Conversation
|
I switched branches and submitted. |
| flags.StringVar(&o.Port, "port", "8889", "Port used by floater.") | ||
| flags.IntVarP(&o.PodWaitTime, "pod-wait-time", "w", 30, "Time for wait pod(floater) launch.") | ||
| flags.StringVar(&o.Protocol, "protocol", string(TCP), "Protocol for the network problem.") | ||
| flags.IntVarP(&o.routinesMaxNum, "routines-max-number", "", 5, "Number of goroutines to use.") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to be a feasible method. Can a single test provide more detailed loss output?
Considering that excessive goroutines may cause a certain burden on the native network, if routines-max-number is set to 100 or more, how much traffic will the floater consume?
efc8fc9 to
4d8e043
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rxy0210 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
370a01d to
37e07f9
Compare
| // ToDo RunRange && RunNative func support multiple commands, and the code needs to be optimized | ||
| cmdObj := &command.Ping{ | ||
| TargetIP: targetIP, | ||
| goroutinePool <- 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
use struct{}{} instead 1
37e07f9 to
62955f2
Compare
| routineIPodInfo := iPodInfo | ||
| routineJPodInfo := jPodInfo | ||
| routineIp := ip | ||
| go func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can definite a func to extract the logic. like go XXXX()
62955f2 to
e9da94d
Compare
Signed-off-by: renxiangyu <renxiangyu_yewu@cmss.chinamobile.com>
e9da94d to
4b34d56
Compare
|
/lgtm |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What does this PR do?
Improves the speed of checking network connectivity
Which issue(s) does this PR fix?
Fixes #238
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?