Re: [Bloat] extremely good dslreports result for bufferbloat on free.fr

[jb <justin@dslr.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3688 bytes --]

yes it did get no rating, I don't generate ratings unless everything looks
"right",
meaning a decent number of down idle and up pings.

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377563

There are only 6 latency samples during download, even though the download
phase started at the 12 second mark and continued until the 23 second mark,
(meaning 11 seconds).

The latency pings that happened during the download got held up to the
extent
that they came in and were counted as "idle" ones. I'll have to ponder on
this,
I think my pings need to be labelled by origin (what we were doing when they
were sent) not classified as they return.

if it did get a rating it would be an "D" or "F"..


On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> Heh. Anything above a 250ms gets a F from me. But I strongly approve
> of simplification to a set of grades.
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/378980 F, for sure.
>
> Secondly, we tend to regard bufferbloat as one word not two.
>
> This result got no rating. http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377563
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, jb <justinbeech@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've added the discussed "bloat rating".
> >
> > It takes the idle period before download uses the lowest latency as a
> > baseline.
> > then it takes the median download and median of upload+trailing idle
> time,
> > and
> > subtracts to get the latency increase, then converts to a grade.
> >
> > Based on a very few results I've looked at the Grade seems reasonable.
> I've
> > added
> > a link below the grade for the WTF is this moment a lot of people will
> have,
> > which
> > takes them to a short FAQ entry, and then a link to bufferbloat.net ..
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> >> <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
> >> > Free.fr (Proxad) is certainly much better than other ISPs -- they've
> >> > been
> >> > the first to give sort-of-native (6rd) IPv6 to the masses.  However,
> >> > there's one thing that annoys me -- they have two distinct CPEs, the
> >> > classic FreeBox (which I have) and the FreeBox Revolution (which is
> >> > slightly less cheap, and takes more physical space -- a big deal if
> you
> >> > live in Paris).  The classic FreeBox needs some love from the firmware
> >> > developers, and I'd be curious to know whether your results apply
> >> > equally
> >> > to both boxen.
> >>
> >> All ya gotta do is run the new dslreports and/or rrul test(s) on your
> >> own older box, and post. ;)
> >>
> >> My understanding was that the old freebox was too weak to run anything
> >> but SFQ, but it did run that on the outbound.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > (The thing that most pisses me off with the classic FreeBox is that it
> >> > doesn't allow IPv6 subnetting -- unless you order the FreeBox
> >> > Revolution,
> >> > you're condemned to the purgatory of ND-proxying.  Grr.)
> >>
> >> As tiny as the mods now are to support more extensive ipv6 in openwrt,
> >> that certainly was not the case in 2012.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > -- Juliusz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dave Täht
> >> Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware**
> >>
> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bloat mailing list
> >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware**
>
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5504 bytes --]