Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 9:58 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > Okay, testable code in the runner-refactor branch. > > Ended up doing a fairly involved refactoring of how runners work with > data; which is good, as the new way to structure things makes a lot more >

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] Using network namespaces (#117)

Closed #117. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/117#event-1350923264___ Flent-users mailing list Flent-users@flent.org

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

A goal for me has been to be able to run Opus at 24 bit, 96Khz, with 2.7ms sampling latency. Actually getting 8 channels of that through a loaded box would be mahvelous. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Toke

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] Using network namespaces (#117)

Dave Täht writes: > For simulation it would be helpful to be able to monitor qdiscs and > other stats within a container. Hmm, the straight forward way to do this would be to make the 'qdisc_stats_hosts' test parameter understand namespaces, I guess? However, switch

[Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] Using network namespaces (#117)

For simulation it would be helpful to be able to monitor qdiscs and other stats within a container. ip netns exec delay tc_iterate -i delay.l ip netns exec delay tc_iterate -i delay.r ip netns exec mbox tc_iterate -i middlebox.l ip netns exec mbox tc_iterate -i middlebox.r --

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen < notificati...@github.com> wrote: > Pete Heist writes: > > >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen < > notificati...@github.com> wrote: > >> > >> Pete Heist writes: > >> >

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

Okay, testable code in the runner-refactor branch. Ended up doing a fairly involved refactoring of how runners work with data; which is good, as the new way to structure things makes a lot more sense in general; but it did mean I had to change the data format, so quite a few places this can

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

:) Gut laugh, I know that feeling sometimes... -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/tohojo/flent/issues/106#issuecomment-345746540___ Flent-users mailing list

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

> Really looking forward to it! Working on it. Turned out to need a bit of refactoring. This is me currently: https://i.imgur.com/t0XHtgJ.gif -Toke -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > >> wrote: > > > I wondered if/when this would come up… Why not

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > > > G.711 can be simulated today with `-i 20ms -l 172 -fill rand > > -fillall`. I do this test pretty often, and I think it would be a good > > default

Re: [Flent-users] [tohojo/flent] packet loss stats (#106)

Pete Heist writes: > G.711 can be simulated today with `-i 20ms -l 172 -fill rand > -fillall`. I do this test pretty often, and I think it would be a good > default voip test. The problem with this is that it also changes the sampling rate. I don't necessarily want to