[Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Jason Iannone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 322 bytes --]

Hi,

I'm new here. Can anyone help me get pping installed? As far as I can tell,
cmake, make, and make install all worked, but I don't have pping. Does
anyone with a bigger brain than mine have a suggestion?

$ pping
-bash: pping: command not found

Thanks,

Jason

https://github. com/pollere/pping/blob/master/README.md

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 519 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm new here. Can anyone help me get pping installed? As far as I can tell,
> cmake, make, and make install all worked, but I don't have pping. Does
> anyone with a bigger brain than mine have a suggestion?
>
> $ pping
> -bash: pping: command not found

My bet would be a $PATH issue. You could try just running it from the
directory where you compiled it? I.e., substitute './pping' for 'pping'
- or look at the output of 'make install' and see if you have the
corresponding directory in your $PATH.

-Toke

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Jason Iannone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 841 bytes --]

Thanks, I have tried moving around the src directory hierarchy to no avail,
including searching for explicit references to 'pping'.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:52 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
wrote:

> Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new here. Can anyone help me get pping installed? As far as I can
> tell,
> > cmake, make, and make install all worked, but I don't have pping. Does
> > anyone with a bigger brain than mine have a suggestion?
> >
> > $ pping
> > -bash: pping: command not found
>
> My bet would be a $PATH issue. You could try just running it from the
> directory where you compiled it? I.e., substitute './pping' for 'pping'
> - or look at the output of 'make install' and see if you have the
> corresponding directory in your $PATH.
>
> -Toke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1273 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Jason Iannone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2176 bytes --]

I ended up cloning the pping repo and running make locally.

Installing was a few steps:

1. mkdir ~/src/libtins/build
2. cd ~/src/libtins/build
2. git clone https://github.com/mfontanini/libtins.git
3. make
4. sudo make install
5. cd ~/src
6. git clone https://github.com/pollere/pping.git
7. cd pping
8. make
9. ./pping

The promise of this, as Kathleen Nichols points out, is that we can
passively monitor production flows to get a novel sense of end to end
performance per flow. I don't know of any other passive monitoring
technique, beyond a port mirror + a whole gang of systems, that can provide
this level of detail. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The only other
passive monitoring mechanisms I'm aware of are SNMP polling, IPFIX/*Flow,
and Streaming Telemetry Interface. None of those systems provide end to end
flow performance details. The standard in-band active monitoring tools are
good for determining node to node and full path metrics, but this provides
a more complete picture of end to end performance beyond active
y.1731/802.3ag/OAM probes. I'm a little surprised that I'm only learning
about it now.

Now to figure out how to make it show me something..

Jason

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:02 PM Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, I have tried moving around the src directory hierarchy to no
> avail, including searching for explicit references to 'pping'.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:52 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm new here. Can anyone help me get pping installed? As far as I can
>> tell,
>> > cmake, make, and make install all worked, but I don't have pping. Does
>> > anyone with a bigger brain than mine have a suggestion?
>> >
>> > $ pping
>> > -bash: pping: command not found
>>
>> My bet would be a $PATH issue. You could try just running it from the
>> directory where you compiled it? I.e., substitute './pping' for 'pping'
>> - or look at the output of 'make install' and see if you have the
>> corresponding directory in your $PATH.
>>
>> -Toke
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3212 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

TJason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:

> I ended up cloning the pping repo and running make locally.
>
> Installing was a few steps:
>
> 1. mkdir ~/src/libtins/build
> 2. cd ~/src/libtins/build
> 2. git clone https://github.com/mfontanini/libtins.git
> 3. make
> 4. sudo make install
> 5. cd ~/src
> 6. git clone https://github.com/pollere/pping.git
> 7. cd pping
> 8. make
> 9. ./pping
>
> The promise of this, as Kathleen Nichols points out, is that we can
> passively monitor production flows to get a novel sense of end to end
> performance per flow. I don't know of any other passive monitoring
> technique, beyond a port mirror + a whole gang of systems, that can provide
> this level of detail. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The only other
> passive monitoring mechanisms I'm aware of are SNMP polling, IPFIX/*Flow,
> and Streaming Telemetry Interface. None of those systems provide end to end
> flow performance details. The standard in-band active monitoring tools are
> good for determining node to node and full path metrics, but this provides
> a more complete picture of end to end performance beyond active
> y.1731/802.3ag/OAM probes. I'm a little surprised that I'm only learning
> about it now.

