[Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[lealog]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

Hi,

I'm trying to test a scenario where I have two PCs connected to the router on LAN side. 1 PC will create congestion and another PC simulating a Gaming console.
I would like to know if flent was any way to create two simultaneous streams with different bandwidths.

Example:
PC Congestion will use test rrul_be to try force the Bufferbloat issue.
PC Gaming will have a TCP stream with 15Mbps Download and 1Mbps Upload and measuring the latency and jitter.

Any possibility to execute this scenario? 

Thanks.

-- 
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/217

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1556 bytes --]

[Flent-users] Re: [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

lealog <notifications@github.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to test a scenario where I have two PCs connected to the router on LAN side. 1 PC will create congestion and another PC simulating a Gaming console.
> I would like to know if flent was any way to create two simultaneous streams with different bandwidths.
>
> Example:
> PC Congestion will use test rrul_be to try force the Bufferbloat issue.
> PC Gaming will have a TCP stream with 15Mbps Download and 1Mbps Upload and measuring the latency and jitter.
>
> Any possibility to execute this scenario?

There's not really any 'fixed bandwidth' tests like you're describing
available in Flent, no. You could perhaps simulate it by putting a
shaper on the network interface of the gaming PC enforcing the
bandwidth, and then just running a TCP test. The traffic won't look like
gaming traffic, but you can get the bandwidth you want, and you can
still measure the impact on cross-traffic on that traffic...


-- 
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/217#issuecomment-740632941

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2184 bytes --]

[Flent-users] Re: [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[lealog]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

The goal is to evaluate and compare different Routers and QOS policies.
Any plans to have Flent supporting this type of use cases? Also, could be interesting to have Flent managing different hosts and orchestrate them using a common GUI or CLI.

Unfortunately, I'm not a developer and I'm not able to provide code for some of these features.

-- 
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/217#issuecomment-740745288

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1440 bytes --]

[Flent-users] Re: [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1178 bytes --]

lealog <notifications@github.com> writes:

> The goal is to evaluate and compare different Routers and QOS policies.
> Any plans to have Flent supporting this type of use cases? Also, could
> be interesting to have Flent managing different hosts and orchestrate
> them using a common GUI or CLI.

Well, it would require an underlying test tool that could produce this
sort of traffic. I wouldn't be opposed to adding support for such a tool
if it materialised, but I am not aware of any either.

> Unfortunately, I'm not a developer and I'm not able to provide code
> for some of these features.

Some orchestration is possible already by a combination of tests with
multiple remote endpoints, and remote test runners. It requires a bit of
fiddling with the CLI and/or batch files to set up, but it's doable.
Extending support for running tests through the GUI would be neat, but
unless someone dedicates resources to this I don't think it's likely to
happen anytime soon, unfortunately...


-- 
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/217#issuecomment-740752354

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2200 bytes --]

[Flent-users] Re: [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[lealog]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

> Well, it would require an underlying test tool that could produce this sort of traffic. I wouldn't be opposed to adding support for such a tool if it materialised, but I am not aware of any either.

I would say that we can do this using iperf3. Iperf3 can specify the DS and US bandwidth using the option "-b". Does this make sense for you?

> Some orchestration is possible already by a combination of tests with multiple remote endpoints, and remote test runners. It requires a bit of fiddling with the CLI and/or batch files to set up, but it's doable. Extending support for running tests through the GUI would be neat, but unless someone dedicates resources to this I don't think it's likely to happen anytime soon, unfortunately...

I would say that supporting this on GUI is a "nice to have" :) Regarding the CLI, how can we do this? Can you share your idea?

-- 
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/217#issuecomment-741236420

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2023 bytes --]

[Flent-users] Re: [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2009 bytes --]

lealog <notifications@github.com> writes:

>> Well, it would require an underlying test tool that could produce
>> this sort of traffic. I wouldn't be opposed to adding support for
>> such a tool if it materialised, but I am not aware of any either.
>
> I would say that we can do this using iperf3. Iperf3 can specify the
> DS and US bandwidth using the option "-b". Does this make sense for
> you?

The trouble with the iperf UDP tests it that they just send off packets
and don't provide any feedback on how much makes it through. You may or
may not get a result at the end from the other side at the end of the
test, but that can also easily get lost. So while it can generate a base
load, this kind of test is not really suitable for graphing data *about*
those flows during the test.

>> Some orchestration is possible already by a combination of tests with
>> multiple remote endpoints, and remote test runners. It requires a bit
>> of fiddling with the CLI and/or batch files to set up, but it's
>> doable. Extending support for running tests through the GUI would be
>> neat, but unless someone dedicates resources to this I don't think
>> it's likely to happen anytime soon, unfortunately...
>
> I would say that supporting this on GUI is a "nice to have" :)
> Regarding the CLI, how can we do this? Can you share your idea?

Well, there are two options: Reverse the setup and run the Flent test
from the "other side" with different flows going to each of your two
test hosts. Or run Flent on one of the two "local" hosts, and use the
--remote-host option to execute some of the test runners on the other
host (preferably using a dedicated control connection between the two).
I've been using the former setup for WiFi tests, but which one is
easiest to do really depends on the details of your test network...


-- 
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/217#issuecomment-747477879

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3184 bytes --]