Re: [tsvwg] sce vs l4s comparison plots?

Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> Mon, 11 November 2019 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@taht.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0761200E5; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:49:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 479iUr6GiH5h; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net [176.58.107.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38D0012001A; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dancer.taht.net (unknown [IPv6:2603:3024:1536:86f0:eea8:6bff:fefe:9a2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CD5321B46; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:49:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
To: "Tilmans\, Olivier \(Nokia - BE\/Antwerp\)" <olivier.tilmans@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm\@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <742142FB-6233-4048-931B-EE2DD9024454@gmx.de> <87mud4ejl9.fsf@taht.net> <VI1PR07MB59813E159802D4D4A1941840E0750@VI1PR07MB5981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:49:07 -0800
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB59813E159802D4D4A1941840E0750@VI1PR07MB5981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> (Olivier Tilmans's message of "Sun, 10 Nov 2019 23:59:20 +0000")
Message-ID: <875zjr1blo.fsf@taht.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/6YggLrjhKcD4j6U0G1G5w793s58>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] sce vs l4s comparison plots?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:49:25 -0000

"Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)"
<olivier.tilmans@nokia-bell-labs.com> writes:

> Hi Dave,
>
>> In looking over the l4s.cablelabs site today though, I see the data is
>> only available as .png files, and that the associated flent.gz data
>> is not apparently being published.
>
> If you follow the "full testbed results" link,
> you end up on this page which links to the raw data generated with Pete's
> tests in its 2nd sentence/§:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tbRBWkvxyEeDzT5u3EVynupXvEjG8MMb

Thanks! I missed that! I'm watching google take ages to attempt to zip
up the directory, and delighted to be able to use flent natively on the
result.

(if you can't tell, I haven't been paying much attention to this stuff,
 I popped up this weekend to catch up)

>
>
> Best,
> Olivier