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

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:40 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via Rpm
<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> 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! :)

I learned very painfully recently that using the gplv3 for anything
results in a blanket ban for any use whatsoever at many companies.
It might as well just be proprietary closed source code.

I am not sure where to go from there, I recognise the 8+ years of work
into flent make it into a tool that is vastly superior to
anything else, but where it would do the most good - inside orgs
building and testing new products - is prohibited by lawyers.


> -Toke
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm



-- 
Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC