[Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] UDP averages seem off in batch output (#120)

[Dave Täht]

I would prefer to think it was flent that was busted here rather than cake.

Summary of rrul_be test run '100-10Mbit:nat:ack_filter' (at 2017-11-22 
22:17:58.800917):
  avg   median  # data pts
 Ping (ms) ICMP: 0.86 0.88 ms  351
 Ping (ms) UDP BE1 :  1006.76 1.85 ms  350 ?
 Ping (ms) UDP BE2 :  1003.68 1.85 ms  350 ?
 Ping (ms) UDP BE3 :  1099.73 1.74 ms  350 ?
 Ping (ms) avg :  1036.72 1.56 ms  351
 TCP download BE   : 1.96 1.96 Mbits/s 301
 TCP download BE2  : 1.96 1.96 Mbits/s 300
 TCP download BE3  : 1.96 1.96 Mbits/s 301
 TCP download BE4  : 1.96 1.96 Mbits/s 301
 TCP download avg  : 1.96 1.97 Mbits/s 301
 TCP download sum  : 7.84 7.86 Mbits/s 301
 TCP totals:64.3264.28 Mbits/s 301
 TCP upload BE :14.1214.09 Mbits/s 301
 TCP upload BE2:14.1214.09 Mbits/s 300
 TCP upload BE3:14.1214.16 Mbits/s 301
 TCP upload BE4:14.1214.13 Mbits/s 301
 TCP upload avg:14.1214.12 Mbits/s 301
 TCP upload sum:56.4856.48 Mbits/s 301


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/120___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

The owd data is already being collected, so it's fairly trivial to add the 
plots...

-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-346483968___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

[Dave Täht]

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen  writes:

> Oh, and many thanks for your work on irtt, @peteheist! We really needed such a
> tool :)

Thx very much also. I'd really like to get some owd plots out of
flent

>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.


-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-346478522___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Pete Heist  writes:

> So I'm glad! Looking forward to playing with this more soon. Thanks
> for all that refactoring too, looks like it was some real walking
> through walls...

Meh, it needed doing anyway. You just gave me a chance to repay a bit of
technical debt ;)


-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-346351161___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

[Pete Heist]

Oh yeah, probably time for this issue thread to retire. :)

So I'm glad! Looking forward to playing with this more soon. Thanks for all 
that refactoring too, looks like it was some real walking through walls...

-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-346345805___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

[Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] Using irtt for VoIP tests (#119)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Since we now have support for a nice UDP measurement tool in irtt, and also the 
ability to do fallback runner selection, we finally have an opportunity to 
retire D-ITG for VoIP measurements.

This issue is a fork of the discussion from the old monster thread in #106 to 
deal specifically with the VoIP emulation parts. Some comments from that thread:

> > On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:44 PM, flent-users  wrote:
> > 
> > A goal for me has been to be able to run Opus at 24 bit, 96Khz, with 2.7ms
> > sampling latency.
> > Actually getting 8 channels of that through a loaded box would be marvelous.
> 
> Sounds like a musician. :) If it were CBR, I don’t know if this is a way to 
> estimate it:
> 
> 2.7ms ~= 370 packets/sec
> @128kbps, 56 bytes / packet (44 data + 12 RTP)
> @256kbps, 99 bytes / packet (87 data + 12 RTP)
> 
> Just for fun, a ~256 kbps test between two sites, 50km apart, both using p2p 
> WiFi to the Internet. For realtime audio, I guess it’s the maximums that 
> could be the biggest issue.
> 
> ```
> % ./irtt client -i 2.7ms -l 99 -q -d 10s a.b.c.d

and

> G.711 can be simulated today with `-i 20ms -l 172 -fill rand -fillall`. I do 
> this test pretty often, and I think it would be a good default voip test. The 
> reason for the 172 vs 160 is the addition of a 12 byte RTP header, which is 
> present in the wireshark trace of a SIP G.711 call:
> 
> https://wiki.wireshark.org/SampleCaptures?action=AttachFile=get=SIP_CALL_RTP_G711
> 
> GSM is older now and I'm not sure how much it's still used over the Internet, 
> but since it has a payload size of 33 bytes(?), some statistics would have to 
> be sacrificed. I'd give up server received stats and dual timestamps, so `-i 
> 20ms -l 33 -rs none -ts midpoint` is a start. Not sure about additional 
> headers.
> 
> It should possible to simulate Opus in CBR mode in a similar way. But Opus 
> also supports VBR, which would require varying packet sizes, which irtt can't 
> yet do (plus, this would invalidate or at least pollute the IPDV calculation).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/119___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Oh, and many thanks for your work on irtt, @peteheist! We really needed such a 
tool :)

-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-346331677___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

[Pete Heist]

> On Nov 22, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 
>  wrote:
> 
> Pete Heist  writes:
> 
> >> > And this likely takes the mean value of all transactions and
> >> > summarizes it at the end of the interval, then the calculated latency
> >> > was what was plotted in flent?
> >> 
> >> Yup, that's exactly it :)
> >
> > Ok, it’ll be interesting for me to look at the differences between the
> > two going forward. Naturally doing it the udp_rr way would probably
> > result in a smoother line. The other impacts on the test might be fun
> > to explore.
> 
> Well the obvious one is that the netperf measurement uses more bandwidth
> as the latency decreases. Have been meaning to add that to the Flent
> bandwidth graphs, but now I'm not sure I'll even bother :P

True that, it ends up in a pretty tight loop with straight cabled GigE, as in 
my test bed...

> Also, the netperf measurement will stop at the first packet loss (later
> versions added in a timeout parameter that will restart it, but even
> with that we often see UDP latency graphs completely stopping after a
> few seconds of the RRUL test).

Yes, was noticing that before (one of our original motivations).

I know it’s a random connection, but I wonder how this would affect the 
throughput asymmetry I was seeing on the MBPs, for example. Would the 
driver/card grab airtime more aggressively when it’s transmitting many small 
packets, or do those get grouped together anyway? I can test it again when I 
get a chance, but I’m out of my league on the theory side here.

-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-346321260___
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org