From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BA503B2A4 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:48:06 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1614264482; bh=cRZkuMRIBG6OyzR3o0vRWAKI/D3NXaut3xTaKyUKeKg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JMQRmE/srYEUPqxD45LP1NUKmXGoB2BfvqyR1rIRTsSibbWPwyWxau8dP0doRvSoc llh2BsHd0kVAVh5CxPIlfI6zZFlL0TKnPTZqPGCr6q+Y1SWU6hSPa9sCcRDBeEF2vS K5YL9WQn1MSq/SvpZ0ciA1GA/ooBICpEDnyUOlC+HNN4Jw7QnrsWaFJ81IKB8ixX7u MFmvXxMtdPVmEtKTDd9HcJSPOPcYUrLaLb8grny0nRpgurWOzZrY5UXfVjFC8Zqkwv VfNPZMg/k5C7lS7q+Eh6aeVj5F5nwErvQ7Slmshpf7ErqBhdQvPpwAGRfVT2TZpleo Ayn4l90t/pEpg== To: Sina Khanifar , bloat Cc: sam@waveform.com In-Reply-To: <87r1l41gel.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87r1l41gel.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 15:48:01 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87ft1k19we.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] Updated Bufferbloat Test 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:48:06 -0000 Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen 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 =E2=80=9Cwarming up=E2=80=9D period, and spent quite a bi= t 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=3Db14731d3-46d7-49ba-8= cc7-3641b495e6c7 > Firefox: > https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=3D877f496a-457a-4cc2-8= f4c-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=3D9965c8db-367c-45f1-927= c-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