From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (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 0EAAF3B29E for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id p1so7687532edy.2 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:41:42 -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=iPFvEIPVW0/g013XpOCG+7MsfxxH5VrEnc/ut85RU6w=; b=fGy/dhMb4/sWgTGK6Tf6SPa6m0qKveJ/Dp5Kkwa3VLDEH362uCG1RlvmtJarKyrSdS 46jKWhfvKXnANmBM8p1o0ayqwYk2J/Ko0sp8YPalXU11KU0vU+22HWGuFhbMGVuAm7Yl 5P7yBtbEWAcopjRTB9BfDFbetfXMTJGptQXsqcsBa6QzvCy693IxjwaxXrHV6Ym8ukFG PwjHhf0U3MQy5cn1En7HV3ZzxpIxlmPOVKnC83dDVZxE0yp2IC1Z9l/2P3oGMER0/h35 CtIlQbWcAqnNfOZHY4sO4qV5jFH6D5/4kJmlz7GWr4Yc6IPB5kNpojdS8CKmwNUyI7Zs XyLA== 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=iPFvEIPVW0/g013XpOCG+7MsfxxH5VrEnc/ut85RU6w=; b=GTpeRkYS5959mGHw2U0LUYZ1R36NtF5lC90ayefM1lEJ/kf0tQ4bgDHR0jQkEZZXxT uORolS7sXEGP5/jxyduGkAPumqK5AVf284REjxEbLK05tifT40noUkBRjITEqsRsHVHY iQZcSFTuPagZGbk963zlvkaHoqlIQHuVylWLlBxaBmN8/UxA01UM5ZtZ5VX+X0YtKId0 tVNQSi7CXHDd/dVa5FljkZWfgr0IIC+xeqwwVqRjoqOPVqXVJS12IngOSJEk07eGAnJv kd80Xfj2dv2js1p0DXgS/TrySnN1TsKZtKbYXwb0nesdt5ClnLJ1ybLkM7BA1hva+pUS XXOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531w6DuGwj/WEfpZkLyjqt1Ni3NIQxRqihgliSNBv3Zc3wuN3j5u cDhDtzmrVZPH6pqNYHQai4QPg+xgCJ1pS9uGpnnX8XKyLUwAl93omn/dwcHnesEURAkxTcVpWcj hcYjQQFHB5rxZ6jHA+jMNg9uaPGW6xEYps51Iwkhk7tHHUhniWRKyk4Xb4cBMzVRwctdWcS2rGs 6gt7yiIiE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwN/jCgOxAQcLH5G0DCFKsXVtbUbonuB52DqPWNWOLK01D3/5Ats51YVm5he0C5BWXpNCHlQg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d5c9:: with SMTP id d9mr5110324eds.102.1614364901685; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ej1-f44.google.com (mail-ej1-f44.google.com. [209.85.218.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e22sm6270507edu.61.2021.02.26.10.41.41 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-f44.google.com with SMTP id do6so16478743ejc.3 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:41:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2898:: with SMTP id o24mr4792948ejd.215.1614364901089; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:41:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sina Khanifar Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:41:29 -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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:41:43 -0000 Just a quick follow-up question @Sebastian @Simon: We're thinking of implementing a "download" button that would download the same data currently shown in the JSON view but instead as a CSV. Would that work? Best, Sina. On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:23 AM Sina Khanifar wrote: > > > would it be an option to embed the details link into the results page? > > > Having more detail available but not shown by default on the main page = might keep the geeks happy and make diagnosis easier. > > Will give this a bit of thought and see if we can make it happen! > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:15 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote= : > > > > Hi Sina, > > > > most excellent! While I concur with Simon that "keeping it simple" is t= he right approach, would it be an option to embed the details link into the= results page? > > > > Best Regards > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 2021, at 21:50, Sina Khanifar wrote: > > > > > >> https://bufferbloat.waveform.workers.dev/test-results?test-id=3D6fc7= dd95-8bfa-4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9 > > > > > > One quick edit, I just changed the route to these, the debug data is > > > now available at: > > > > > > https://bufferbloat.waveform.com/test-results?test-id=3D6fc7dd95-8bfa= -4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:41 PM Sina Khanifar wr= ote: > > >> > > >> Hi Sebastian! > > >> > > >>> [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add informatio= n on whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent w= as involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and firefox/chrome/safar= i/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? All of these can hel= p to interpret 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 o= f > > >> a URL like this: > > >> > > >> https://bufferbloat.waveform.workers.dev/test-results?test-id=3D6fc7= dd95-8bfa-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 surfaci= ng > > >> 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 s= ome weeks, because even in its still evolving developing state it was/is al= ready producubg interesting actionable results. Thanks foe fixing the laten= cy numbers 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 t= he > > >>>> Bufferbloat test that we=E2=80=99ve been working on, and Dave also= linked 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 bu= gs > > >>>> 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 inf= ormation on whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user = agent was involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and firefox/chrom= e/safari/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? All of these = can help 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 anything 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 buff= erbloat 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 l= ast > > >>>> year. > > >>>> > > >>>> Our goals with this project were: > > >>>> * To build a second solid bufferbloat test in case DSLReports goes= down again. > > >>>> * Build a test where bufferbloat is front and center as the primar= y > > >>>> 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 = perform the actual > > >>>> download and upload speed test. I know John Graham-Cunning has pos= ted > > >>>> to this list in the past; if he or anyone from Cloudflare sees thi= s, > > >>>> 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 te= sts has 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 curren= t > > >>>> featureset. > > >>> > > >>> [SM] Reasonable trade-off, and hopefully potential for pleas= ant surprises 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 o= n > > >>>> different browsers, however the actual bufferbloat (relative incre= ase > > >>>> 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" speedt= ests. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> * 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 quit= e a bit 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 to 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 faste= r > > >>>> 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, th= ough > > >>>> this does not work on some mobile browsers (e.g. iOS Safari) and a= s 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 latenc= y > > >>>> 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 mo= ved 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 bu= ilding 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 uninsta= lled > > >>>> 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, bu= t 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 ac= tive.=E2=80=9D In the grade box we > > >>>> indicate that, for example, =E2=80=9CYour latency increased modera= tely 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 h= ow > > >>>> bufferbloat affects some commonly-used services. > > >>>> * We didn=E2=80=99t really change the candle charts too much - the= y=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 some= thing 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 optio= n for an > > >>>> extended test, but have this on our list of backlog changes to mak= e 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 definin= g jitter. For the purpose of this test, we calculate jitter by taking the a= verage 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 i= n a feature > > >>>> 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 bu= gs > > >>>> 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 > > >>> > >