From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-x231.google.com (mail-wj0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::231]) (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 10BD13B260 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 20:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wj0-x231.google.com with SMTP id xy5so11731785wjc.0 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:05:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=UARAo1gJa+UCwRgtkFj0dV8GPFhtkF/uNdcd350zpKY=; b=Ugm22Q0aFAwJsG+agqO2uHvFyldOCPC6owKhhseqGeye4PQdH3hgTcryjLTNmmzKdb RhSh+ZSB+X3ef0lCOLJu/3wvk7bjZwqHV+uwAMrfOvyiWcNhP0KE+CfRrsxUzKQjXLOr iA/VuSR2xQtYco2bDcfLMqRT7tMrNlO9z7BVfQ9NXINkf8FNC9TYv3E0iXdqT8BDcMKl PiNji/cxkaiGlfCXOr8bCNJxWtkPKFrbU1UXjgmb6c6ulyVsfW1VOCy5usDmO7O46d/N SrRYGbNiIoyRVzwrTjiwkKQLxWZBs353cghtg/olKuSOR2dqN+vZPvnUAUYNi5e7midm wp2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UARAo1gJa+UCwRgtkFj0dV8GPFhtkF/uNdcd350zpKY=; b=kPlc9uSyLNlRO+/IYZJSrShIusBjgPi3j25ooq5trQ3RZvmEdKyI9eYpKAVIIMRsm7 r0crdP3a1rTPUO/iM4jaFTsUlRxSBAFS7HOZetdkGXYS32IRzEhmJVF0kwyRkpbJ8ale PCEc1jsIWkz3w7cKP2MEZKWKw5C3DcolHO9l8ienJyXw8T7Hq5yycCDa0f3X4FWCsd9d dCEWUQJ5UjiToIVAaMl4qHP0NE1jVvUvFrdfsRcp0LNpAyAcpgjg/vw4QFfegBi4SCiC vZ/NrgItVbh/ZEosFv7ee7D9c6nqHTyI+qfY7bvOcAYzz6pvZZVU0w9GtryKhWN00pr+ WSbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC009DvQ/q/24Xtj69i2aDyhiedgFI1ielaRrG20W43YrMroxB/iYQKJRBAgLXsfT9HngidlpKNYLWVbZmA== X-Received: by 10.194.44.41 with SMTP id b9mr5237389wjm.56.1479603952994; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:05:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: justinbeech@gmail.com Received: by 10.28.135.198 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:05:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6C19376A-CDCD-44B3-9A14-A70C136980C5@gmail.com> References: <6C19376A-CDCD-44B3-9A14-A70C136980C5@gmail.com> From: jb Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 12:05:12 +1100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4I2jzG2TMr6wFO74IFkvO-rVMQA Message-ID: To: Rich Brown Cc: bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86caf806d31a0541b124a2 Subject: Re: [Bloat] Differences between dslr cli program vs. web 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: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 01:05:54 -0000 --047d7b86caf806d31a0541b124a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'll run some tests myself however can you compare using the same number of streams? the CLI in this example is doing 18 down and 12 up, the web is doing - for your connection speed - a more reasonable 8 down and 2 up and has a correspondingly lower re-transmit error rate on the server side. Also can you compare just 1 stream down and 1 up? thanks On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Rich Brown wrote: > I find a marked difference between the measurements that come from the > dslr cli program and the web tester. > > The CLI seems to show slower speeds than the web tester. Here's data from > one web run, and two CLI runs. > > I'm running on a mid-2015 MacBook Pro, 2.5 GHz i7, 16 GBytes of RAM, OSX > 10.10.5, with 7mbps/768kbps DSL. What other information would you want to > see? Thanks! > > Rich > > ----------- > Web GUI: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/6241603 (shows 6.91/0.57 > Mbps) > > bash-3.2$ ./dslrcli-darwin-amd64 --version > Dslrcli version 0.1 - 15-Nov-2016 > > bash-3.2$ ./dslrcli-darwin-amd64 --uploadtime 30 --downloadtime 30 > Selecting nearest servers.... > Download Testing..... > Upload Testing..... > Uploading results... > Download : 6.62 Megabit/sec Upload : 901.93 Kilobit/sec > http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/6241561 > > bash-3.2$ ./dslrcli-darwin-amd64 > Selecting nearest servers.... > Download Testing..... > Upload Testing..... > Uploading results... > Download : 6.58 Megabit/sec Upload : 778.23 Kilobit/sec > http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/6241492 --047d7b86caf806d31a0541b124a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'll run some tests myself however can you compar= e using the same number of streams?

the CLI in thi= s example is doing 18 down and 12 up, the web is doing - for your connectio= n speed - a more
reasonable 8 down and 2 up and has a correspondi= ngly lower re-transmit error rate on the server side.

<= div>Also can you compare just 1 stream down and 1 up?

<= div>thanks


On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Rich Brown <r= ichb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:
I find a marked difference between the measurements that come from the = dslr cli program and the web tester.

The CLI seems to show slower speeds than the web tester. Here's data fr= om one web run, and two CLI runs.

I'm running on a mid-2015 MacBook Pro, 2.5 GHz i7, 16 GBytes of RAM, OS= X 10.10.5, with 7mbps/768kbps DSL. What other information would you want to= see? Thanks!

Rich

-----------
Web GUI: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/6241603= (shows 6.91/0.57 Mbps)

bash-3.2$ ./dslrcli-darwin-amd64 --version
Dslrcli version 0.1 - 15-Nov-2016

bash-3.2$ ./dslrcli-darwin-amd64 --uploadtime 30 --downloadtime 30
Selecting nearest servers....
Download Testing.....
Upload Testing.....
Uploading results...
Download : 6.62 Megabit/sec Upload : 901.93 Kilobit/sec
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/6241561

bash-3.2$ ./dslrcli-darwin-amd64
Selecting nearest servers....
Download Testing.....
Upload Testing.....
Uploading results...
Download : 6.58 Megabit/sec Upload : 778.23 Kilobit/sec
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/6241492

--047d7b86caf806d31a0541b124a2--