Re: [Codel] [Bloat] FQ_Codel lwn draft article review

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>]

On 11/26/2012 01:05 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
> In theory, netperf could be tweaked to set SO_RCVTIMEO at some
> high-but-not-too-high level (from the command line?).  It could then
> keep the test limping along I suppose (with gaps), but I don't want
> anything terribly complicated going-on in netperf - otherwise one might
> as well use TCP_RR anyway.

Without committing to keeping it in there, I have made a first pass at a 
quick and dirty SO_RCVTIMEO-based mechanism to keep a UDP_RR test from 
stopping entirely in the face of UDP datagram loss.  The result is 
checked-in to the top-of-trunk of the netperf subversion repository at 
http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk .

I'm not at all sure at present the "right" things happen for interim 
results or the RTT statistics.

To enable the functionality, one adds a test-specific -e option with a 
timeout specified in seconds.  I would suggest it be quite large so that 
one is very much statistically certain that the request/response was 
indeed lost and not simply delayed or it will definitely throw the 
timings off...

happy benchmarking,

rick jones