> > OK, but let's forget about fixing iperf. Probably I got this wrong,
> > but I've thought this "bad" iperf patch was tested on a few nixes and
> > linux was the most different one. The main point is: even if there is
> > no standard here, it should be a common interest to try to not differ
> > too much at least. So, it's not about exactness, but 50% (63 -> 95)
> > change in linux own 'definition' after upgrading seems to be a lot.
> > So, IMHO, maybe some 'compatibility' test could be prepared to compare
> > a few different ideas on this yield and some average value could be a
> > kind of at least linux' own standard, which should be emulated within
> > some limits by next kernels?
>
> you repeat your point of "emulating yield", and i can only repeat my
> point that you should please read this:
>
>
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/357
>
> because, once you read that, i think you'll agree with me that what you
> say is simply not possible in a sane way at this stage. We went through
> a number of yield implementations already and each will change behavior
> for _some_ category of apps. So right now we offer two implementations,
> and the default was chosen empirically to minimize the amount of
> complaints. (but it's not possible to eliminate them altogether, for the
> reasons outlined above - hence the switch.)