What's your use case? :)

-Toke

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Jason Iannone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

Beyond getting acquainted with a new dataset? I'm a transit network that
supports, among other traffic types, science flows. I think new monitoring
methods can help identify targets for intervention.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 4:06 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:

> TJason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I ended up cloning the pping repo and running make locally.
> >
> > Installing was a few steps:
> >
> > 1. mkdir ~/src/libtins/build
> > 2. cd ~/src/libtins/build
> > 2. git clone https://github.com/mfontanini/libtins.git
> > 3. make
> > 4. sudo make install
> > 5. cd ~/src
> > 6. git clone https://github.com/pollere/pping.git
> > 7. cd pping
> > 8. make
> > 9. ./pping
> >
> > The promise of this, as Kathleen Nichols points out, is that we can
> > passively monitor production flows to get a novel sense of end to end
> > performance per flow. I don't know of any other passive monitoring
> > technique, beyond a port mirror + a whole gang of systems, that can
> provide
> > this level of detail. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The only other
> > passive monitoring mechanisms I'm aware of are SNMP polling, IPFIX/*Flow,
> > and Streaming Telemetry Interface. None of those systems provide end to
> end
> > flow performance details. The standard in-band active monitoring tools
> are
> > good for determining node to node and full path metrics, but this
> provides
> > a more complete picture of end to end performance beyond active
> > y.1731/802.3ag/OAM probes. I'm a little surprised that I'm only learning
> > about it now.
>
> What's your use case? :)
>
> -Toke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2412 bytes --]

[Bloat] offtopic to: Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2495 bytes --]

Every time we measure and graph something new, we discover something we 
never could have predicted by looking at the hing we set out to graph.

--dave

On 2021-02-26 7:36 p.m., Jason Iannone wrote:
> Beyond getting acquainted with a new dataset? I'm a transit network 
> that supports, among other traffic types, science flows. I think new 
> monitoring methods can help identify targets for intervention.
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 4:06 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk 
> <mailto:toke@toke.dk>> wrote:
>
>     TJason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com
>     <mailto:jason.iannone@gmail.com>> writes:
>
>     > I ended up cloning the pping repo and running make locally.
>     >
>     > Installing was a few steps:
>     >
>     > 1. mkdir ~/src/libtins/build
>     > 2. cd ~/src/libtins/build
>     > 2. git clone https://github.com/mfontanini/libtins.git
>     <https://github.com/mfontanini/libtins.git>
>     > 3. make
>     > 4. sudo make install
>     > 5. cd ~/src
>     > 6. git clone https://github.com/pollere/pping.git
>     <https://github.com/pollere/pping.git>
>     > 7. cd pping
>     > 8. make
>     > 9. ./pping
>     >
>     > The promise of this, as Kathleen Nichols points out, is that we can
>     > passively monitor production flows to get a novel sense of end
>     to end
>     > performance per flow. I don't know of any other passive monitoring
>     > technique, beyond a port mirror + a whole gang of systems, that
>     can provide
>     > this level of detail. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The only
>     other
>     > passive monitoring mechanisms I'm aware of are SNMP polling,
>     IPFIX/*Flow,
>     > and Streaming Telemetry Interface. None of those systems provide
>     end to end
>     > flow performance details. The standard in-band active monitoring
>     tools are
>     > good for determining node to node and full path metrics, but
>     this provides
>     > a more complete picture of end to end performance beyond active
>     > y.1731/802.3ag/OAM probes. I'm a little surprised that I'm only
>     learning
>     > about it now.
>
>     What's your use case? :)
>
>     -Toke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4492 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:

> Beyond getting acquainted with a new dataset? I'm a transit network that
> supports, among other traffic types, science flows. I think new monitoring
> methods can help identify targets for intervention.

Right, I meant more in terms of deployment: are you looking to run this
as an always-on monitor on a middlebox, or are you just running ad-hoc
measurements on a client device?

I ask because we have a PhD student working on a re-implementation of
pping in BPF, the goal of which is precisely to be able to run as an
always-on monitor:
https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/pping

So any insights into what you're thinking of doing with the tool would
potentially be helpful - adding in Simon, who's writing the code.

-Toke

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Jason Iannone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1186 bytes --]

Ideally, always on monitoring and export at the PE. An incremental first
step in an adhoc off box tester, maybe deployed with the perfsonar suite.

Meaningfully visualizing the output seems challenging. Do you have any
insights on that part?

