From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (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 DFC333B2A4 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 15:41:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id n20so11093073ejb.5 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:41:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=waveform.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JPsvab72A5EfBRw0bGbtvxL3SpsU3I02D7ebrtJTt/o=; b=s8Vq0e8jZGXFNTSYcpvKv7+JzyeFA8jyCD3Zgnqyj+mV5LywJpDR1vU1rE52KbPN7t zI0X96FDBRsxHi3u3ALsjissRonGpzvQHPhXczoKnzpS/6wQvg4/tER49Bhn3wovNSo4 /yNum846IxlmQAZUSV/RWEkP3Eff9JEGvf/3T2iATxxuF2mt0U0zy4oGoKtDdT0N0AUC FnSLdmSCPLOBwiB4X2K38ggaq9p1rw2nh+RoxMc0COAuXyJvx6ErRAaM5RlQrXsubea/ f2GXNph98LwMEBFsOJ1rD/hZ3fTqRoL8R4f2VGl7XFjqBiwlWex61kyxmfyEM3aw1csB XgPg== 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=JPsvab72A5EfBRw0bGbtvxL3SpsU3I02D7ebrtJTt/o=; b=EQC/O9pZvP4k3F/cBexbM6w1OG6Nl5rcy4TU+QUKDWz52ytrqeHpHcSN0o7KZBYyna YSrOa8ktE0LVlaAuChL4sGyk/F5Yz1GVyHVDhoJsvnQWcMkSFgQN4FHgkVZti+xA7IRZ iUO3uYoyjdNfvsB7nFXt3eXhmLwB+UYgEYt8aRISylsr196m7z2P0skv4r8ALZdnRQm3 xJ3W+0JHBsKCjMpftjXmB4uUGrXCY1Kc+KsvzW9zy2PuSafcAJd6BQYS411YqHdixtjJ p6wSzKBTD41X3bgzRb7VC2omCoNuwDQA11hp2wTZu7V3JYTo2g1Ww8Wt5LSTz/U0Qb+0 YePA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ac98kOjRemou/g92KcL/H3bItIKUFQbXsNwgckPsf2xU0AdJO CfG1Ru+enxShH98CDVh5wSCwuGDAV4c60IMjDj7rBGWtTPaS7hsfEYyFfC5GN1zLlPyegFisp9q DzsEfwwrZmCS8qDL8uvDUl2fcBPFfDhz9agtITE1fc2O/ifhcoZgtI+CTVFG+I7l7wm+Yxd8GJQ rH4+WJhQU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlSxH2Lf5ZZiwcylEphB26CuBzShoOtiuN13G0Rx/o9g4PeYIYGsmZYST/ZgDt2XN3sUIlLA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1f42:: with SMTP id d2mr4537738ejk.297.1614285717875; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ed1-f41.google.com (mail-ed1-f41.google.com. [209.85.208.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gt7sm3521545ejc.121.2021.02.25.12.41.57 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-f41.google.com with SMTP id g3so8520312edb.11 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:41:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2d0:: with SMTP id b16mr5037268edx.194.1614285717091; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:41:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sina Khanifar Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:41:45 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: bloat , sam@waveform.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] Updated Bufferbloat Test 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:42:00 -0000 Hi Sebastian! > [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add information on w= hether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent was inv= olved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and firefox/chrome/safari/brav= e/...) as well as the date and time of the test? All of these can help to i= nterpret the test results. We actually collect all this data, it's just a little bit hidden. If you take the test-id from the end of the URL and put it at the end of a URL like this: https://bufferbloat.waveform.workers.dev/test-results?test-id=3D6fc7dd95-8b= fa-4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9 You'll get a whole bunch of extra info, including useragent, a linux timestamp, and a bunch of other fun stuff :). We'll consider surfacing this more at some point in the future though! > Small typo "waus" instead of "ways". Thanks for catching this! A fix is in the works :). On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:49 AM Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi Sina, > > great work! I took the liberty to advertise this test already for some we= eks, because even in its still evolving developing state it was/is already = producubg interesting actionable results. Thanks foe fixing the latency num= bers for (desktop) Safari. More below. > > > > On Feb 24, 2021, at 19:22, Sina Khanifar wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > A couple of months ago my co-founder Sam posted an early beta of the > > Bufferbloat test that we=E2=80=99ve been working on, and Dave also link= ed to > > it a couple of weeks ago. > > > > Thank you all so much for your feedback - we almost entirely > > redesigned the tool and the UI based on the comments we received. > > We=E2=80=99re almost ready to launch the tool officially today at this = URL, > > but wanted to show it to the list in case anyone finds any last bugs > > that we might have overlooked: > > > > https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat > > > > If you find a bug, please share the "Share Your Results" link with us > > along with what happened. We capture some debugging information on the > > backend, and having a share link allows us to diagnose any issues. > > [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add informat= ion on whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent= was involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and firefox/chrome/saf= ari/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? All of these can h= elp to interpret the test results. > > > > > > This is really more of a passion project than anything else for us =E2= =80=93 > > we don=E2=80=99t anticipate we=E2=80=99ll try to commercialize it or an= ything like > > that. We're very thankful for all the work the folks on this list have > > done to identify and fix bufferbloat, and hope this is a useful > > contribution. I=E2=80=99ve personally been very frustrated by bufferblo= at on a > > range of devices, and decided it might be helpful to build another > > bufferbloat test when the DSLReports test was down at some point last > > year. > > > > Our goals with this project were: > > * To build a second solid bufferbloat test in case DSLReports goes dow= n again. > > * Build a test where bufferbloat is front and center as the primary > > purpose of the test, rather than just a feature. > > * Try to explain bufferbloat and its effect on a user's connection > > as clearly as possible for a lay audience. > > > > A few notes: > > * On the backend, we=E2=80=99re using Cloudflare=E2=80=99s CDN to perf= orm the actual > > download and upload speed test. I know John Graham-Cunning has posted > > to this list in the past; if he or anyone from Cloudflare sees this, > > we=E2=80=99d love some help. Our Cloudflare Workers are being > > bandwidth-throttled due to having