From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBC147B9EF4 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 15:40:06 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com header.i=@github.com header.b=RjKexmnk Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-1294178.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.121.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8411DE20B1 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 06:40:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1608216005; bh=O4pf3eqI92q0LyexYXBfCvzhaHodLRIKWfXjHxKizRU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RjKexmnkmRhmN5dty+CulNJvM/4xv96TkK/Y/Onau1oWiOmcISfrU7OCCR0Qp+G89 geMz2PdVevY0+rdayxdzhSIGV8gBfj77h09OL+AobQDoHFqjnX/aS31z7iZowTWK4a VClo88gQsOYPKAFjSJbJ9zB1XUUvRgevtsKM7uWw= Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 06:40:05 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= To: tohojo/flent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5fdb6dc57f191_4f19b4564c2"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: tohojo X-GitHub-Recipient: flent-users X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: flent-users@flent.org Message-ID-Hash: X5U6XGS5IGGFSL6KBFILJ3UR54NADUCJ X-Message-ID-Hash: X5U6XGS5IGGFSL6KBFILJ3UR54NADUCJ X-MailFrom: noreply@github.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header CC: Subscribed X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.2 Reply-To: tohojo/flent Subject: [Flent-users] Re: [tohojo/flent] How to create two simultaneous tests with different bandwidth in both hosts? (#217) List-Id: Flent discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: ----==_mimepart_5fdb6dc57f191_4f19b4564c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit lealog 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 ----==_mimepart_5fdb6dc57f191_4f19b4564c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

----==_mimepart_5fdb6dc57f191_4f19b4564c2--