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 11:00 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:

> Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Beyond getting acquainted with a new dataset? I'm a transit network that
> > supports, among other traffic types, science flows. I think new
> monitoring
> > methods can help identify targets for intervention.
>
> Right, I meant more in terms of deployment: are you looking to run this
> as an always-on monitor on a middlebox, or are you just running ad-hoc
> measurements on a client device?
>
> I ask because we have a PhD student working on a re-implementation of
> pping in BPF, the goal of which is precisely to be able to run as an
> always-on monitor:
> https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/pping
>
> So any insights into what you're thinking of doing with the tool would
> potentially be helpful - adding in Simon, who's writing the code.
>
> -Toke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1740 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com> writes:

> Ideally, always on monitoring and export at the PE. An incremental first
> step in an adhoc off box tester, maybe deployed with the perfsonar suite.

Right. Are any of those boxes Linux-based? Otherwise the BPF
implementation is not much use to you :)

> Meaningfully visualizing the output seems challenging. Do you have any
> insights on that part?

No concrete plans yet, but the obvious thing that comes to mind is
looking for latency variation within flows, possibly correlating it with
rate. I tried to do something with the Measurement Labs NDT dataset some
years back:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2999572.2999603

For a middlebox monitor, the most interesting for identifying possible
interventions is to figure out which path the data corresponds to.
Depends a little on the network topology and the position of the
middlebox what would be a good way to do that...

-Toke

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Kathleen Nichols]

On 2/26/21 4:56 AM, Jason Iannone wrote:
...
> passively monitor production flows to get a novel sense of end to end
> performance per flow. I don't know of any other passive monitoring
> technique, beyond a port mirror + a whole gang of systems, that can
> provide this level of detail. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The only
> other passive monitoring mechanisms I'm aware of are SNMP polling,
> IPFIX/*Flow, and Streaming Telemetry Interface. None of those systems
> provide end to end flow performance details. The standard in-band active
> monitoring tools are good for determining node to node and full path
> metrics, but this provides a more complete picture of end to end
> performance beyond active y.1731/802.3ag/OAM probes. I'm a little
> surprised that I'm only learning about it now.
> 

So, I worked on something I call TSDE (Transport Segment Delay
Estimator) that lets you get a (noisy) one-way estimate of delay
variation. I did pping as sort of a side product and as a way to find
the minimum round trip delay since TSDE just gives variation. This was
done under a DOE SBIR and Pollere has a patent on it but I would
consider sharing information if someone wanted to develop an open source
tool. (I feel that my own implementation is kind of fragile as I was
using it to try different ideas for getting a good estimate. And I
haven't done anything with it for several years.)

	Kathie

Re: [Bloat] Trouble Installing PPing in MacOS

[Jason Iannone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2449 bytes --]

I watched your presentation at ucla on youtube. I wasn't expecting the talk
you ended up giving, but I think your experience is familiar.

Poking at data in different ways is interesting and it can be hard to
separate the wheat from the chaff. What presentation methods matter? What
presentation methods drive useful action?

I'm not a data science guy. At my core, I am a plumber. New and interesting
ways of visualizing what lives in the pipes can help me target problem
areas, the same way you noted with the 7 second delay in the university
science network in your presentation.

I appreciate the scope of pping. It's small and intentional. Anyway, I dig
the intent and the size and I hope to see more of this kind of work.

Thanks for replying,

Jason

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 5:16 PM Kathleen Nichols <nichols@pollere.net> wrote:

> On 2/26/21 4:56 AM, Jason Iannone wrote:
> ...
> > passively monitor production flows to get a novel sense of end to end
> > performance per flow. I don't know of any other passive monitoring
> > technique, beyond a port mirror + a whole gang of systems, that can
> > provide this level of detail. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The only
> > other passive monitoring mechanisms I'm aware of are SNMP polling,
> > IPFIX/*Flow, and Streaming Telemetry Interface. None of those systems
> > provide end to end flow performance details. The standard in-band active
> > monitoring tools are good for determining node to node and full path
> > metrics, but this provides a more complete picture of end to end
> > performance beyond active y.1731/802.3ag/OAM probes. I'm a little
> > surprised that I'm only learning about it now.
> >
>
> So, I worked on something I call TSDE (Transport Segment Delay
> Estimator) that lets you get a (noisy) one-way estimate of delay
> variation. I did pping as sort of a side product and as a way to find
> the minimum round trip delay since TSDE just gives variation. This was
> done under a DOE SBIR and Pollere has a patent on it but I would
> consider sharing information if someone wanted to develop an open source
> tool. (I feel that my own implementation is kind of fragile as I was
> using it to try different ideas for getting a good estimate. And I
> haven't done anything with it for several years.)
>
>         Kathie
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3295 bytes --]