Pete Heist <[email protected]> writes: >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> (That was also informative for me about how netperf decides when to >>> emit a data point…) >> >> In that case I can add that the stated reason for this way of doing >> things is performance (i.e., emitting data points should not interfere >> with transfer performance). This is mostly an issue on systems where >> getting time is expensive; which is not the case on modern Linux >> systems. But I'm not entirely sure that the optimisation only has >> historical reasons; it may be that some systems supported by Netperf >> still has this issue... > > Nice, I do respect the level of thought put into netperf…
Yup, netperf is the result of decades of optimisation, and widely trusted, especially in the kernel community. Which is the main reason why I chose it when first designing Flent (which was originally called netperf-wrapper for this reason :)). The flip side of this is that netperf does have its oddities and nooks and crannies, and can feel arcane at times. And the code is somewhat intimidating. So a clean slate tool like irtt definitely has its place as well ;) -Toke _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
