From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 8D3C021F2EC for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:29:30 -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=1429864161; bh=wPuSqDv3YQDEs7jGYoVxCVy555a/LRUIyCqpb4lMKyI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=qCcsBhagUPBm2iBd3Fikzd7eXWH2XyvO6nuSRyAxcwCVITHoZ43Ygypb2ftENKsBl K6beNOL4dExP+lV0RcU7j+PSVRIbUeXTTdB3OWP+ibjHq+CaoNl+ZSMZYQ+b2TBMdv DI6DwixRw69rHRo/8Fz52e/k5fTkv/1Rbwcb6a5c= Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0693DC40255; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:29:21 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Sebastian Moeller References: <2C987A4B-7459-43C1-A49C-72F600776B00@gmail.com> <14cd9e74e48.27f7.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> <20150422040453.GB36239@sesse.net> <1429676935.18561.42.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <12383_1429692679_55376107_12383_9099_1_p7gmr0psut68sen0sao8o4lp.1429692550899@email.android.com> <1429710657.18561.68.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <25065_1429716388_5537BDA4_25065_2328_1_63pyislbvtjf653k3qt8gw2c.1429715929544@email.android.com> <1429717468.18561.90.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5537CDB7.60301@orange.com> <1429722979.18561.112.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5537DA20.1090008@orange.com> <5537DE4D.8090100@orange.com> <553882D7.4020301@orange.com> <1429771718.22254.32.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <6C0D04CF-53AA-4D18-A4E4-B746AF6487C7@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:29:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <6C0D04CF-53AA-4D18-A4E4-B746AF6487C7@gmx.de> (Sebastian Moeller's message of "Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:18:18 +0200") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87wq123p5r.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:29:59 -0000 Sebastian Moeller writes: > I know this is not perfect and the numbers will probably require > severe "bike-shedding=E2=80=9D Since you're literally asking for it... ;) In this case we're talking about *added* latency. So the ambition should be zero, or so close to it as to be indiscernible. Furthermore, we know that proper application of a good queue management algorithm can keep it pretty close to this. Certainly under 20-30 ms of added latency. So from this, IMO the 'green' or 'excellent' score should be from zero to 30 ms. The other increments I have less opinions about, but 100 ms does seem to be a nice round number, so do yellow from 30-100 ms, then start with the reds somewhere above that, and range up into the deep red / purple / black with skulls and fiery death as we go nearer and above one second? I very much think that raising peoples expectations and being quite ambitious about what to expect is an important part of this. Of course the base latency is going to vary, but the added latency shouldn't. And sine we have the technology to make sure it doesn't, calling out bad results when we see them is reasonable! -Toke