a non-enterprise grade account. > > We=E2=80=99ve worked around this in a kludgy way, but we=E2=80=99d love= to get it > > resolved. > > [SM] I think this was a decent decision, as it seems your tests h= as less issues even filling 1Gbps links than most others. > > > > * We have lots of ideas for improvements, e.g. simultaneous > > upload/downloads, trying different file size chunks, time-series > > latency graphs, using WebRTC to test UDP traffic etc, but in the > > interest of getting things launched we're sticking with the current > > featureset. > > [SM] Reasonable trade-off, and hopefully potential for pleasant s= urprises in the future ;) > > > * There are a lot of browser-specific workarounds that we had to > > implement, and latency itself is measured in different ways on > > Safari/Webkit vs Chromium/Firefox due to limitations of the > > PerformanceTiming APIs. You may notice that latency is different on > > different browsers, however the actual bufferbloat (relative increase > > in latency) should be pretty consistent. > > > > In terms of some of the changes we made based on the feedback we > > receive on this list: > > > > Based on Toke=E2=80=99s feedback: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015960.html > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015976.html > > * We changed the way the speed tests run to show an instantaneous > > speed as the test is being run. > > [SM] Great, if only so it feels comparable to "other" speedtests. > > > > * We moved the bufferbloat grade into the main results box. > > [SM] +1; that helps set the mood ;) > > > * We tried really hard to get as close to saturating gigabit > > connections as possible. We redesigned completely the way we chunk > > files, added a =E2=80=9Cwarming up=E2=80=9D period, and spent quite a b= it optimizing > > our code to minimize CPU usage, as we found that was often the > > limiting factor to our speed test results. > > * We changed the shield grades altogether and went through a few > > different iterations of how to show the effect of bufferbloat on > > connectivity, and ended up with a =E2=80=9Ctable view=E2=80=9D to try t= o show the > > effect that bufferbloat specifically is having on the connection > > (compared to when the connection is unloaded). > > * We now link from the results table view to the FAQ where the > > conditions for each type of connection are explained. > > * We also changed the way we measure latency and now use the faster > > of either Google=E2=80=99s CDN or Cloudflare at any given location. We= =E2=80=99re also > > using the WebTiming APIs to get a more accurate latency number, though > > this does not work on some mobile browsers (e.g. iOS Safari) and as a > > result we show a higher latency on mobile devices. Since our test is > > less a test of absolute latency and more a test of relative latency > > with and without load, we felt this was workable. > > * Our jitter is now an average (was previously RMS). > > * The =E2=80=9Cbefore you start=E2=80=9D text was rewritten and moved = above the start button. > > * We now spell out upload and download instead of having arrows. > > * We hugely reduced the number of cross-site scripts. I was a bit > > embarrassed by this if I=E2=80=99m honest - I spent a long time buildin= g web > > tools for the EFF, where we almost never allowed any cross-site > > scripts. * Our site is hosted on Shopify, and adding any features via > > their app store ends up adding a whole lot of gunk. But we uninstalled > > some apps, rewrote our template, and ended up removing a whole lot of > > the gunk. There=E2=80=99s still plenty of room for improvement, but it = should > > be a lot better than before. > > > > Based on Dave Collier-Brown=E2=80=99s feedback: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015966.html > > * We replaced the =E2=80=9Cunloaded=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cloaded=E2=80= =9D language with =E2=80=9Cunloaded=E2=80=9D > > and then =E2=80=9Cdownload active=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cupload active.= =E2=80=9D In the grade box we > > indicate that, for example, =E2=80=9CYour latency increased moderately = under > > load.=E2=80=9D > > * We tried to generally make it easier for non-techie folks to > > understand by emphasizing the grade and adding the table showing how > > bufferbloat affects some commonly-used services. > > * We didn=E2=80=99t really change the candle charts too much - they=E2= =80=99re > > mostly just to give a basic visual - we focused more on the actual > > meat of the results above that. > > > > Based on Sebastian Moeller=E2=80=99s feedback: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015963.html > > * We considered doing a bidirectional saturating load, but decided > > to skip on implementing it for now. * It=E2=80=99s definitely something= we=E2=80=99d > > like to experiment with more in the future. > > * We added a =E2=80=9Cwarming up=E2=80=9D period as well as a =E2=80= =9Cdraining=E2=80=9D period to > > help fill and empty the buffer. We haven=E2=80=99t added the option for= an > > extended test, but have this on our list of backlog changes to make in > > the future. > > > > Based on Y=E2=80=99s feedback (link): > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015962.html > > * We actually ended up removing the grades, but we explained our > > criteria for the new table in the FAQ. > > > > Based on Greg White's feedback (shared privately): > > * We added an FAQ answer explaining jitter and how we measure it. > > [SM] "There are a number of different waus of measuring and defining jitt= er. For the purpose of this test, we calculate jitter by taking the average= of the deviations from the mean latency." > > Small typo "waus" instead of "ways". > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > We=E2=80=99d love for you all to play with the new version of the tool = and > > send over any feedback you might have. We=E2=80=99re going to be in a f= eature > > freeze before launch but we'd love to get any bugs sorted out. We'll > > likely put this project aside after we iron out a last round of bugs > > and launch, and turn back to working on projects that help us pay the > > bills, but we definitely hope to revisit and improve the tool over > > time. > > > > Best, > > > > Sina, Arshan, and Sam. > > _______________________________________________ > > Bloat mailing list > > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >