Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-28 Thread Christiano Farina Haesbaert
2009/8/28 Claudio Jeker : > > I'm running with this version that fixes the way closed sockets are > handled. Instead of ignoring the last fd it will run handle_connection() > on that fd if the fd is valid and has data. I also fixed a off by one in > the same code. > > With this the code seems to wo

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-28 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 01:52:18AM -0300, Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:17:04PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Claudio Jeker [2009-08-05 19:04]: > > > This needs a bit more work and maybe it would make sense to switch away > > > from poll to kqueue or libevent

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-25 Thread Christiano Farina Haesbaert
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:17:04PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Claudio Jeker [2009-08-05 19:04]: > > This needs a bit more work and maybe it would make sense to switch away > > from poll to kqueue or libevent. poll() gets inefficient when handling > > large ammount of fds. But that's maybe fo

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-10 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 04:00:12AM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > looks OK to me, but are routing domains only supported for IPv4? > If so, please mention that they don't work for IPv6. > The sockopt is currently only valid for IPPROTO_IP but it will be added to IPPROTO_IPV6 as soon as we support

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-10 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2009/08/10 21:59, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:38:19AM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Claudio Jeker > > wrote: > > > +.Op Fl V Ar rdomain > > > > Out of curiosity, why V instead of R, d, or D? > > > > Because ping, traceroute, nc and t

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-10 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:38:19AM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Claudio Jeker > wrote: > > +.Op Fl V Ar rdomain > > Out of curiosity, why V instead of R, d, or D? > Because ping, traceroute, nc and telnet use -V. It was one of the only flags that is left open

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-10 Thread Matthew Dempsky
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote: > +.Op Fl V Ar rdomain Out of curiosity, why V instead of R, d, or D?

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-10 Thread Damien Miller
looks OK to me, but are routing domains only supported for IPv4? If so, please mention that they don't work for IPv6. -d On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 05:08:45PM -0300, Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: > > I've discovered that my patch reads the wrong tcp

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-10 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 05:08:45PM -0300, Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: > I've discovered that my patch reads the wrong tcp table entry, as soon > as I fix this I'll mail the final patch. > I had to add rdomain support to tcpbench so that I can use it in my test setup. Diff is attached, I ho

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-08 Thread Christiano Farina Haesbaert
I've discovered that my patch reads the wrong tcp table entry, as soon as I fix this I'll mail the final patch. -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-05 Thread Christiano Farina Haesbaert
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:04:21PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > > Index: tcpbench.c > > === > > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/tcpbench/tcpbench.c,v > > retrieving revision 1.8 > > diff -d -p -u -r1.8 tcpbench.c > > --- tcpbench.c

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-05 Thread Damien Miller
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Claudio Jeker [2009-08-05 19:04]: > > This needs a bit more work and maybe it would make sense to switch away > > from poll to kqueue or libevent. poll() gets inefficient when handling > > large ammount of fds. But that's maybe for later. > > that is

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-05 Thread Henning Brauer
* Claudio Jeker [2009-08-05 19:04]: > This needs a bit more work and maybe it would make sense to switch away > from poll to kqueue or libevent. poll() gets inefficient when handling > large ammount of fds. But that's maybe for later. that is DEFINATELY for later if it all. i really want this, i

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-05 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 07:33:00PM -0300, Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: > Hi there, > > Here is a much better diff proposal than my previous one. > > - Don't fork use poll instead. > > - Collect usefull overall statistics, as % bandwith being used by each > connection, total and average rat

Re: [PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-05 Thread Christiano Farina Haesbaert
Any feedback on this ? -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.

[PATCH] RFC: Changes to tcpbench.

2009-08-01 Thread Christiano Farina Haesbaert
Hi there, Here is a much better diff proposal than my previous one. - Don't fork use poll instead. - Collect usefull overall statistics, as % bandwith being used by each connection, total and average rate since last calculation,and peak transfer rate. - There is still a lot of work to be done,