|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
||This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
DrBob127 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Goodput is similar to throughput. Throughput is the rate at which a source can push packets to a sink (packets transmitted minus packets dropped). Goodput is throughput as seen from the user's perspective (packets received minus duplicate packets).
Reference: Arora, R.M., "TCP/IP Networks with ECN over AQM", Master's Thesis, Carleton University, April 2003, Section 2.3.3 & 2.3.4DrBob127 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I know wikipedia is a slave to convention (eg, using existing common terms rather than inventing it's own) but the term "goodput" sounds like an "appealing placement" rather than describing what it's actually about, such as "application level throughput"/"application layer throughput" (relating to the OSI model of network layers) or just "useful throughput". How commonly used is "goodput" really? Also the term "good" is subjective; high application layer/level throughput for malware isn't a good thing for the owner of an infected computer — Lee Carré 23:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Goodput is a fairly established term in the network testing profession, but as far as I can see not widely used even amongst (regular) network professionals. The term is not for describing the content of the data (like stated above, it well could be malware), but the data which is successfully transfered (as opposed to the data in packets that are lost or mangled). Eseim (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I always thought wikipedia had a policy against neologisms. 188.8.131.52 09:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The manual of style does caution against them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms Merreborn (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)