> On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:34 PM, teor <t...@riseup.net> wrote: > > Hi Rob, >
Hey there! > Can you define "goodput"? Application-level throughput, i.e., bytes transferred in packet payloads but not counting packet headers or retransmissions. In our case I mean the number of bytes that Tor reports in the BW controller event. > How is it different to the bandwidth reported by a standard speed test? I believe that iperf also reports goodput as defined above. > How is it different to the bandwidth measured by sbws? I am not an expert on sbws, but I believe it also measures goodput. > Where is your server? West coast US. > How do you expect the location of your server to affect your results? I expect that the packet loss that occurs between my measurement machine and the target may limit the goodput I am able to achieve, and packet loss tends to occur more frequently on links with higher latency. I plan to use multiple sockets (as standard speed testing tools like iperf do) and multiple circuits to try to mitigate the effects. Note that this is meant to be a fairly simple experiment, not a complete measurement system. Of course I won't be able to measure more than the bandwidth capacity of my measurement machine, but many relays already carry significant load so I'll just be giving them a boost. Peace, love, and positivity, Rob _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
