From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com (mail-yk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0388E21F807 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykdz138 with SMTP id z138so38698470ykd.2 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:10:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mKxMZA6uRRNVuT/xHkyxFSIVZ3vyW2eS2o6mrn3R1x8=; b=P2gnCPWG16F7qaNNoEQiz6TWqBzwqL0JDJqyUDorkYOueDf9W4dubkA7zuyuVM1Xg+ mf233SnVSypRzcbsv6zbEtFOSF36DjPiumxGMlXsuiwHxCJCHSkjYZTw/FNRIDB1Nxh1 MCCqSjvR202sl9reSCS26/JYOTZ8GD0sCU7ltMAoTF57CZjeBGUYQPlHJ1KmoxuEpFHs FTVfunirs1pry4S+rQZE6GLZPl/vl1HzgyRPXdlh5am+Rvg91CeIZPC52LD4FL7XYj9O 2sNvx3vO8Q2Ll//jGLWaTCCGPBQNTA3f3NZUYP2ht5OdVFW2wVTgxuSGQxMLU1n/J8/t ArWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.99.4 with SMTP id q4mr26008510yka.92.1443010233642; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.236.80 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:10:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:10:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: Benjamin Cronce To: Dave Taht Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113aa6846239ef052069005b Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] bloat at gigE X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:10:57 -0000 --001a113aa6846239ef052069005b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The upload wasn't even saturated. Probably why upload bloat was very low. Large bloat on the download just shows you the server really can push more than 1Gb. 200ms bloat with 913Mb down is about 20MiB of buffer. That's insane! That's about 20x more buffer than my entire 24 port 1Gb Procurve managed switch. What kind of network equipment has that much buffer? On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > I have been enjoying the more unusual bloat results, and where they > come from. Here's a cool one. > > http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1424935 > > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > endo is a terrible disease: http://www.gofundme.com/SummerVsEndo > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --001a113aa6846239ef052069005b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The upload wasn't even saturated. Probably why upload = bloat was very low. Large bloat on the download just shows you the server r= eally can push more than 1Gb. 200ms bloat with 913Mb down is about 20MiB of= buffer. That's insane! That's about 20x more buffer than my entire= 24 port 1Gb Procurve managed switch. What kind of network equipment has th= at much buffer?

On= Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been enjoying the more= unusual bloat results, and where they
come from. Here's a cool one.

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1424935

--
Dave T=C3=A4ht
endo is a terrible disease: http://www.gofundme.com/SummerVsEndo=
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

--001a113aa6846239ef052069005b--