From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 3C4FA3B2A4; Wed, 15 May 2019 03:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id p2so1506720iol.2; Wed, 15 May 2019 00:58:20 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=86PUwJCbisnQ6MxzFlvxEyhFYQGZAwgnVj9WhCPG09M=; b=Pi0gT9zUw8JZ0PsbM7IRWGpEBqIP6VmuLA74rGL3N5k5zmhNnll+TjSYbuAyLAmg4j ubqzwluew8PNVfUS1AIzqOMzICJwRrbTEDTB6ZkMzUiXxfzaOEA2uqgG1yPsZtc5/m+f DpeKY1Wjncwnz1E50I+XZBBM8k1fbh+uv+u/nOXi8Hoih2J8gpvfvUumr11btOZE6Bh/ 9SN1YpqCFV8s4fFvtUGtDy8cHTeEZH8T0sn72mpNXi/FXJHL1pyKOzo4iKNHaPrzur5t XCV5EgGmuXVPIWJxM8/u8Nb5YE6OEQjCtI3bLpI/Y1QXtrlOSraHvaXRN3HkrJ9GQHBo jKaQ== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=86PUwJCbisnQ6MxzFlvxEyhFYQGZAwgnVj9WhCPG09M=; b=qimpKkaV3x7ceVtRF2z9Rqmk75Q+zuArw/9y3AxD/R3S9nRb8UyPdJ0lCdEYDlslyv eJO6Ob70b+QQoWPmvSILBHDat5ze4tHjbmmoRzxrUO2th2VDlshdf46ipeubTzpB9mpv nNDpHrsiYrp1fNSnVRYPNYCJkzaOXY1oGI19x9uL74jKNiQ4QqamjKpUDTee45+3/i/5 eJWBT88EAKMs8U9EFCybuGC+yiOheLj6gmR1Q6asEXvI90H71xJvks7YaWmI4u1P+2n0 ktqsPd5ZRH7IQIm5uOUh+o4Kr2LwM6HYV7wlmgz5SW8bY/BW+DcxZLjgXthnXKe8dnxP LHOw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUwUg1uSW/1mqZ4Fd78LrP8ocDCfVpJNX/72T265V/frAFrXLkh zpqVyETVHPn6IboPcBfbt49f56S7P/RpukudpIQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5kn8rY0DKZAWGooWRfGu5B4Cl1wOrloEXWH5K1dkG5Vs3WprK0cry+vuhCJ6WPIoc7JMamyB7FTSklHULohM= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8241:: with SMTP id n1mr19013588ioo.232.1557907099510; Wed, 15 May 2019 00:58:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2936.1557856670@turing-police> <1557859131.759530583@apps.rackspace.com> <1557871532.754117608@apps.rackspace.com> <87lfz81x7b.fsf@toke.dk> <1557876841.69888745@apps.rackspace.com> <25460D05-4F53-4317-9722-2878B160BD7B@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <25460D05-4F53-4317-9722-2878B160BD7B@gmx.de> From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 09:58:07 +0200 Message-ID: To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: "David P. Reed" , Jonathan Foulkes , Rich Brown , cerowrt-devel , bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] (no subject) 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: Wed, 15 May 2019 07:58:20 -0000 If it helps any: Nick Feamster and Jason Livingood just published " Internet Speed Measurement: Current Challenges and Future Recommendations " ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.02334.pdf ) a few days ago, and outlines quite a few problems going forward at higher speeds. I do wish the document had pointed out more clearly that router based measurements have problems also, with weaker cpus unable to source enough traffic for an accurate measurement, but I do hope this document has impact, and it's a good read, regardless. Still, somehow getting it right at lower speeds is always on my mind. I'd long ago hoped that DSL devices would adopt BQL, and that cablemodems would also, thus moving packet processing a little higher on the stack so more advanced algorithms like cake could take hold. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:32 AM Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi All, > > > I believe the following to be relevant to this discussion: https://apenwa= rr.ca/log/20180808 > Where he discusses a similar idea including implementation albeit aimed a= t lower bandwidth and sans the automatic bandwidth tracking. > > > > On May 15, 2019, at 01:34, David P. Reed wrote: > > > > > > Ideally, it would need to be self-configuring, though... I.e., somethin= g > > like the IQRouter auto-measuring of the upstream bandwidth to tune the > > shaper. > > @Jonathan from your experience how tricky is it to get reliable speedtest= endpoints and how reliable are they in practice. And do you do any sanitiz= ation, like take another measure immediate if the measured rate differs fro= m the last by more than XX% or something like that? > > > > > > Sure, seems like this is easy to code because there are exactly two por= ts to measure, they can even be labeled physically "up" and "down" to indic= ate their function. > > IMHO the real challenge is automated measurements over the internet at Gb= ps speeds. It is not hard to get some test going (by e.g. tapping into ookl= a's fast net of confederated measurement endpoints) but getting something w= here the servers can reliably saturate 1Gbps+ seems somewhat trickier (last= time I looked one required a 1Gbps connection to the server to participate= in speedtest.net, obviously not really suited for measuring Gbps speeds). > In the EU there exists a mandate for national regulators to establish and= /or endorse an anointed "official" speedtests, untended to keep ISP marketi= ng honest, that come with stricter guarantees (e.g. the official German spe= edtest, breitbandmessung.de will only admit tests if the servers are having= sufficient bandwidth reserves to actually saturate the link; the enduser i= s required to select the speed-tier giving them a strong hint about the req= uired rates I believe). > For my back-burner toy project "per-packet-overhead estimation on arbitra= ry link technology" I am currently facing the same problem, I need a traffi= c sink and source that can reliably saturate my link so I can measure maxim= um achievable goodput, so if anybody in the list has ideas, I am all ears/e= yes. > > > > > For reference, the GL.iNet routers are tiny and nicely packaged, and ru= n > > OpenWrt; they do have one with Gbit ports[0], priced around $70. I very > > much doubt it can actually push a gigabit, though, but I haven't had a > > chance to test it. However, losing the WiFi, and getting a slightly > > beefier SoC in there will probably be doable without the price going > > over $100, no? > > > > I assume the WiFi silicon is probably the most costly piece of intellec= tual property in the system. So yeah. Maybe with the right parts being avai= lable, one could aim at $50 or less, without sales channel markup. (Raspber= ry Pi ARM64 boards don't have GigE, and I think that might be because the G= igE interfaces are a bit pricey. However, the ARM64 SoC's available are typ= ically Celeron-class multicore systems. I don't know why there aren't more = ARM64 systems on a chip with dual GigE, but I suspect searching for them wo= uld turn up some). > > The turris MOX (https://www.turris.cz/en/specification/) might be a decen= t startimg point as it comes with one Gbethernet port and both a SGMII and = a PCIe signals routed on a connector, they also have a 4 and an 8 port swit= ch module, but for our purposes it might be possible to just create a small= single Gb ethernet port board to get started. > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > > > -Toke > > > > [0] https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-ar750s/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740