From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) (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 2982721F310 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by laae1 with SMTP id e1so3111808laa.2 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:03:51 -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=IGoLcpl4DqcSYecwAotbWkQTiwXua+mLmD6s1ImA+yw=; b=iEMoL1LEXuhxfAMxEV1DMKpDFzREfQk/riCCaWKns8VbLqPo4uzEVRZjUyd9BhmZEJ UOUBRsq7Bu+j22ZGr0bcHcYIZR69qv+Qlhj4zD/LZC24rCfiurbpo/PCw0/KRDU5oQVq d46fKHtiJHAXiTtpz07RYD8YEJwk1EJMPa+V9pXeDwj+y2pxSHcY9HSOWy4hgQ9lD22X AhSDK2cKR0fYFwH2JCwt9pn1jpjyZIRXkYPdUjI8lD2rZbshh1Y1QvkbtVYv7J8WHxhn ADNvhuj1xJ1Cwakx/y+1LLgD+6s1IIn66Qn6iDuzOsFGJpxYS0b3v5m3EkjPm+oGIvXu GDlw== X-Received: by 10.152.37.164 with SMTP id z4mr5191396laj.5.1427227431844; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (87-95-176-54.bb.dnainternet.fi. [87.95.176.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ps2sm60503lbb.20.2015.03.24.13.03.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <20150324195715.GA22175@sesse.net> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:03:44 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <40167760-F680-4D96-884C-586362446C48@gmail.com> References: <4FEFA225-B30F-40E2-8594-BDBF1D9F3DFB@gmail.com> <20150324195715.GA22175@sesse.net> To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] facebook releases network test tool for slow and dodgy conditions 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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:04:22 -0000 > On 24 Mar, 2015, at 21:57, Steinar H. Gunderson = wrote: >=20 > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:49:42PM -0400, Rich Brown wrote: >> I hope they *do* have bufferbloat in their emulator. It'd be a real = shame >> if they failed to mimic the presence of bufferbloat in 3G/4G/DSL/etc. >> uplinks. Imagine if everyone developed their app using ATC, then = wondered >> why their performance stinks in the real world... >=20 > Does the distinction between =E2=80=9Clow-throughput, low-latency=E2=80=9D= and > =E2=80=9Clow-throughput, low-latency, bufferbloated=E2=80=9D really = mean all that much for > the average userspace app? You have to go pretty deep in the stack = before the > _reason_ for the slowness matters much. I=E2=80=99d say that there=E2=80=99s a useful distinction between =E2=80=9C= low throughput, *high* latency=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Clow throughput, low = latency, bufferbloat=E2=80=9D. The distinction between the two cases = you mention should be obvious to everyone here, of course. The distinction between general high latency and bufferbloat-induced = latency is that you can potentially mitigate the latter at the = application level, by opening fewer connections or performing manual = congestion control. This assumes that you=E2=80=99re the only = application using the link, but it=E2=80=99s better than nothing. - Jonathan Morton