perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[Stephen Fromm <>]

On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 06:28:40 -0700, Andrew Lake wrote:

> - We are dropping web100 support 6 months after 4.0 is released. This is
> something that has been contemplated for awhile now and the fact that there
> is no web100 patch for series 3 kernels, like that on CentOS 7, makes this
> a good time to make that transition.
>
> - We will not be including NDT on the toolkit or other perfSONAR bundles
> anymore since it requires web100. We do not make this decision lightly, but
> our user surveys the past few years and discussions with many in the
> community seem to indicate that NDT is not a primary driver in using
> perfSONAR and the support burden coupled with the burden of requiring a
> non-standard kernel outweighs the benefit in the perfSOANR context. This is
> not to say it doesn't have utility in other contexts. NDT has a loyal
> following so it is possible it will live-on in other venues such as M-LAB,
> but not directly as part of perfSONAR.

We have found NDT to be an important part of perfSONAR and a great
resource in assisting end-users identify issues between their client
computers and test points across a network.  This often helps identify
issues where it isn't feasible to deploy a perfSONAR node deep inside a
customer network.

Do the perfSONAR developers or other NDT users have suggestions on
alternatives to use?

Thanks,

-- 
Stephen Fromm
Network for Education and Research in Oregon