>
>
> 7) transmission ate a metric ton of cpu (30% on a i3) at these speeds.
>
> 8) My (cable) link actually is 140mbit down, 11 up. I did not much
> care for asymmetric networks when the ratios were 6x1, so 13x1 is way
> up there....
>
> Anyway, 20% packet loss of the "right" packets was survivable. I will
> subject myself to the same test on other fq or aqms. And, if I can
> force myself to, with no aqm or fq. For SCIENCE!
>
> Attention, DMCA lawyers: Please send takedown notices to
> bufferbloat-research@/dev/null.org . One of the things truly
> astonishing about this is that in 12 hours in one night I downloaded
> more stuff than I could ever watch (mp4) or listen to (even in flac
> format) in several days of dedicated consumption. And it all just got
> rm -rf'd. It occurs to me there is a human upper bound to how much
> data one would ever want to consume, and we cracked that limit at
> 20mbit, with only 4k+ video driving demand any harder. When we started
> bufferbloat.net 20mbit downlinks were the best you could easily get.

Linux ISOs are a great way to saturate your download. I have enough
downloaded that while seeding, I can sustain over 10Mb/s, but don't expect
to saturate your upload since they're already heavily seeded, but less so
since I stopped recently.