Separate dd data from output through netcat to parse output

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I'm copying dd output through netcat with the following command



$dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,0590934 s, 17,7 MB/s


However when I try to parse the output nothing happens



$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,058937 s, 17,8 MB/s


It should print only the last line, why the output is not sent to grep?
I tried few redirections but I'm not able to have it redirected as I want.



I would like to have the data sent through netcat but having the output messages (both stderr and stdin) sent to stdout or a file to parse it afterwards.










share|improve this question





















  • You can use -o to output to a file and then parse the file
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 2 '17 at 14:49










  • Seems that dd hasn't a -o parameter
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:34










  • nc has though..
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 3 '17 at 8:23










  • My bad though..
    – Arkaik
    Oct 6 '17 at 15:59














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I'm copying dd output through netcat with the following command



$dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,0590934 s, 17,7 MB/s


However when I try to parse the output nothing happens



$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,058937 s, 17,8 MB/s


It should print only the last line, why the output is not sent to grep?
I tried few redirections but I'm not able to have it redirected as I want.



I would like to have the data sent through netcat but having the output messages (both stderr and stdin) sent to stdout or a file to parse it afterwards.










share|improve this question





















  • You can use -o to output to a file and then parse the file
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 2 '17 at 14:49










  • Seems that dd hasn't a -o parameter
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:34










  • nc has though..
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 3 '17 at 8:23










  • My bad though..
    – Arkaik
    Oct 6 '17 at 15:59












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I'm copying dd output through netcat with the following command



$dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,0590934 s, 17,7 MB/s


However when I try to parse the output nothing happens



$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,058937 s, 17,8 MB/s


It should print only the last line, why the output is not sent to grep?
I tried few redirections but I'm not able to have it redirected as I want.



I would like to have the data sent through netcat but having the output messages (both stderr and stdin) sent to stdout or a file to parse it afterwards.










share|improve this question













I'm copying dd output through netcat with the following command



$dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,0590934 s, 17,7 MB/s


However when I try to parse the output nothing happens



$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copied, 0,058937 s, 17,8 MB/s


It should print only the last line, why the output is not sent to grep?
I tried few redirections but I'm not able to have it redirected as I want.



I would like to have the data sent through netcat but having the output messages (both stderr and stdin) sent to stdout or a file to parse it afterwards.







linux shell io-redirection dd netcat






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Oct 2 '17 at 14:35









Arkaik

264217




264217











  • You can use -o to output to a file and then parse the file
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 2 '17 at 14:49










  • Seems that dd hasn't a -o parameter
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:34










  • nc has though..
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 3 '17 at 8:23










  • My bad though..
    – Arkaik
    Oct 6 '17 at 15:59
















  • You can use -o to output to a file and then parse the file
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 2 '17 at 14:49










  • Seems that dd hasn't a -o parameter
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:34










  • nc has though..
    – Raman Sailopal
    Oct 3 '17 at 8:23










  • My bad though..
    – Arkaik
    Oct 6 '17 at 15:59















You can use -o to output to a file and then parse the file
– Raman Sailopal
Oct 2 '17 at 14:49




You can use -o to output to a file and then parse the file
– Raman Sailopal
Oct 2 '17 at 14:49












Seems that dd hasn't a -o parameter
– Arkaik
Oct 2 '17 at 15:34




Seems that dd hasn't a -o parameter
– Arkaik
Oct 2 '17 at 15:34












nc has though..
– Raman Sailopal
Oct 3 '17 at 8:23




nc has though..
– Raman Sailopal
Oct 3 '17 at 8:23












My bad though..
– Arkaik
Oct 6 '17 at 15:59




My bad though..
– Arkaik
Oct 6 '17 at 15:59










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










In



dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied


there's no way that dd status output could go to grep. grep is reading the output of nc, not dd. If dd wrote that output on its stdout, it would go to nc, not grep.



Thankfully dd does not write that status message to its stdout (otherwise it would be sent to <IP_ADDR> which we don't want), but it writes it on a separated stream: stderr (as it's a diagnostic message, not part of its normal output).



To have dd's stderr connected to a pipe that goes to grep (and nc's stdout+stderr unchanged), you could do:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&3 3>&- 3>&1 >&4 4>&- 4>&1


Assuming the shell's stdin/stdout/stderr go to I, O, E (all would be the tty device open in read+write mode if run from a terminal), in the above we would have:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3 4
---------+------------------------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2 closed closed
nc | pipe1 O E closed closed
grep | pipe2 O E closed closed


Or to have the stderr of dd and the stdout+stderr of nc go to grep (but the stdout of dd still go to nc):



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 | grep copied


Our table of fd assignment per command becomes:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr
---------+--------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 pipe2 pipe2
grep | pipe2 O E


Yet another approach:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 >&3 3>&- 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>

cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3
---------+-----------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 O E
grep | pipe2 E E


But note that that output won't be very relevant. That 1MiB of data will probably fit in the pipe buffer, nc's internal read buffer and the socket send buffer, so you won't be really timing the network throughput. It's likely dd will return before the first data packet is sent over the network (shortly after the TCP connection has been enabled and nc starts reading its stdin). Look at iperf instead for that.



