From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from g1t0026.austin.hp.com (g1t0026.austin.hp.com [15.216.28.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.hp.com", Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Secure Server CA - G3" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72FF0201B88; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1t0039.austin.hp.com (g1t0039.austin.hp.com [16.236.32.45]) by g1t0026.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D61C1F0; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.103.148.51] (tardy.usa.hp.com [16.103.148.51]) by g1t0039.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4940E3400F; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <507454AA.9060206@hp.com> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:45:30 -0700 From: Rick Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= References: <87d30rra1s.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <87d30rra1s.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Codel] better testing, linux 3.6.1, cerowrt credits, other stuff X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:45:35 -0000 Toke - The script looks reasonable. Certainly cleaner than any Python I've yet written :) I might be a little worried about skew error though (assuming I've not mis-read the script and example ini file). That is why I use the "demo mode" of netperf in http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/examples/bloat.sh though it does make the post-processing rather more involved. I see you are running the TCP_RR test for less time than the TCP_STREAM/TCP_MAERTS test. What do you then do to show the latency without the bulk transfer load? You may find http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/netperf.html#Omni-Output-Selection in 2.5.0 and 2.6.0 helpful when it comes to getting netperf to emit specific measurements. I was thinking of trying to write a version of bloat.sh in python but before I did I wanted to know if python was sufficiently available in most folks bufferbloat testing environments. I figure in "full-featured" *nix systems that isn't an issue, but what about in the routers? happy benchmarking, rick jones here are some links concerning demo mode: http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/netperf.html#Using-_002d_002denable_002ddemo http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/netperf.html#index-g_t_002dD_002c-Global-22