perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[pete <>]

Hey Mark, I really appreciate the feedback.  I feel better make the 
changes now.

I'll definitely follow up when we get it going.

Thank you so much!

Pete

On 12/07/2017 02:33 PM, Mark Feit wrote:
> pete writes:
>      
>      Does anyone have any experience or insight into how this might effect
>      our perfsonar regular tests?
>
> The general rule is that you should adopt whichever value or range is more 
> generous.
>
> The local port range on the perfSONAR machines is the default; adding to it 
> just expands the range of ports usable as source ports for network 
> connections.  If the speed tester is all HTTP(S), you shouldn’t need to 
> change this value unless you’re anticipating a very large number of 
> connections.
>
> The congestion control algorithm is a personal-preference thing.  HTCP may 
> work better for the speed tester’s payload and might net you better 
> throughput with perfSONAR.  All I can advise here is to benchmark both things 
> with both settings and see how they do.
>
> You should also be aware that perfSONAR won’t be aware of what the speed 
> tester is doing and vice versa, so testing throughput with both at the same 
> time may result in distorted results.  As discussed recently in another 
> thread, we are looking to modify an existing speed tester so it can integrate 
> with pScheduler and schedule a timeslot for its activities.  Let us know how 
> that one works out for you.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> --Mark
>   

--
Pete Greenwell
System Administrator
Missouri Research and Education Network [MOREnet]
http://www.more.net