Without iperf, you could get a better measurement of sending throughput if you did something like:




dd bs=1M count=50 2> /dev/null # buffers filled and the TCP connection
# established and into a steady state
dd bs=1M count=100 2>&1 >&3 3>&- < /dev/zero 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>





share|improve this answer






















  • Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:31











  • @Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:39











  • Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:42










  • @Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:49










  • I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
    – Arkaik
    Oct 3 '17 at 7:52










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f395664%2fseparate-dd-data-from-output-through-netcat-to-parse-output%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










In



dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied


there's no way that dd status output could go to grep. grep is reading the output of nc, not dd. If dd wrote that output on its stdout, it would go to nc, not grep.



Thankfully dd does not write that status message to its stdout (otherwise it would be sent to <IP_ADDR> which we don't want), but it writes it on a separated stream: stderr (as it's a diagnostic message, not part of its normal output).



To have dd's stderr connected to a pipe that goes to grep (and nc's stdout+stderr unchanged), you could do:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&3 3>&- 3>&1 >&4 4>&- 4>&1


Assuming the shell's stdin/stdout/stderr go to I, O, E (all would be the tty device open in read+write mode if run from a terminal), in the above we would have:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3 4
---------+------------------------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2 closed closed
nc | pipe1 O E closed closed
grep | pipe2 O E closed closed


Or to have the stderr of dd and the stdout+stderr of nc go to grep (but the stdout of dd still go to nc):



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 | grep copied


Our table of fd assignment per command becomes:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr
---------+--------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 pipe2 pipe2
grep | pipe2 O E


Yet another approach:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 >&3 3>&- 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>

cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3
---------+-----------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 O E
grep | pipe2 E E


But note that that output won't be very relevant. That 1MiB of data will probably fit in the pipe buffer, nc's internal read buffer and the socket send buffer, so you won't be really timing the network throughput. It's likely dd will return before the first data packet is sent over the network (shortly after the TCP connection has been enabled and nc starts reading its stdin). Look at iperf instead for that.



Without iperf, you could get a better measurement of sending throughput if you did something like:




dd bs=1M count=50 2> /dev/null # buffers filled and the TCP connection
# established and into a steady state
dd bs=1M count=100 2>&1 >&3 3>&- < /dev/zero 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>





share|improve this answer






















  • Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:31











  • @Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:39











  • Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:42










  • @Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:49










  • I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
    – Arkaik
    Oct 3 '17 at 7:52














up vote
3
down vote



accepted










In



dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied


there's no way that dd status output could go to grep. grep is reading the output of nc, not dd. If dd wrote that output on its stdout, it would go to nc, not grep.



Thankfully dd does not write that status message to its stdout (otherwise it would be sent to <IP_ADDR> which we don't want), but it writes it on a separated stream: stderr (as it's a diagnostic message, not part of its normal output).



To have dd's stderr connected to a pipe that goes to grep (and nc's stdout+stderr unchanged), you could do:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&3 3>&- 3>&1 >&4 4>&- 4>&1


Assuming the shell's stdin/stdout/stderr go to I, O, E (all would be the tty device open in read+write mode if run from a terminal), in the above we would have:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3 4
---------+------------------------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2 closed closed
nc | pipe1 O E closed closed
grep | pipe2 O E closed closed


Or to have the stderr of dd and the stdout+stderr of nc go to grep (but the stdout of dd still go to nc):



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 | grep copied


Our table of fd assignment per command becomes:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr
---------+--------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 pipe2 pipe2
grep | pipe2 O E


Yet another approach:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 >&3 3>&- 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>

cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3
---------+-----------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 O E
grep | pipe2 E E


But note that that output won't be very relevant. That 1MiB of data will probably fit in the pipe buffer, nc's internal read buffer and the socket send buffer, so you won't be really timing the network throughput. It's likely dd will return before the first data packet is sent over the network (shortly after the TCP connection has been enabled and nc starts reading its stdin). Look at iperf instead for that.



Without iperf, you could get a better measurement of sending throughput if you did something like:




dd bs=1M count=50 2> /dev/null # buffers filled and the TCP connection
# established and into a steady state
dd bs=1M count=100 2>&1 >&3 3>&- < /dev/zero 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>





share|improve this answer






















  • Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:31











  • @Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:39











  • Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:42










  • @Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:49










  • I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
    – Arkaik
    Oct 3 '17 at 7:52












up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






In



dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied


there's no way that dd status output could go to grep. grep is reading the output of nc, not dd. If dd wrote that output on its stdout, it would go to nc, not grep.



Thankfully dd does not write that status message to its stdout (otherwise it would be sent to <IP_ADDR> which we don't want), but it writes it on a separated stream: stderr (as it's a diagnostic message, not part of its normal output).



