From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20CC221F462
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 10:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk
Sender: toke@toke.dk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310;
	t=1429465515; bh=wSJrSEZ1Q+laL4i/MnUnd6O1LbE0An7JCYrI+Plburw=;
	h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To;
	b=PYv9BmQhUk8uS4NH4wr2hYl+Di/OzBZ73GVOJL97AqLb3Sw0vxSRHlSRkcM85xVdj
	BalFZACN52qOfN6kAJZu6E/SZsTpanSRSrEj9z2SW2Ti2JGPZqXCnV8lRmogprZqUO
	uc0n3CU6/kD27WgKO9VcfpnIAMmPsistaATjkQ9w=
Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 536E3325EB9; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:45:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
References: <CAH3Ss97dy6wDSoPeyhZkEgDBvZc+7cduV5tTRmQ5uKkiK5V0qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87wq18jmak.fsf@toke.dk>
	<CAH3Ss96VC5PP74F4_gsfgJeB0tmpZV+DsWcZEhVFL5U5m5OG2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<87oamkjfhf.fsf@toke.dk> <87k2x8jcnw.fsf@toke.dk>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1504191913490.16871@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:45:14 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1504191913490.16871@uplift.swm.pp.se> (Mikael
	Abrahamsson's message of "Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:15:52 +0200 (CEST)")
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87fv7wj9lh.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:45:51 -0000

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> writes:

> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote:
>
>> The upload latency figures are definitely iffy, but the download ones
>> seem to match roughly what I've measured myself on this link.
>
> Also, I don't trust parallel latency measures done by for instance
> ICMP ping. Yes, they indicate something, but what?

Why not? They can be a quite useful measure of how competing traffic
performs when bulk flows congest the link. Which for many applications
is more important then the latency experienced by the bulk flow
itself...

I do agree, though, that other types of measurements are also needed.
Ideally we should have good latency characteristics for *both* competing
traffic and the bulk flows themselves.

-Toke