Hi Toke,

Do let me know.  We're focused on the network i/o testing aspect (per being
a WiFi chip vendor) and are intentionally not trying to provide CPU load
metrics. (I think netperf provides both.)  A feature we are adding is to
warn when we think something other than the socket reads() and writes()
have become bottlenecks, e.g. in a CPU constrained system it becomes an
"entangled metric" between i/o and CPU though still presents in network i/o
units which can be misleading to network device vendors.

Also, many might want to consider monitoring "network power" which is
average throughput / latency or delay, i.e. "something good" / "something
bad"

Bob

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 3:26 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
wrote:

> Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com> writes:
>
> > Just an FYI in case anybody has interest in traffic tooling.
>
> I do! Specifically, I am planning to teach Flent to automatically switch
> between iperf and netperf as the underlying test tool[0]. I believe that
> there are a few netperf features missing from iperf that Flent currently
> uses, so I'll get back to you with actual feature requests for those
> once I've had a chance to take a look at this in more detail :)
>
> -Toke
>
> [0] The main driver for this is netperf's weird license which makes it
> impossible to package for FOSS-only distributions; leading to things
> like this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729939
>