perfsonar development work

["Jeff W. Boote" <>]

Stephan Kraft wrote:
> please find my comments in the document.

Hi Stephan,

I wanted to respond to your comments about available vs. achievable bandwidth. 
These terms actually are 'fairly' well accepted and defined, and we should use 
the accepted definitions.

"Achievable bandwidth" defines what you were able to achieve if you attempt to 
use as much as you can. This is the definition of what iperf/nuttcp/thrulay and 
tools like that do.

"Available bandwidth" is a much more nebulous term... It refers to the amount of 
bandwidth that is available on a link before a flow is likely to have problems. 
In practice, the tools people have written to determine this use packet 
dispersion techniques. Tools like pathload attempt to give you this value.

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Constantinos.Dovrolis/pathload_tutorial.html

jeff

> regards
>
> Stephan
>
> Loukik Kudarimoti schrieb:
> > Here is the document which describes the Multi-Domain Monitoring
> > Service for LHCOPN.
> >
> > Loukik.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Betreff:
> > Monitoring Service specification for LHCOPN - Draft
> > Von:
> > Loukik Kudarimoti 
> > <>
> > Datum:
> > Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:33:56 +0100
> > An:
> >
> >
> > An:
> >
> >
> > Return-Path:
> > <>
> > Received:
> > from mail.dante.org.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dante.org.uk
> > (Cyrus v2.3.7) with LMTPA; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:35:30 +0100
> > X-Sieve:
> > CMU Sieve 2.3
> > Envelope-to:
> > ,
> >  
> > ,
> > ,
> >  
> > ,
> >  
> >
> > Delivery-date:
> > Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:35:30 +0100
> > Received:
> > from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by mail.dante.org.uk with esmtp
> > (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from 
> > <>)
> >  id
> > 1IVoqv-00068R-ME; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:35:30 +0100
> > X-Virus-Scanned:
> > amavisd-new at dante.org.uk
> > Received:
> > from mail.dante.org.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dante.org.uk
> > [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id usvUsqA3YZAR;
> > Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:35:28 +0100 (BST)
> > Received:
> > from [137.138.166.172] (helo=cernmxlb.cern.ch) by mail.dante.org.uk
> > with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from
> > <>)
> >  id 1IVoqr-00068J-MH; Thu, 13 Sep
> > 2007 14:35:28 +0100
> > Received:
> > from cernpf02.cern.ch ([137.138.166.101]) by cernmxlb.cern.ch with
> > Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:35:21 +0200
> > List-ID:
> > <project-lcg-gdb-network-wg.cern.ch>
> > Precedence:
> > Bulk
> > Received:
> > from cernmxlb.cern.ch ([137.138.166.171]) by cernpf02.cern.ch with
> > Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:35:18 +0200
> > X-External:
> > man_on_the_moon_ex
> > DomainKey-Status:
> > non participant - Generated by CERN IT/IS DomainKeys v1.0
> > X-Filter:
> > CERNMX07 CERN MX v2.0 060921.0942 Release
> > Received:
> > from mail.dante.org.uk ([193.63.211.19]) by cernmxlb.cern.ch with
> > Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:35:13 +0200
> > Received:
> > from [193.63.211.19] (helo=Trend.local) by mail.dante.org.uk with
> > esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from 
> > <>)
> >  id
> > 1IVopR-00062h-Ph for 
> > ;
> >  Thu, 13 Sep
> > 2007 14:35:13 +0100
> > Nachricht-ID:
> > <>
> > User-Agent:
> > Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
> > MIME-Version:
> > 1.0
> > Content-Type:
> > multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090303020306030606020500"
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime:
> > 13 Sep 2007 13:35:13.0557 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9C6BC50:01C7F60A]
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > You might recall that DANTE had an action item to provide a detailed
> > spec of the Monitoring service (based on perfSONAR) that we suggested
> > during the last LHCOPN workshop. In attachment is a word document
> > which can be treated as an early draft for this specification.
> >
> > I am circulating this draft because we would like your feedback at
> > this stage of the specification being written up. Your feedback will
> > help us in tailoring some parts of the specification (especially
> > deployment location, security, site policies, etc) so that the
> > document can meet your requirements effectively. We would like to hear
> > your opinions and comments (even if you are happy with the
> > specification as is).
> >
> > Please do note that there are some sections in the document that are
> > empty and will get filled up with later versions of the draft.
> >
> > Thanks.