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

On 09/26/2017 01:35 AM, Dave Täht wrote: > > sysadmin@luke:~ $ ./irtt -i 10ms -d 30s -l 160 a.b.c.d > > IRTT to a.b.c.d (a.b.c.d:2112) > > > > Min Mean Median Max Stddev > > --- -- --- -- > > RTT 11.59ms 15.73ms 14.39ms 49.34ms 3.64ms > > send delay 5.9ms 9.23ms 6.8ms 43.16ms 3.48ms >

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

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:

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

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

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

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 ;)

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

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

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

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:

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

> 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 > >> >

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

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

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

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > > Trying to confirm how latency was being calculated before with the > > UDP_RR test. Looking at its raw output, I see that transactions per > >

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

Pete Heist writes: > Trying to confirm how latency was being calculated before with the > UDP_RR test. Looking at its raw output, I see that transactions per > second is probably used to calculate RTT, with interim results like: > > ``` >

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

Trying to confirm how latency was being calculated before with the UDP_RR test. Looking at its raw output, I see that transactions per second is probably used to calculate RTT, with interim results like: ``` NETPERF_INTERIM_RESULT[0]=3033.41 NETPERF_UNITS[0]=Trans/s NETPERF_INTERVAL[0]=0.200

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

Pete Heist writes: >> 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

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

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > > Next thing I noticed as for current tests, for rrul_be_nflows, the > > test completed but only one irtt instance ran (also just saw one > > connection to the server). > > > > % flent rrul_be_nflows

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

Pete Heist writes: >> On Nov 21, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> wrote: >> >> Ha! Epic fail! :D >> >> Well, I only just managed to finish writing the code and unbreaking the >> CI tests; didn't actually get around to running

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

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Ha! Epic fail! :D > > Well, I only just managed to finish writing the code and unbreaking the > CI tests; didn't actually get around to running any tests. I've fixed > those two errors, and am

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

Pete Heist writes: >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 9:58 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> wrote: >> Okay, testable code in the runner-refactor branch. >> >> Ended up doing a fairly involved refactoring of how runners work with >> data; which is good, as

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

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:14 PM, flent-users wrote: > > Winstein plot of latency variance? It doesn't get denser, it gets darker. > > Packet loss vs throughput? Not sure what that is exactly. Something like from July 2014 on this page?

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

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 9:58 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > Okay, testable code in the runner-refactor branch. > > Ended up doing a fairly involved refactoring of how runners work with > data; which is good, as the new way to structure things makes a lot more >

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

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 mahvelous. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Toke

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

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen < notificati...@github.com> wrote: > Pete Heist writes: > > >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen < > notificati...@github.com> wrote: > >> > >> Pete Heist writes: > >> >

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

Okay, testable code in the runner-refactor branch. Ended up doing a fairly involved refactoring of how runners work with data; which is good, as the new way to structure things makes a lot more sense in general; but it did mean I had to change the data format, so quite a few places this can

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

:) Gut laugh, I know that feeling sometimes... -- 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-345746540___ Flent-users mailing list

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

> Really looking forward to it! Working on it. Turned out to need a bit of refactoring. This is me currently: https://i.imgur.com/t0XHtgJ.gif -Toke -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

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

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > >> wrote: > > > I wondered if/when this would come up… Why not

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

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > > 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

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

Pete Heist writes: > 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 problem with this is that it also changes the sampling rate. I don't necessarily want to

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

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:

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

Of all the codecs out there, I like opus best. (It's deeply in webrtc). g711, and gsm, used to be the most common, but I've been out of this field a long time. ___ Flent-users mailing list Flent-users@flent.org

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

The `-n` and `-timeouts` parameters have been added to the client, and are documented in the usage. Quick examples: ``` tron:~/src/github.com/peteheist/irtt:% ./irtt client -timeouts 250ms,500ms,1s,2s -n 127.0.0.2 [Connecting] connecting to 127.0.0.2 Error: no reply from server

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

> On Nov 16, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > > Measurement-wise, I see similar results with netperf vs irtt in my Gbit LAN > > with > > BQL and 'cake besteffort lan' test, with irtt having a slightly higher

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

On 16 November 2017 18:20:16 CET, "Dave Täht" wrote: >Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: > >> Pete Heist writes: >> >>> On the positive side(?), with irtt, I don't see the 'latency >locking' >>> effect that I see with

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

Pete Heist writes: >> On Nov 16, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> wrote: >> >> Pete Heist writes: >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> >> wrote: >>

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

Pete Heist writes: >> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> wrote: >> >> > The handshake takes up to 15 seconds to complete (delays of 1, 2, 4 >> > and 8 seconds waiting for a reply), so not having irtt on the server >> >

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

> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > > The handshake takes up to 15 seconds to complete (delays of 1, 2, 4 > > and 8 seconds waiting for a reply), so not having irtt on the server > > will mean a 15 second wait. Do you think it’s ok to

