/PerfCompressVPN_McgregorLee.pdf
  43. https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/477.pdf
  44. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1962
  45. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6815
  46. https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/connectivity/ethernet-ieee-802-3/data-frames-structure-format.php
  47. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6000-series-switches/24048-148.html
  48. https://book.systemsapproach.org/direct/framing.html
  49. https://www.comtechefdata.com/files/appnotes-pdf/AN-MOD-OVHD-HDLC_rev-.pdf
  50. https://www.professormesser.com/network-plus/n10-006/atm-frame-relay-and-mpls/
  51. https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/interfaces-ethernet/topics/topic-map/ethernet-fast-and-gigabit-loopback-testing.html
  52. https://networktestexperts.com/basic-connectivity-testers/loopback-testers/
  53. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc791
  54. https://www.tamos.net/~rhay/overhead/ip-packet-overhead.htm
  55. https://www.rapidseedbox.com/blog/ipv6-faster-than-ipv4
  56. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/12/6/246
  57. https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/path-quality-surprising-impact-one-percent-packet-loss
  58. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall14/cos561/papers/Cubic08.pdf
  59. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/multiprotocol-label-switching-mpls/mpls/4649-mpls-faq-4649.html
  60. https://blog.cloudflare.com/http-3-vs-http-2/
  61. https://blog.cloudflare.com/radar-2024-year-in-review/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.