Re: [Bloat] How to "sell" improvement

2016-12-04 Thread David Lang
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016, Jonathan Foulkes wrote: Hear, hear, the concept of having ‘simulators’ for typical heavy modern web pages is exactly what we need to get across the benefits of lowered bloat having a larger impact on page-load performance than ‘speed’. Those simulated pages should report

Re: [Bloat] loccount on flent

2016-12-04 Thread Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Dave Taht writes: > COCOMO on flent is actually pretty accurate, within a factor of 2 or so. > > dave@nemesis:~/git$ cd flent > dave@nemesis:~/git/flent$ loccount -c . > all19579 (100.00%) in 85 files > python 18380 (93.88%) in 65 files > c

Re: [Bloat] Reasons to prefer netperf vs iperf?

2016-12-04 Thread Aaron Wood
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Rich Brown > wrote: > > As I browse the web, I see several sets of performance measurement using > either netperf or iperf, and never know if either offers an

Re: [Bloat] TCP BBR paper is now generally available

2016-12-04 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:13:19AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > You could turn off pacing , and keep fq. > > tc qdisc change dev eth0 root fq nopacing I don't really care about fair queueing except for pacing :-) But I'll try upgrading the kernel at some point. The results in turning off fq were

[Bloat] loccount on flent

2016-12-04 Thread Dave Taht
COCOMO on flent is actually pretty accurate, within a factor of 2 or so. dave@nemesis:~/git$ cd flent dave@nemesis:~/git/flent$ loccount -c . all19579 (100.00%) in 85 files python 18380 (93.88%) in 65 files c629 (3.21%) in 3 files shell370 (1.89%)

Re: [Bloat] TCP BBR paper is now generally available

2016-12-04 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 09:44 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 03:24:28PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Wait a minute. If you use fq on the receiver, then maybe your old debian > > kernel did not backport : > > > >

Re: [Bloat] Reasons to prefer netperf vs iperf?

2016-12-04 Thread Dave Taht
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Rich Brown wrote: > As I browse the web, I see several sets of performance measurement using > either netperf or iperf, and never know if either offers an advantage. > > I know Flent uses netperf by default: what are the reason(s) for

Re: [Bloat] How to "sell" improvement

2016-12-04 Thread Jonathan Foulkes
Hear, hear, the concept of having ‘simulators’ for typical heavy modern web pages is exactly what we need to get across the benefits of lowered bloat having a larger impact on page-load performance than ‘speed’. Those simulated pages should report total page load time and maybe even how many

[Bloat] Reasons to prefer netperf vs iperf?

2016-12-04 Thread Rich Brown
As I browse the web, I see several sets of performance measurement using either netperf or iperf, and never know if either offers an advantage. I know Flent uses netperf by default: what are the reason(s) for selecting it? Thanks. Rich ___ Bloat

Re: [Bloat] TCP BBR paper is now generally available

2016-12-04 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 03:24:28PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Wait a minute. If you use fq on the receiver, then maybe your old debian > kernel did not backport : > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=9878196578286c5ed494778ada01da094377a686 I checked, and