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 A22E421F450
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:30:15 -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=1429468207; bh=AvUqkPjSK+D+JNcpdZLbDE7cNQwlpM9RNbmzkZ8rilQ=;
	h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To;
	b=Q7dLpvx17jrnX1LD8IyilJ86ycbVrIcW3ZYGxkS/7j4P9hXDylwmHm5T3FECaTGBR
	yK9KVkoS/8TSs/gQ/GB/4jk5eNzD1mpgEX3sQHAtJ5XrAf8u6AiwpzOgoAjxU3t0J2
	dBTZxOQtrarXXIK8NzrFbdx17Si2shrbWrNrnfHw=
Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 85F923262BA; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:30:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
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>
	<87fv7wj9lh.fsf@toke.dk>
	<CB0E7EE4-C894-4B26-A7C9-5D0093AC0F49@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:30:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CB0E7EE4-C894-4B26-A7C9-5D0093AC0F49@gmail.com> (Jonathan
	Morton's message of "Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:26:32 +0300")
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87zj64hsy9.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
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 18:30:45 -0000

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:

>> 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.
>
> One clear objection is that ICMP is often prioritised when UDP is not.
> So measuring with UDP gives a better indication in those cases.
> Measuring with a separate TCP flow, such as HTTPing, is better still
> by some measures, but most truly latency-sensitive traffic does use
> UDP.

Sure, well I tend to do both. Can't recall ever actually seeing any
performance difference between the UDP and ICMP latency measurements,
though...

-Toke