To have dd's stderr connected to a pipe that goes to grep (and nc's stdout+stderr unchanged), you could do:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&3 3>&- 3>&1 >&4 4>&- 4>&1


Assuming the shell's stdin/stdout/stderr go to I, O, E (all would be the tty device open in read+write mode if run from a terminal), in the above we would have:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3 4
---------+------------------------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2 closed closed
nc | pipe1 O E closed closed
grep | pipe2 O E closed closed


Or to have the stderr of dd and the stdout+stderr of nc go to grep (but the stdout of dd still go to nc):



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 | grep copied


Our table of fd assignment per command becomes:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr
---------+--------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 pipe2 pipe2
grep | pipe2 O E


Yet another approach:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 >&3 3>&- 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>

cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3
---------+-----------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 O E
grep | pipe2 E E


But note that that output won't be very relevant. That 1MiB of data will probably fit in the pipe buffer, nc's internal read buffer and the socket send buffer, so you won't be really timing the network throughput. It's likely dd will return before the first data packet is sent over the network (shortly after the TCP connection has been enabled and nc starts reading its stdin). Look at iperf instead for that.



Without iperf, you could get a better measurement of sending throughput if you did something like:




dd bs=1M count=50 2> /dev/null # buffers filled and the TCP connection
# established and into a steady state
dd bs=1M count=100 2>&1 >&3 3>&- < /dev/zero 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>





share|improve this answer














In



dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024K count=1 | nc <IP_ADDR> <PORT> -q 0 | grep copied


there's no way that dd status output could go to grep. grep is reading the output of nc, not dd. If dd wrote that output on its stdout, it would go to nc, not grep.



Thankfully dd does not write that status message to its stdout (otherwise it would be sent to <IP_ADDR> which we don't want), but it writes it on a separated stream: stderr (as it's a diagnostic message, not part of its normal output).



To have dd's stderr connected to a pipe that goes to grep (and nc's stdout+stderr unchanged), you could do:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&3 3>&- 3>&1 >&4 4>&- 4>&1


Assuming the shell's stdin/stdout/stderr go to I, O, E (all would be the tty device open in read+write mode if run from a terminal), in the above we would have:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3 4
---------+------------------------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2 closed closed
nc | pipe1 O E closed closed
grep | pipe2 O E closed closed


Or to have the stderr of dd and the stdout+stderr of nc go to grep (but the stdout of dd still go to nc):



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 | grep copied


Our table of fd assignment per command becomes:



cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr
---------+--------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 pipe2 pipe2
grep | pipe2 O E


Yet another approach:



 
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1 2>&1 >&3 3>&- 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>

cmd fd | stdin stdout stderr 3
---------+-----------------------
dd | I pipe1 pipe2
nc | pipe1 O E
grep | pipe2 E E


But note that that output won't be very relevant. That 1MiB of data will probably fit in the pipe buffer, nc's internal read buffer and the socket send buffer, so you won't be really timing the network throughput. It's likely dd will return before the first data packet is sent over the network (shortly after the TCP connection has been enabled and nc starts reading its stdin). Look at iperf instead for that.



Without iperf, you could get a better measurement of sending throughput if you did something like:




dd bs=1M count=50 2> /dev/null # buffers filled and the TCP connection
# established and into a steady state
dd bs=1M count=100 2>&1 >&3 3>&- < /dev/zero 3>&1 | nc -q 0 <IP_ADDR> <PORT>






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Oct 2 '17 at 16:05

























answered Oct 2 '17 at 14:49









Stéphane Chazelas

283k53522859




283k53522859











  • Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:31











  • @Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:39











  • Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:42










  • @Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:49










  • I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
    – Arkaik
    Oct 3 '17 at 7:52
















  • Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:31











  • @Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:39











  • Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
    – Arkaik
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:42










  • @Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Oct 2 '17 at 15:49










  • I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
    – Arkaik
    Oct 3 '17 at 7:52















Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
– Arkaik
Oct 2 '17 at 15:31





Wooow I'm impressed ^^ I would never have found this alone. Just to confirm, the information is not relevant only with the second solution right? I only tried the first one which seems to work perfectly. Thanks a lot
– Arkaik
Oct 2 '17 at 15:31













@Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Oct 2 '17 at 15:39





@Arkaik, no. What I'm saying is that it's not a valid approach to measure network throughput. It's independant of how dd's stderr is redirected.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Oct 2 '17 at 15:39













Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
– Arkaik
Oct 2 '17 at 15:42




Alright, I though it was not so bad. I'll dig around iperf instead. Thx
– Arkaik
Oct 2 '17 at 15:42












@Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Oct 2 '17 at 15:49




@Arkaik, it would be more relevant if you sent several hundred megabytes and start measuring after the first few megabytes have been sent for the TCP congestion algorithm to have attained its cruise speed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Oct 2 '17 at 15:49












I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
– Arkaik
Oct 3 '17 at 7:52




I finnaly kept using dd and netcat but I'm measuring time before and after with date. I also send 1Go through network so measured time should be relevant.
– Arkaik
Oct 3 '17 at 7:52

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f395664%2fseparate-dd-data-from-output-through-netcat-to-parse-output%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Bahrain

Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay