On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I browse the web, I see several sets of performance measurement using either netperf or iperf, and never know if either offers an advantage.
>
> I know Flent uses netperf by default: what are the reason(s) for selecting it? Thanks
* iperf
+ More widely available
- I have generally not trusted the results published either - but
aaron finding that major bug in iperf's udp measurements explains a
LOT of that. I think.
- Has, like, 3-8 non-interoperable versions.
- is available in java, for example
there *might* be an iperf version worth adopting but I have no idea
which one it would be.
I started speccing out a flent specific netperf/iperf replacement
*years* ago, (twd), but the enormous amount of money/effort required
to do it right caused me to dump the project. Also, at the time
(because of the need for reliable high speed measurements AND for
measurements on obscure, weak, cpus) my preferred language was going
to be C, and that too raised the time/money metric into the
stratosphere.