On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> wrote: > On 2016-05-10 15:38, John Crispin wrote: >> >> >> On 10/05/2016 15:35, Bert Vermeulen wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The iperf package appears to be unmaintained, the maintainers directing >>> people to iperf3 instead (see https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/). >>> >>> There is a fork of the original iperf package that's seeing some >>> maintenance, named iperf2: https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/ >>> >>> However iperf3 is in LEDE as well, and works perfectly fine. It is a >>> full code rewrite of iperf, and appears to be (mostly?) cmdline-compatible. >>> >>> I see no reason to keep both: iperf3 is the better project here. >>> >>> Does anyone have a compelling reason to keep iperf around? This would >>> mean switching to the iperf2 project -- either way the original needs to >>> go. >>> >>> >> >> >> i would vote to drop iperf and ask people to use iperf3 > NACK. iperf3 cannot do multi-threading, so it is useless for many > performance tests that I do.
I so wish I could get you to adopt flent and netperf instead. What does netperf not do that iperf does? > - Felix > > > _______________________________________________ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev -- Dave Täht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
