From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (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 DBE633CB38 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 18:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id tz12so86475223ejc.9 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2023 15:54:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=perens.com; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NJYD/EyGuZyR/EwzWrWBVePK+kicJeLBSmiZOcI3lJY=; b=rRxcT2tGv1Bito66WjLlKpRKE+ifou7fCmQY79EoBQjEaabwyBvSKrEpieBTJS9jY0 JJUO2kwnRCSE+9cwaJebF6rO/WK8N8RCFYl4vQHuP4j0aehts6avx1U07zAiUZ4XvnYH W0f8eLSKIVEgmcht+sn3huReG/1vbeG+r4v4A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=NJYD/EyGuZyR/EwzWrWBVePK+kicJeLBSmiZOcI3lJY=; b=ZOa9cplZqK26Bq5SsDh9cGY6DvUhWvj6285g610tYYRTXpccIEKYveI1UZV4u8C4hj ltgmxLiQo/qfEpqPLV1zAl4dxhqJnM9uwY1gQtJTQAYoLejTQ4M37rbIqy+AszRJ6CxD Dw2Tc+jv/3CkKIuAXNXcf0slVMlg90EoaX9E/+yemGpf6XWmCweyeD1mAM8BMljfUoo/ rGCWHUhF2pdWvLY/3X8ZxXAq+6Cz4qXMTQ0Ps5KGS+QAPiOoNdY4W7jFL3EoLFj3CZbo yUcXdPPid6/2QUHFuESW1a+AOi1OiEdJ09upcoxe3iSSQqnIKO4iqqgB/Q7KJdMoMCj2 hCdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2koGFFKWR+7xMMxD3tAFCqkqR2smXjoS9oCyglzGI3Dl6XzrlAgH hwo82v36idEl7eA6eWs6l8XOOXxON+GfDPKJ4xkXEzXMNb5hbQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXu03u2cCjkiQJDaaNy3g8qQSmw35wQULSB5AzoM+ZGolFM275A/BLN/LQAb0HB8eOiSswjenQrev6N3C027zu0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6409:b0:7c1:9aaa:eb02 with SMTP id d9-20020a170906640900b007c19aaaeb02mr4995880ejm.65.1672876489531; Wed, 04 Jan 2023 15:54:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <845161E4-474C-44A9-92D4-1702748A3DA1@jonathanfoulkes.com> In-Reply-To: From: Bruce Perens Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:54:37 -0800 Message-ID: To: Ulrich Speidel Cc: "jf@jonathanfoulkes.com" , rjmcmahon , Dave Taht via Starlink , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e97a7205f178e8f7" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 19:37:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas present 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: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 23:54:51 -0000 --000000000000e97a7205f178e8f7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On the other hand, we would like to be comprehensible to normal users, especially when we want them to press their providers to deal with bufferbloat. Differences like speed and rate would go right over their heads. On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:16 PM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > The use of the term "speed" in communications used to be restricted to th= e > speed of light (or whatever propagation speed one happened to be dealing > with. Everything else was a "rate". Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I think > talking about "speed tests" muddies the waters rather a lot. > > -- > **************************************************************** > Dr. Ulrich Speidel > > Department of Computer Science > > Room 303S.594 > Ph: (+64-9)-373-7599 ext. 85282 > > The University of Auckland > u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz > http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ > **************************************************************** > ------------------------------ > *From:* Starlink on behalf of > rjmcmahon via Starlink > *Sent:* Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:02 AM > *To:* jf@jonathanfoulkes.com > *Cc:* Cake List ; IETF IPPM WG ; > libreqos ; Dave Taht via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Rpm ; bloat < > bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas > present > > Curious to why people keep calling capacity tests speed tests? A semi at > 55 mph isn't faster than a porsche at 141 mph because its load volume is > larger. > > Bob > > HNY Dave and all the rest, > > > > Great to see yet another capacity test add latency metrics to the > > results. This one looks like a good start. > > > > Results from my Windstream DOCSIS 3.1 line (3.1 on download only, up > > is 3.0) Gigabit down / 35Mbps up provisioning. Using an IQrouter Pro > > (an i5 x86) with Cake set for 710/31 as this ISP can=E2=80=99t deliver > > reliable low-latency unless you shave a good bit off the targets. My > > local loop is pretty congested. > > > > Here=E2=80=99s the latest Cloudflare test: > > > > > > > > > > And an Ookla test run just afterward: > > > > > > > > > > They are definitely both in the ballpark and correspond to other tests > > run from the router itself or my (wired) MacBook Pro. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jonathan > > > > > >> On Jan 4, 2023, at 12:26 PM, Dave Taht via Rpm > >> wrote: > >> > >> Please try the new, the shiny, the really wonderful test here: > >> https://speed.cloudflare.com/ > >> > >> I would really appreciate some independent verification of > >> measurements using this tool. In my brief experiments it appears - as > >> all the commercial tools to date - to dramatically understate the > >> bufferbloat, on my LTE, (and my starlink terminal is out being > >> hacked^H^H^H^H^H^Hworked on, so I can't measure that) > >> > >> My test of their test reports 223ms 5G latency under load , where > >> flent reports over 2seconds. See comparison attached. > >> > >> My guess is that this otherwise lovely new tool, like too many, > >> doesn't run for long enough. Admittedly, most web objects (their > >> target market) are small, and so long as they remain small and not > >> heavily pipelined this test is a very good start... but I'm pretty > >> sure cloudflare is used for bigger uploads and downloads than that. > >> There's no way to change the test to run longer either. > >> > >> I'd love to get some results from other networks (compared as usual to > >> flent), especially ones with cake on it. I'd love to know if they > >> measured more minimum rtts that can be obtained with fq_codel or cake, > >> correctly. > >> > >> Love Always, > >> The Grinch > >> > >> -- > >> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > >> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > >> > _______________= ________________________________ > >> Rpm mailing list > >> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rpm mailing list > > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > --=20 Bruce Perens K6BP --000000000000e97a7205f178e8f7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On the other hand, we would like to be comprehensible to n= ormal users, especially when we want them to press their providers to deal = with bufferbloat. Differences like speed and rate would go right over their= heads.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:16 PM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net= > wrote:
=
The use of the t= erm "speed" in communications used to be restricted to the speed = of light (or whatever propagation speed one happened to be dealing with. Everything= else was a "rate". Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I think talki= ng about "speed tests" muddies the waters rather a lot.

