perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

["Garnizov, Ivan (RRZE)" <>]

Hi Pete,

 

From your message it appears you are interested in how to avoid “the conflicting bandwidth/latency issue.” You have also correctly noted that “The online docs for 3.4.1 still recommend using separate interfaces or hosts.” Leading to the conclusion you are aware of those to solutions for avoiding the conflict. Please note that the biggest benefit in PS 3.4 in this respect is “perfSONAR 3.4 supports hosts with 2 network interfaces in such a way that you can run bandwidth tests on one interface and latency tests on the other, without conflict.”

 

So to list all options to “solve the conflicting bandwidth/latency issue.”:

-          Assign measurements on different hosts

-          Assign measurements on same host but different interfaces

-          Assign measurements on same host, same interface, but play with cron and limits file to prevent having throughput tests during certain times of latency tests. This one has many drawbacks and a certain level of complexity, so is not a recommended solution.

 

I might be missing there the context of your inquiry and you might be having something different in mind, so please provide more details on your it.

 

 

 

Best regards,

Ivan

 

 

 

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pete Siemsen
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:45 PM
To:
Subject: [perfsonar-user] are BWCTL and OWAMP scheduled separately in 3.4?

 

perfSONAR 3.4 supports hosts with 2 network interfaces in such a way that you can run bandwidth tests on one interface and latency tests on the other, without conflict. Cool.

 

A buddy attended the recent Technology Exchange conference, where he heard that 3.4 will schedule tests in sequence, so that you don't have to worry about conflicts even if your host has just one interface.

 

The online docs for 3.4.1 still recommend using separate interfaces or hosts. So I think 3.4 doesn't solve the conflicting bandwidth/latency issue.

 

Correct?

 

-- Pete