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

> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Meh, irtt's functionality is basically a superset of netperf's UDP_RR. > So automatically picking irtt if available and a fallback is the right > thing to do, I think. I'd just add the plots

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

Cool, so far your namespaces scripts seem to work fine for me on 4.9.0 on the APU2. I tried an irtt run once with namespaces and once straight to the local adapter. There doesn't seem to be anything disqualifying in these results. In fact they look remarkably similar (took both results from the

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

Pete Heist writes: > I really like these PCEngines APU2 boards, and PTP HW timestamps. Now Peter, > back to work... :) What kernel is this, btw? A *lot* of useful stuff just landed in net-next for network namespaces, which may mean I can try to validate your results in

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

I really like these PCEngines APU2 boards, and PTP HW timestamps. Now Peter, back to work... :) ``` sysadmin@apu2a:~$ ./irtt client -i 1ms -d 10s -q 10.9.0.2 [Connecting] connecting to 10.9.0.2 [Connected] connected to 10.9.0.2:2112 MinMean Median Max Stddev

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

I should have another block of time next week to finish the upstream vs downstream packet loss stats, then after that could be a good time for Flent integration. Need my help for it? It would probably take me longer to get into the Flent code and I'm not much of a Pythonista, but I could try if

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

> On Oct 17, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > I tried rust out at about the same time esr did (in fact, sped up his go code > by threading it better). Didn't like it, either. > > ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7294 ) > > Honestly, I

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

I tried rust out at about the same time esr did (in fact, sped up his go code by threading it better). Didn't like it, either. ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7294 ) Honestly, I don't know what to do about having better R/T capable code in a better language. All I can do is point out things like

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

> On Oct 16, 2017, at 10:16 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > > > Also, If there's a reason I should do my tests with iperf2 instead, I'm all > > ears, as I'm a "scientist," not attached to my own work. :) I read that > > they're > Cross checking is always good. True, don’t

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

Pete Heist writes: > Thanks! I made most of your changes (-o was particularly broken, so this is a > better solution), except: > > * I'm still thinking about whether to default durations to seconds or not. I'm > using Go's default duration flag parsing, and I like

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

Thanks! I made most of your changes (-o was particularly broken, so this is a better solution), except: - I'm still thinking about whether to default durations to seconds or not. I'm using Go's default duration flag parsing, and I like the explicitness of seeing the units. - I like that the

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

Pete Heist writes: > Thanks again both for your kind help and feedback on this. I hope it's > useful, and if not, it sure was fun anyway! Very nice, and definitely useful! :) Took it for a quick spin on localhost, some oddities from my initial fiddling: - On first

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

Thanks for your patience...some late nights and mornings this week :) but the initial revision is pushed: https://github.com/peteheist/irtt I'm not posting pre-built binaries yet, if ever. Let me know if you'd like that and I'll see, but so far you have to install Go 1.9.1

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

Pete Heist writes: > Also, I hope the time I've invested is still useful, given the iperf2 > team's post about suddenly adding isochronous support for their > latency test. :) Anyway, I'll finish what I've started. The handshake > is working and it's a matter of

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

Also, I hope the time I've invested is still useful, given the iperf2 team's post about suddenly adding isochronous support for their latency test. :) Anyway, I'll finish what I've started. The handshake is working and it's a matter of wrapping up (a number of) details... -- You are receiving

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

Getting there, still. :) I ended up re-writing a lot of stuff as a result of the "handshake". Several late nights there... BTW Dave, I didn't mean to can the idea totally of simulating videoconferencing-like traffic, so thanks for that- it made me at least leave open a way to send packets with

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

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > > Yes, because the seqno is just the array index. I’ll add the seqno > > explicitly to make it easier to consume. > > So what happens if a packet is

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

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:17 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > > with a seqno it might also be possible to see ooo packets. It will be there. Since they’re in seqno order in the JSON, any processing to measure OOO will have to look at the arrival timestamps. I’ve got on the list

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

Pete Heist writes: >> - The data points are missing sequence numbers; makes it hard to infer >> loss, and to relate IPDV to RTT values. > > Yes, because the seqno is just the array index. I’ll add the seqno > explicitly to make it easier to consume. So what happens if

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

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > > An update: > > > > - JSON is working, sample attached in case there are comments / > > wishes. > > Lots of data; don't think I'll parse all of it

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

Pete Heist writes: > An update: > > * JSON is working, sample attached in case there are comments / wishes. > > * Median (where possible) and stddev are working. While I'm obsessive, so many seem to think networks behave with gaussian (where the concept of stdev

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

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 1:35 AM, Dave Täht wrote: > > While I'm obsessive, so many seem to think networks behave with gaussian > (where the concept of stdev comes from) distributions. > > Pareto distributions are closer but still inadaquate... Poisson is poison: > >

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

An update: - JSON is working, sample attached in case there are comments / wishes. - Median (where possible) and stddev are working. - pflag adds 160K to executable, passing for now. - Interval restriction on non-root users works. "No can do" in Windows so far (uid always -1). Tried looking