What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for
determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ,
CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"?
Steve Blair wrote:
I thought it has a lot of great potential usage; however, I was dismayed
at how much traffic it generates.
As far as way-alpha goes, it still requires a bit of tuning. I tried the
first edition, and it constantly reported my 10 Mbit ethernet as an 83
Mbit cable. While I like the idea that my network equipment might be able
to suck the bits right out of the machine, making them move faster, I
noticed it needed some accuracy adjustments.
(Note: The shortly-thereafter-released second version did fix that and
brought the bandwidths down.)
/cah
==>What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for
==>determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ,
==>CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"?
==>
Hello alex,
What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for
determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ,
CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"?
From the testing I've done the results are a reasonable
approx. of the -available- bandwitdh. I have also seen
some very outragious output out of the utility (solaris).
The linux version isn't able to figure out the MTU so
you have to specify it on the command line, when traversing
a slower link the out put from the far side can be -very-
un-reliable.
Hth, JimL
From my experience, I have yet to see it give realistic numbers on OC3
and OC12 circuits.
Ex-Support Wench writes:
From my experience, I have yet to see it give realistic numbers on OC3
and OC12 circuits.
what he said