Re: [Bloat] We built a new bufferbloat test and keen for feedback

[Sam <shorewall@net153.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3297 bytes --]

On 11/4/20 3:30 PM, Sam Westwood wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> My name is Sam and I'm the co-founder and COO of Waveform.com. At 
> Waveform we provide equipment to help improve cell phone service, and 
> being in the industry we've always been interested in all aspects of 
> network connectivity. Bufferbloat for us has always been interesting, 
> and while there are a few tests out there we never found one that was 
> fantastic. So we thought we'd try and build one!
> 
> My colleague Arshan has built the test, which we based upon the 
> Cloudflare Speedtest template that was discussed earlier in the summer 
> in a previous thread.
> 
> We measure bufferbloat under two conditions: when downlink is saturated 
> and when uplink is saturated. The test involves three stages: Unloaded, 
> Downlink Saturated, and Uplink Saturated. In the first stage we simply 
> measure latency to a file hosted on a CDN. This is usually around 5ms 
> and could vary a bit based on the user's location. We use the webTiming 
> API to find the time-to-first-byte, and consider that as the latency. In 
> the second stage we run a download, while simultaneously measuring 
> latency. In the third stage we do the same but for upload. Both download 
> and upload usually take around 5 seconds. We show the median, first 
> quartile and the third quartile on distribution charts corresponding to 
> each stage to provide a visual representation of the latency variations. 
> For download and upload we have used Cloudflare's speedtest backend.
> 
> You can find the test here: https://www.waveform.com/apps/dev-arshan 
> <https://www.waveform.com/apps/dev-arshan>
> 
> We built testing it on Chrome, but it works on Firefox and mobile too. 
> On mobile results may be a little different, as the APIs aren't 
> available and so instead we implemented a more manual method, which can 
> be a little noisier.
> 
> This is a really early alpha, and so we are keen to get any and all 
> feedback you have :-). Things that we would particularly like feedback on:
> 
>   * How does the bufferbloat measure compare to other tests you may have
>     run on the same connection (e.g. dslreports, fast.com <http://fast.com>)
>   * How the throughput results (download/upload/latency) look compared
>     to other tools
>   * Any feedback on the user interface of the test itself? We know that
>     before releasing more widely we will put more effort into explaining
>     bufferbloat than we have so far.
>   * Anything else you would like to give feedback on?
> 
> We have added a feature to share results via a URL, so please feel free 
> to share these if you have specific feedback.
> 
> Thanks!
> Sam and Arshan
> 
> *************************
> Sam Westwood
> Co-Founder & COO | RSRF & Waveform
> E sam@waveform.com <mailto:sam@waveform.com>
> D   (949) 207-3175
> T   1-800-761-3041 Ext. 100
> W www.rsrf.com <http://www.rsrf.com> & www.waveform.com 
> <http://www.waveform.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 


Looks pretty identical to what fast.com gave me. I'm on 50/50 fiber and 
firefox 82.
https://www.waveform.com/apps/dev-arshan?test-id=58dfa326-23d4-44a3-9059-b6011b104ccb

--Sam

[-- Attachment #2: Screenshot_20201105_152751.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 32907 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Screenshot_20201105_152830.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 41976 bytes --]