From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-04-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-066-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.66]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAD12E0322 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan-01-ewr.mailhop.org (scanner [10.0.141.223]) by mail-04-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66257E590B for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:33:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 74.125.82.171 Received: from mail-wy0-f171.google.com (mail-wy0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) by mail-04-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB607E5948 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so10570532wyb.16 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:33:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=VsZ/b1o5ChHKOQeJIzvoeiQUTROBNmfrxsdFwMjrUsc=; b=vS4C95zTrnAUCagv1gDhZbB7cgnYqvbjscNhMHY8BWlE/giyHUSPUSxD69tnnOXIsa 8t9RiUUE1EHuwAloU1dwGaEsQyu7aRomtUFJDmnHJKdPgxQo2y/CW62nHEyJujgRARBd A/fVt0VY03owGERKSlQaL+PfvBbmAUqnNTjy8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; b=j1Pg+L0n+uMORtJPJICaKhrQCxJ9Zq0XMmcghm+add1iP6ZNxA9cz5scP9M9BZwvNd WbDxa3YACAknEWwIeunN8xZ9CB9/3T44wbt1Bh9dobMfkmSsvVmd6j0Mgx8QSvCFnObr QxKStD1tLOQXpGTT0FPt07+FE78iaXa1naaNE= Received: by 10.227.131.9 with SMTP id v9mr7053727wbs.6.1300919590964; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.210.140 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:32:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0D59AD34-AA64-4376-BB8E-58C5D378F488@gmail.com> <4D829B58.1070601@swin.edu.au> <20110323103357.GG30600@guug.org> <20110323192740.GI30600@guug.org> From: Dave Hart Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:32:49 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Bloat] Progress with latency-under-load tool To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Otto Solares , bloat-devel X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net List-Id: "Developers working on AQM, device drivers, and networking stacks" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:33:15 -0000 [Removed bloat@] On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > I do plan to add the traditional units as a secondary output, but I want > to finish proving that high-frequency networks actually do exist first. > The existing units will remain primary for the reasons outlined below. - Hide quoted text - Hi Jonathan. Thanks for taking the time to develop this new tool in the bufferbloat.net arsenal. I have been hoping you would come around under the overwhelming one-sided responses to your use of inverted statistics and save me from weighing in, but no such luck, though I'm not sure there's been a single expression of support for reporting only Hz. I fail to see how reporting latency and max observed payload progress stall time in both time and Hz would prevent the proof you seek, which leaves me wondering what really underlies your rigidity. The Hz representation is hiding useful information, because despite our hopes, the latency and peak jitter do in fact often exceed 1s, and your tool is limiting the display to so few significant digits the end result is the summary numbers (0 Hz!) are _useless_ and any information to be gleaned has to come from our own summary of the individual test statistics. I also question using only the worst result as the overall result -- I fear it will lead to the tool being viewed as producing noisy numbers requiring many runs to validate before drawing conclusions. I suggest min/max/avg/stddev for each. Your apparent belief is that the people who must be convinced are not clever enough to properly interpret lower-is-better. That is a presumptive and condescending attitude. I suspect that's a big part of why the response so far has been so one-sided. Thanks again for producing your tool and enabling others to measure and share what they see with it. Cheers, Dave Hart