>> Ok. That makes sense. The output reports "including connections
>> establishing" and "excluding connections establishing" regardless with
>> -C, so we should measure delays in the same way.
>
> On second thought, it's more reasonable and less confusing not to
> measure the disconnection delays at all? Since whether the benchmark result
> should include the disconnection delays or not is not undocumented,
> probably we cannot say strongly the current behavior (i.e., the disconnection
> delays are not measured) is a bug. Also since the result has not included
> the disconnection delays so far, the proposed change might slightly change
> the benchmark numbers reported, which might confuse the users.
> ISTM that at least it's unwise to change long-stable branches for this...
> Thought?
My 0.02€: From a benchmarking perspective, ISTM that it makes sense to
include disconnection times, which are clearly linked to connections,
especially with -C. So I'd rather have the more meaningful figure even at
the price of a small change in an undocumented feature.
--
Fabien.
