From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp88.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp88.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625433BA8E for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 18833536C; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:22:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com Received: by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: jf-AT-jonathanfoulkes.com) with ESMTPSA id D345851CA; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:22:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com Received: from [192.168.7.138] (h23.129.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net [173.189.129.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:22:45 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Jonathan Foulkes In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:22:44 -0400 Cc: bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <54D77A02-39F8-4C50-81D7-AADE0621853F@jonathanfoulkes.com> References: To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Bloat] an observation from the field 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: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:22:45 -0000 Dave, very interesting to hear. In my dataset, I find that non-technical = users respond positively to the benefits of low-latency, even if the = speedtest metrics show much lower numbers than their plan indicates. = Stuff happens quicker, and more consistently, therefore they are happy. It=E2=80=99s the semi-techies and hard-core geeks that are a challenge, = as they insist on getting the =E2=80=98speed=E2=80=99 they pay for, and = no amount of explaining satisfies them. Interestingly, we see some 200+ Mbps lines that show low bloat on the = inbound leg with QoS off during tests, but if QoS is left disabled, = speed is high, but real-world use suffers and QoS has to be reinstated = on the inbound path. Seems the transient bloat on these lines affects = usability to the point where users will now accept lower throughput in = exchange for goodput. We see this mainly on Cable systems, not so much on (well deployed) = fiber. I see the challenge as needing to continue to socialize the benefits of = low latency vs capacity to the tech crowd. And I still think we need a = good end-user accessible test that would prove that point in a way = non-techies would get. Cheers, Jonathan Foulkes CEO - Evenroute.com > On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > In looking over the increasingly vast sqm-related deployment, there's > a persistent data point that pops up regarding inbound shaping at high > rates. >=20 > We give users a choice - run out of cpu at those rates or do inbound > sqm at a rate their cpu can afford. A remarkable percentage are > willing to give up tons of bandwidth in order to avoid latency > excursions (oft measured, even in these higher speed 200+Mbit > deployments, in the 100s of ms) - >=20 > At least some users want low delay always. It's just the theorists > that want high utilization right at the edge of capacity. Users are > forgiving about running out of cpu - disgruntled, but forgiving. >=20 > Certainly I'm back at the point of recommending tbf+fq_codel for > inbound shaping at higher rates - and looking at restoring the high > speed version of cake - and I keep thinking a better policer is > feasible. >=20 > --=20 >=20 > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat