perfsonar-user - [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: Kevin Kawaguchi <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 01:15:17 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) ;
Perfsonar community,
We're looking at expanding our configuration on our perfsonar nodes. Currently we are doing bandwidth tests and i just added traceroute to mirror bandwidth sites. We know the warning about meaningless latency results because throughput is running. We
have a few questions to that end.
1. what is meaningless? Does it mean skewed? or does it mean 'do not use even if some skew is acceptable'? In the LBL workshop in February, Jason Zurawski had mentioned that latency/jitter/loss is the much more telling test. Are there more details on
the reasoning behind this statement? We're curious if this, like bandwidth, is just and indicator or if it gets us one step further down the troubleshooting path or what the benefit of latency is over bandwidth.
2. what is the time line for the version that will do a different interface for owamp vs bwctl?
3. if we were to 'add latency test anyways', in the future version would it automatically split out to the new latency interface we bring up or would we have to delete those tests and reconfigure them? if it would not be wasted time, i'd like to get the
latency tests in there while we have some help.
Thanks!
Kevin
|
- [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Kevin Kawaguchi, 06/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Eli Dart, 06/04/2014
- RE: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Kevin Kawaguchi, 06/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Eli Dart, 06/04/2014
- RE: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Kevin Kawaguchi, 06/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Eli Dart, 06/04/2014
- RE: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Kevin Kawaguchi, 06/04/2014
- Re: [perfsonar-user] owamp vs bwctl, Eli Dart, 06/04/2014
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.