Re: [Rpm] Alternate definitions of "working condition" - unnecessary?

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>]

Jonathan Foulkes via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> writes:

> Let me add another tool, as it’s the one I use to ensure I measure
> full line capacity during our tuning tests. Netperf.
[...]
> But for research, I total agree Flent is great tool. Just wish it was
> easier to tweak parameters, maybe I just need to use it more ;-)

Fun fact: I originally started working on Flent because I grew tired of
manually running 'netperf' tests. The original name was literally
'netperf-wrapper' ;)

The original idea was that you'd customise it by writing new test
definition files. Of course it has since turned out to be useful to
customise things more at runtime, and Flent has grown quite a few
features in that direction since. But the original legacy endures, so
there are certainly things you can only do by writing test definition
files.

Anyway, specific feature requests are always welcome! :)

-Toke