Re: [Bloat] marketing #102 - giving netperf-wrapper a better name?

["Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)" <versteb@cisco.com>]

I was kidding about "sucks-less", and forgot the smiley in my initial note.

We do need a metric with an end-user-friendly name, though. Most people understand "lag", and understand that lower numbers are better. You could probably explain "lag-while-loaded" to most users (particularly people who care, like gamers) in a manner that got the point across.

Bvs


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:26 PM
To: Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)
Cc: Rémi Cardona; bloat; cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] marketing #102 - giving netperf-wrapper a better name?


> On 20 Mar, 2015, at 22:08, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) <versteb@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> We should call the metric "sucks-less". As in "Box A sucks less than Box B", or "Box C scored a 17 on the sucks less test".

I suspect real marketing drones would get nervous at a negative-sounding name.

My idea - which I’ve floated in the past, more than once - is that the metric should be “responsiveness”, measured in Hertz.  The baseline standard would be 10Hz, corresponding to a dumb 100ms buffer.  Get down into the single-digit millisecond range, as fq_codel does, and the Responsiveness goes up above 100Hz, approaching 1000Hz.

Crucially, that’s a positive sort of term, as well as trending towards bigger numbers with actual improvements in performance, and is thus more potentially marketable.

 - Jonathan Morton