How to Test a Ubiquiti Product Using iPerf2

When you install or troubleshoot a high-speed wireless link, looking at the radio's signal strength and connection status only tells part of the story. The real question is simple: how much usable network performance can I actually get across the link? One of my favorite ways to answer that question is with iPerf. In this video, I demonstrate a real-world throughput test using iPerf2 across a Ubiquiti Wave Pro radio link. It is a simple test, but it provides much more useful information than simply looking at the radio's reported link speed. By generating actual TCP traffic between two endpoints, iPerf lets you measure the performance of the network path itself.

I know what some readers are probably thinking: "Why are you using iPerf2? iPerf3 is the current version!" That's a fair question. iPerf3 is a newer implementation and is widely used today, but iPerf2 and iPerf3 are actually separate projects with different features, and they are not compatible with each other. In this particular case, I'm using iPerf2 because that is the version provided on the Ubiquiti Wave Pro platform. And honestly, that's perfectly fine for this type of test. I don't need every feature available in iPerf3 to determine whether my Wave Pro link can move traffic at the rate I expect. Sometimes the best testing tool is simply the one that is already available and works reliably.

The default speedtest feature within the Wavepro goes to an internet-connected server.  The biggest advantage of an iPerf test is that it gives you an actual performance measurement instead of a theoretical number. A wireless radio may report an impressive connection rate, but that doesn't necessarily mean applications will achieve the same throughput. CPU utilization, Ethernet interfaces, TCP behavior, configuration, interference, signal conditions, and other parts of the network path can all affect the final result. iPerf2 can generate TCP or UDP traffic and report throughput and other useful performance information. This makes it particularly useful when commissioning a wireless bridge, troubleshooting a slow connection, or checking whether a recent configuration or antenna alignment change actually improved the network.

For a point-to-point link such as the Wave Pro, I like to think of iPerf as a way of asking the network to prove itself. Instead of saying, "The radio looks good, so everything must be good," I can generate traffic and see what happens. Run a test in one direction, record the result, and then repeat the test when appropriate in the opposite direction. You can also perform multiple tests and compare the results rather than relying on a single measurement. That is especially useful when troubleshooting because a single result might not tell the whole story. Consistent results across several tests give you much more confidence that the link is performing as expected.

Another benefit is that iPerf gives you a repeatable baseline. If I make an adjustment to the Wave Pro link, such as changing alignment or configuration, I can run the same test again and compare the results. That is much better than relying on a subjective "it seems faster." A before-and-after measurement provides evidence that the change actually made a difference. This is one of the reasons I like using simple command-line tools such as iPerf in network troubleshooting: they turn a general feeling that something is better into a number that can be measured, recorded, and compared.

So yes, iPerf3 is the newer implementation, and I completely understand why many network engineers prefer it. But don't automatically dismiss iPerf2 just because it has a smaller version number. The current iPerf2 project continues to support throughput testing, TCP and UDP testing, latency and jitter measurements, packet-loss testing, parallel streams, bidirectional testing, and other capabilities. For my Ubiquiti Wave Pro test, iPerf2 does exactly what I need: it puts real traffic through the wireless link and tells me how well the network performs. The important thing isn't always using the newest tool; it's using an appropriate tool and understanding what the results are telling you.

[1]:  iperf/docs/faq.rst at master · esnet/iperf · GitHub

[2]:  Iperf 2 User Manual

[3]:  "Download RELEASE_NOTES (Iperf 2)"

Related articles

When the Cable Talks Back and Understanding Your Tools — This is probably the best match. It focuses on interpreting what network testing tools actually report rather than blindly accepting a pass/fail result. That fits very well with your point about using iPerf2 to measure real performance.

Using Wireshark to Analyze PowerShell Test-Connection — A strong complementary article because it demonstrates another practical method of testing connectivity and then examining what is actually happening on the network.

NetAlly AirCheck G2 Review: Field Test for Wireless Site Surveys — This is particularly relevant because it involves real-world wireless testing, including a video demonstration and discussion of documenting the testing methodology and results.