From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A743B29D for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 18:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A73F389D2; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 18:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5lW8CnHzJhG7; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 18:15:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5423389D0; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 18:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA1177; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 18:14:43 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Dave Taht cc: Arshan Khanifar , bloat In-Reply-To: References: <87mtzwt47a.fsf@toke.dk> <87wnyzswy9.fsf@toke.dk> <87h7q3solo.fsf@toke.dk> <6315456F-AB57-4FDB-9D26-8AA2BB0DF687@gmail.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Subject: Re: [Bloat] Comparing bufferbloat tests (was: We built a new bufferbloat test and keen for feedback) X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 23:14:45 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Dave Taht wrote: > I just wanted to note on this enormous thread that my primary beef > with most speedtests is the too short duration. > cable's "Powerboost" was optimized for speedtests' 20 sec duration. > The internet as a whole ended up optimized for a ~20sec download as a > result.... Run a test for 21 seconds, and boom. What did they optimize for that duration? "Tell me how your measure me, and I'll tell you have I'll behave" (I was told Demming said this, but the quote sites disagree) > A scientific way of compensating for the balance of user attention and > an accurate test would be to always run some > subset of the tests initiated by users for this longer duration and > cross check those results. Yes... and/or give them some feedback after 20s, and if they stay on the site, keep running the test. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl+wZOMACgkQgItw+93Q 3WVN5wf9GLVocDFSGl1ZARaIVAxNM3+6S94+UteghdINyHszguUrG9V/Ye5J7DAw Ubv4UHYlPsFjLDGJBy8AKMxlvpRhrNahrUOoopPARaN1Z2QSHj1XCNqQmep1FiVv Or+OZXoWzXnnATLGCefqgex7A09eH6WxJ/Z+O/MwCIxZBn3gQ2zsJh4KGEhhkiXB cRNsDPfoL6KtAzryYtIE9+QZ5hUZlxnViTWlMlzt3Zv52g34oTlNw4wgImyVkAr9 wFPZoicnJbnepJB7hM8bpj01Y3zMewkOi75Ore1oKG8FA/k62LdTk8TTxu3RmwoL kurjGLKr+0Q22Lz/Xftarq4Z14Qwsg== =QwXJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--