Re: [Bloat] Updated Bufferbloat Test

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>]

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> writes:

>>   * We tried really hard to get as close to saturating gigabit
>> connections as possible. We redesigned completely the way we chunk
>> files, added a “warming up” period, and spent quite a bit optimizing
>> our code to minimize CPU usage, as we found that was often the
>> limiting factor to our speed test results.
>
> Yup, this seems to work better now! I can basically saturate my
> connection now; Chromium seems to be a bit better than Firefox in this
> respect, but I ended up getting very close on both:
>
> Chromium:
> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=b14731d3-46d7-49ba-8cc7-3641b495e6c7
> Firefox:
> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=877f496a-457a-4cc2-8f4c-91e23065c59e
>
> (this is with a ~100Mbps base load on a Gbps connection, so at least the
> Chromium result is pretty much link speed).

Did another test while replacing the queue on my router with a big FIFO.
Still got an A+ score:

https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=9965c8db-367c-45f1-927c-a94eb8da0e08

However, note the max latency in download; quite a few outliers, jet I
still get a jitter score of only 22.6ms. Also, this time there's a
warning triangle on the "low latency gaming" row of the table, but the
score is still A+. Should it really be possible to get the highest score
while one of the rows has a warning in it?

-Toke