From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D68653B29E for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 05:15:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1592212548; bh=5Zq8l5UEjw52iOLgBr3ICxHmqniqaAkD/+6JUn+LSQ0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HtDdvkdhLMkxhkgTpL/pFHKCkoluPHMfsK6nzdedi+cXpXySzuNVw7mF/I/3oAWYo EQ45GDvpbHyBPlCU0X0YRZxKifGLqgGzaTNqyLX1AOpL+nrcpoMr/Q+mC8DZcjpHGY Ch+VCDt12vJTU+FUTEc5zpzl+VkaUVj7nPYo8iojA57wHoEC7g+yB82y4CFSzc/ki2 ZlxQY/xlo5rv+3r3L2Ae3ABoNGIVAWy098BhNfuvKd1IaPjX/iwtybt9MQlkTy9ehZ ZElFkoOh+3I1jj6UpFWUdnw+fKysyeVVQwmvitvlUEYI/joBA7ZTd4F4AahcQmJrnU UJd2GtKytq9eg== To: Sergio Belkin , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Is still netperf a valid tool? In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:15:41 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87mu541ygy.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:15:52 -0000 Sergio Belkin writes: > Hi, > I've seen that many of the recommended tools to diagnose/troubleshoot > bufferbloat use netperf. > Netperf in https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf has many years of > inactivity. In fact, in recent versions of distros don't include it. > So, my question is: is still netperf a reliable tool? Reliable in the sense that it works and produces results that are likely to be fairly close to the reality you want to measure? Absolutely. Reliable in the sense that you can always rely on it being available? Unfortunately not. The latter is more of a licensing issue, though, which unfortunately also means that it is not likely to be fixed... :( -Toke