Re: [LTP] [RFC] Proposed scope for replacing FTP/HTTP stress tests (#1207)

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

Hi Hristos,

> Hello,

> I would like to contribute a replacement for the FTP/HTTP stress tests
> described in issue #1207:
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/1207

> Before implementing the full replacement, could you confirm whether
> someone is already working on it, and whether the following direction
> is appropriate?

IMHO nobody is working on it ATM.

> I propose a separate TCP bulk-transfer tool integrated with the
> current LTP API and tst_net.sh, covering upload and download, a large
> single transfer, and bounded concurrent transfers for a configurable
> duration. Data would be generated and checked in fixed-size buffers
> using position-dependent patterns, without creating multi-gigabyte
> files. Both IPv4 and IPv6, partial I/O, deadlines and owned-process
> cleanup would be covered. Legacy test removal would follow only after
> the replacement coverage is demonstrated.

> Would you prefer this standalone approach, as suggested in the earlier
> discussion, or extending netstress instead? Are the existing
> transfer-size and duration settings important compatibility
> requirements?

If the diff would be reasonably small it'd be better extend netstress.c.
But I'm not sure if there is much code to be reused.

> Separately, I have an AI-assisted local prototype adding opt-in TCP
> reply validation to netstress. It has built on Ubuntu/WSL and passed
> 11 isolated receive checks and 8 loopback client checks across
> IPv4/IPv6. Those results apply only to that prototype, not the
> proposed bulk-transfer replacement. No patch is attached; I have read
> the project's guidance on AI-generated changes and understand that
> independent review and validation are required before any submission.

Yes, human review before sending to LTP would be nice.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Thank you,
> Hristos Nenkov

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp