From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CB221F1FA for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdy78 with SMTP id y78so16802618qgd.0 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:38:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=d64teOW49T0iAf4AmHCjqNBgFhlzzptQ+Q+Aw3hLOnA=; b=vf5balkQPvUxNzJGCjAUwILONvNXZIwHmYPKC3hb3B73nCy7PuZeOxTfQt7YJ0DQPi W9bt0PaE450PTvXbkBS9uHgiDAja34VbWtnC90r+MvUxUH8lOUYh8KJ4oHFclf5RgRKj yV55w9Q/5Th5uJqtb0nVjCeroqEWH1YWGjZC8xysjR4BFX5Pvy213J/5lts/7XPIAkqx hOmm7ptgKRFdVs2PiBzoPCo5/KGTI9PmGCncs/nVz8gWgmgv02E0wDmrTeM9LGSQjxJO TEQWZ4J0Hbc4+izSSGY8VFXTQ9ln80OfHraJIfF7OzkeMJFq9d/3OetT2W6t0zD2qE29 0XkA== X-Received: by 10.55.25.91 with SMTP id k88mr11055004qkh.57.1429839512890; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from richs-mbp-11940.home.lan (d-ptld-bng1-71-161-114-95.ngn.east.myfairpoint.net. [71.161.114.95]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t77sm7230677qgt.42.2015.04.23.18.38.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Rich Brown In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:38:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20477ADA-E2EF-4DD2-B7AC-44C57656B7DA@gmail.com> References: <87wq18jmak.fsf@toke.dk> <87oamkjfhf.fsf@toke.dk> <87k2x8jcnw.fsf@toke.dk> <0D391BB1-9CA5-4DAF-8FD6-6628AB09C1C5@gmail.com> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:39:03 -0000 >> 5) The gauge makes it appear that moderate latency - 765 msec (0:29) = - is the same as when the value goes to 1768 msec (0:31), and also when = it goes to 4,447 msec (0:35), etc. It might make more sense to have the = chart's full-scale at something like 10 seconds during the test. The = scale could be logarithmic, so that "normal" values occupy up to a third = or half of scale, and bad values get pretty close to the top end. = Horrible latency - greater than 10 sec, say - should peg the indicator = at full scale. >=20 > the graph started out logarithmic and it was changed because that made = it less obvious to people when the latency was significantly higher = (most people are not used to evaluating log scale graphs) I agree that the results graph should never be logarithmic - it hides = the bad news of high latency.=20 However, the gauge that shows instantaneous latency could be = logarithmic. I was reacting to the appearance of slamming against the = limit at 765 msec, then not making it more evident when latency jumped = to 1768 msec, then to 4447 msec.=20 Imagine the same gauge, with the following gradations at these clock = positions, with the bar colored to match: 0 msec - 9:00 (straight to the left) 25 msec - 10:00 100 msec - 11:00 250 msec - 12:00 1,000 msec - 1:00 3,000 msec - 2:00 10,000+ msec - 3:00 (straight to the left) Would that make sense? Rich=