From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A26E3B29E for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id q1so10291039ilt.6 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:38:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EnREhvq7bcabnJDEBRWP+sQVbqNY/Ow4jFWe1BgZSNI=; b=WofcEMSrdNSdpegIKOpiy+rj0afsy4HDd2pwNi+20+oYo8uKOSLgOaqmVIPvw7TyqS mG+5yFNEujC3LscEZxS2INEkvGTMovSrrIQIHtsodsmo47F5XmvMIi8R/O/n6I2n+eEc fI5L/r2LtqyQqoeZkYJWu5NuV35ZjlJHbOpS+c2Csrp6fYwfYM/PixTGQl6HyvKV0NDf dJBM9ooMC0xsSBv/9LbGNljmfkX86YxaJXNgiAQfM5QWwiUilRVJvhGL/srC1AXry6UE 94YdLPwELwkhxkx+S2SkLuviQ8RZzUXSi6ugopvcQx8CE2XEzR+RSve0GmyM3QIW1tyK FGfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EnREhvq7bcabnJDEBRWP+sQVbqNY/Ow4jFWe1BgZSNI=; b=YWaIUk8g6UbXTdGHEJjW29/XUG+2IKgL/TLF6ebg+uTJ/sFi8qft6UTmBEofhmkeU8 uYGulvfv+DH38uh/w2KdqEVJnnLzHVe7JfFVv5sw58YFC7avI/4A4XAVua4YPlpJ6zqI Y/0DdVV12E4/2o1Ui/7UQIG5Lc25MvnaeTJWbb+eer6pEnITW5O/iwWPzdcn2EHarfGD +p//O0ycBKObUIZ/iMUGHuB7x7NaBvXaR3xg6WlhFinyAKghvau1FOs/WKnPxkhau1Kd XMPR62i/4X3CtclQBTI9rK8vNKzeuo2IMxlFygcEJBYJ8RmZ546iwkmZ0sqWeoHLztdL vy1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312M1bCYN7zlMV8LO6HlRCh+Uq+gLyMufVajXgcAcjHSZoRDb10 PZ5eJ4M41IdlOZvg27Z5JNj4pONgvelrlNkL7zE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwsct6KEtwQZiJPaYMbbPHXSYnuJlRNNkXmFP8sfNe17nOFUPy5adD/Yx+WF1vzn6kbOG8sI1ljtIlXwmW+Hcg= X-Received: by 2002:a92:cd45:: with SMTP id v5mr2246424ilq.45.1605325088877; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:38:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87mtzwt47a.fsf@toke.dk> <87wnyzswy9.fsf@toke.dk> <87h7q3solo.fsf@toke.dk> <6315456F-AB57-4FDB-9D26-8AA2BB0DF687@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6315456F-AB57-4FDB-9D26-8AA2BB0DF687@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:37:57 -0800 Message-ID: To: Arshan Khanifar Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= , bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Bloat] Comparing bufferbloat tests (was: We built a new bufferbloat test and keen for feedback) X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 03:38:09 -0000 I just wanted to note on this enormous thread that my primary beef with most speedtests is the too short duration. cable's "Powerboost" was optimized for speedtests' 20 sec duration. The internet as a whole ended up optimized for a ~20sec download as a result.... Run a test for 21 seconds, and boom. flent defaults to 1minute tests by default and you can clearly see in many results we've published, the long, slow, miserable, ramp. A scientific way of compensating for the balance of user attention and an accurate test would be to always run some subset of the tests initiated by users for this longer duration and cross check those results.