Re: [Bloat] some benchmarks from arstechnica

[David Collier-Brown <davecb.42@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

I think he understands that he's talking about page fetch time to an 
audience that won't believe that latency is like "latent fingerprints": 
stuff that hasn't shown (up) yet.

Such folks annoy me (;-))

Note his quote usage in this:

> *IMPORTANT NOTE*about the -c {concurrency} option: if you ask for -c 
> 10, each "page" will consist of 10 parallel fetches of URL, and the 
> "latency" will be the amount of time it takes to get the last bit from 
> the last concurrent child fetch.

--dave

On 2019-12-19 2:32 p.m., Dave Taht wrote:
> I was not aware that jim salter had really gone to town on measuring
> latency under load in the past year - notably the 4 stream 1024p + web
> browsing torture test used here:
>
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/11/ars-puts-googles-new-nest-wi-fi-to-the-test/?itm_source=parsely-api
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/12/amazons-inexpensive-eero-mesh-wi-fi-kit-is-shockingly-good/?comments=1
>
> He considers under 500ms of browsing latency to be "good". Not
> entirely sure how he's calculating that, I think he's measuring page
> completion time rather than "latency" per se'.
>
> The tools he uses are here:
>
> https://github.com/jimsalterjrs/network-testing/blob/master/README.md
>
-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3964 bytes --]