On 01/29/2018 04:35 PM, Evgeniy Didin wrote:
> Hello Hauke,
>
> There are two patches, which solves problem with undefined "Abort":
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/comm
> it/?id=7c2c11b208be09c156573fc0076b7b3646e05219
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/ker
Sorry to keep following up with this;
the other thing it gives you is things like sysctl parameters, kernel,
tcp window scaling (pre and post test) and a bunch of per stream and
aggregated metadata relating to the entire suite. In a nice self
contained gzip that can produce lovely graphs using mat
In terms of what you need on the target netserver/netperf from ipkg is
tiny and is all you need.
On 30 January 2018 at 10:51, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:
> FLENT + RRUL testing is 4 up 4 down TCP streams with 4 different QoS
> Markings, and then 4 different QoS Marked UDP probes and ICMP.
>
> It g
FLENT + RRUL testing is 4 up 4 down TCP streams with 4 different QoS
Markings, and then 4 different QoS Marked UDP probes and ICMP.
It gives you a measure of how much the CPU and Network path can cope
with load conditions, which are more realistic for everyday use.
iperf3 isn't going to give you
Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:
> Any chance I can convince you to use netperf + FLENT for doing
> your tests rather than iperf(3)?
>
> flent.org
>
For those playing at home, could you elaborate on _why_? What do
you expect to change? By what sort of percentage?
Sincerely,
Karl Palsson
signature
Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> This modifies the patches in a way that they will apply on top of kernel
> 4.14 and also make them build with the x86 target. The configuration
> which was copied from kernel 4.9 before is also modified in this patch.
[]
> diff --git
> a/target/linux/generic/pending-
Any chance I can convince you to use netperf + FLENT for doing your
tests rather than iperf(3)?
flent.org
-Joel
On 30 January 2018 at 03:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >> So that means that you have to do the performance testing for routing
> >> between two s
Hello Hauke,
There are two patches, which solves problem with undefined "Abort":
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/comm
it/?id=7c2c11b208be09c156573fc0076b7b3646e05219
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/comm
it/?id=dc8635b78cd8669c37
I think that the merge should be finalized as soon as possible.
As of now:
1. openwrt.org home page is still the old one with just the merge announcement
2. Development link goes to dev.openwrt.org which gives an error with
no way out (at least with chrome)
3. Documentation link goes to wiki.open
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>> So that means that you have to do the performance testing for routing
>> between two subnets.
> Hi,
> With wired, firewall off and using routing (no MASQUERADE, explicit LAN
> route added on the NUC via WAN IP):
Thanks for doing this again.
This is
Hi,
The compiler generates calls to special functions (like the one in question
_multi3) if it doesn’t have a way how to solve it (via compiler backend rules).
This function is implemented by the libgcc which will have a default method to
address the functionality in question.
Now, from the lin
Hi Claudiu,
Could you please comment on the question from Hauke below?
On Sat, 2018-01-27 at 16:36 +0100, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Does the arc CPU also need some special handling like some MIPS CPUs:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bbc25bee37d2b32cf
On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 19:12 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 17:09 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >> > I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link
> Archer C7
> >> v4.0,
> >> > LAN
13 matches
Mail list logo
