perfsonar development work

[Jason Zurawski <>]

Roman Lapacz wrote:
> Jason Zurawski wrote:
> > Roman;
> >
> > Sorry for the delay, we were at a conference all week.
> >
> >
> > > Hi Jason,
> > >
> > > I took a look at the documentation of psB and compared message 
> > > examples with the schema. I found there some differences.
> > >
> > > Examples from that doc:
> > >
> > >  <nmwg:data metadataIdRef="metadata.5151146" id="data.13900036">
> > >    <iperf:datum xmlns:iperf="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/tools/iperf/2.0/"; 
> > > timeType="iso"
> > >                 throughput="9.83979e+08"
> > >                 timeValue="Tue Jan 11 14:13:08.2442238730 UTC 2005"/>
> > >  </nmwg:data>
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > >  <nmwg:data metadataIdRef="metadata.2233469" id="data.9963113">
> > >    <iperf:datum 
> > > xmlns:iperf="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/tools/iperf/2.0/"timeType="iso";  
> > >                 jitter="0.007" sent="138891" throughput="9.1026e+08"
> > >                 timeValue="Fri Dec 12 22:00:30.2630143482 UTC 2003"/>
> > >    <iperf:datum xmlns:iperf="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/tools/iperf/2.0/"; 
> > > timeType="iso"
> > >                 jitter="0.005" sent="138891" throughput="9.10258e+08"
> > >                 timeValue="Fri Dec 12 22:00:44.3079130773 UTC 2003"/>
> > >    <iperf:datum xmlns:iperf="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/tools/iperf/2.0/"; 
> > > timeType="iso"
> > >                 jitter="0.006" sent="138891" throughput="9.10256e+08"
> > >                 timeValue="Sat Dec 13 04:12:58.3205033444 UTC 2003"/>
> > >  <!-- ... -->
> > >  </nmwg:data>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The schema does not have 'throughput' or  'jitter' elements.
> >
> >
> > Corrected in my doc and the iperf schema in the main pS repo.  Jitter 
> > *should* have been there since this is reported by iperf UDP tests.
> >
> > Throughput is more descriptive than 'value' in my opinion (since there 
> > are many 'values' that can be returned by an iperf test).  I have 
> > added throughput to the schema but kept value for now in case VV or 
> > anyone else has a use for it.
> >
> > I think we should talk about deprecating the attribute or perhaps 
> > allowing it to stay with a use that will vary by service (I would 
> > prefer the latter).
>
> Jason,
>
> what about packet loss and fields containing units names (I understand 
> we consider iperf default units but maybe it's better to clearly include 
> them in the schema). Example:
>
> IperfDatum =
>        element iperf:datum {
>                attribute throughput { xsd:string }? &
>                attribute throughputUnits { xsd:string }? &       
>                attribute jitter { xsd:string }? &
>                attribute jitterUnits { xsd:string }? &       
>                attribute loss { xsd:string }? &
>                attribute interval { xsd:string }? &                
>                attribute intervalUnits { xsd:string }? &                
>                (
>                        (
>                                attribute timeType { xsd:string } &
>                                attribute timeValue { xsd:string }
>                        ) |
>                        Time
>                )?                             }
>
>
> Roman


You didn't mention loss earlier, but yes this should be there too.  I 
will add it.

I have no problem adding the 'units' fields, but lets let everyone weigh in.

-jason