--=C2=A0
**************************************************************** Dr. Ulrich Speidel

Department of Computer Science

Room 303S.594
Ph: (+64-9)-373-7599 ext. 85282

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
http:= //www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************
From: = Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of r= jmcmahon via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:02 AM
To: jf@j= onathanfoulkes.com <jf@jonathanfoulkes.com>
Cc: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; libreqos= <li= breqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bu= fferbloat.net>; Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>; bloat <bloat@lists.bufferblo= at.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's chri= stmas present
=C2=A0
Curious to why people keep calling capacity tests speed tests? A semi = at
55 mph isn't faster than a porsche at 141 mph because its load volume i= s
larger.

Bob
> HNY Dave and all the rest,
>
> Great to see yet another capacity test add latency metrics to the
> results. This one looks like a good start.
>
> Results from my Windstream DOCSIS 3.1 line (3.1 on download only, up > is 3.0) Gigabit down / 35Mbps up provisioning. Using an IQrouter Pro > (an i5 x86) with Cake set for 710/31 as this ISP can=E2=80=99t deliver=
> reliable low-latency unless you shave a good bit off the targets. My > local loop is pretty congested.
>
> Here=E2=80=99s the latest Cloudflare test:
>
>
>
>
> And an Ookla test run just afterward:
>
>
>
>
> They are definitely both in the ballpark and correspond to other tests=
> run from the router itself or my (wired) MacBook Pro.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> On Jan 4, 2023, at 12:26 PM, Dave Taht via Rpm
>> <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Please try the new, the shiny, the really wonderful test here:
>> https://speed.cloudflare.com/
>>
>> I would really appreciate some independent verification of
>> measurements using this tool. In my brief experiments it appears -= as
>> all the commercial tools to date - to dramatically understate the<= br> >> bufferbloat, on my LTE, (and my starlink terminal is out being
>> hacked^H^H^H^H^H^Hworked on, so I can't measure that)
>>
>> My test of their test reports 223ms 5G latency under load , where<= br> >> flent reports over 2seconds. See comparison attached.
>>
>> My guess is that this otherwise lovely new tool, like too many, >> doesn't run for long enough. Admittedly, most web objects (the= ir
>> target market) are small, and so long as they remain small and not=
>> heavily pipelined this test is a very good start... but I'm pr= etty
>> sure cloudflare is used for bigger uploads and downloads than that= .
>> There's no way to change the test to run longer either.
>>
>> I'd love to get some results from other networks (compared as = usual to
>> flent), especially ones with cake on it. I'd love to know if t= hey
>> measured more minimum rtts that can be obtained with fq_codel or c= ake,
>> correctly.
>>
>> Love Always,
>> The Grinch
>>
>> --
>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:=
>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-69813666656= 07352320-FXtz
>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>> <image.png><tcp_nup-2023-01-04T090937.211620.LTE.flent.gz= >_______________________________________________
>> Rpm mailing list
>> Rpm= @lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm@lis= ts.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


--
B= ruce Perens K6BP
--000000000000e97a7205f178e8f7--