Oppose - I understand goodput to be a term of the art which is pretty much unknown outside a small networking community. I believe there is room for both articles. In my opinion, the edits to what was Measuring data throughput have made the article less accessible, and less easy to understand. Goodput also encompasses more than simply the maximum throughput of data (less overheads), but includes packet loss; wheras people attempting to measure throughput are often attempting to determine the maximum possible data throughput under ideal conditions and may not appreciate just how large some overheads may be, before even begining to consider items like serialisation delay, packet loss and other items. WLD22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have withdrawn my own merge suggestion. The "measuring network throughput" article needs to be rewritten in many ways, perhaps it was good once uppon a time. Some of the details on protocol overhead may be moved to the goodput article. Mange0108:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
