From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 299CA21F418 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qkx62 with SMTP id 62so180040815qkx.0 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:15:38 -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=9+kFMhpQgmhhKrR8dhG2s1afBhv2x+fmwvZKc6wJI5k=; b=Jm/0corypR8/Jf1t9JViPI1SitNiiQF59ectLNXc0T5dpYK5MisQkiXBsPxl+qSQQr v6FgkAeQR5wDqc5xQyJaEMNgeTQzEuty9N5evGit7AVm0Zbswr5fqyN10JrXo7XeyhRN 964xTUn5E3G/6dyC0GGQ6YeVdy43lNU6xZSJjMTWNdznqXjgonZCmbydjklpewALpXm/ 5QQspbOvGECkG8VDBaf9maWqN+13qMQvfyQllylxQ63O/Jus6lcp8caMj3w6YZB3zkoz Pe7wE2P2WvZpkLhP83kxtLikmOsTFTv3NY/LbS2+nJqNL7KvKxMbvtc4MMWMx+HZzHl5 QH7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.15.129 with SMTP id 1mr25329539qkp.29.1429499738776; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.187.71 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:15:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87zj64hsy9.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87wq18jmak.fsf@toke.dk> <87oamkjfhf.fsf@toke.dk> <87k2x8jcnw.fsf@toke.dk> <87fv7wj9lh.fsf@toke.dk> <87zj64hsy9.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:15:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Wood To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146f10022eb0b05141f5893 Cc: Jonathan Morton , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in 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: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 03:16:08 -0000 --001a1146f10022eb0b05141f5893 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Toke, I actually tend to see a bit higher latency with ICMP at the higher percentiles. http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat-on-comcasts-blas= t.html http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/measured-bufferbloat-on-orangefr-ds= l.html Although the biggest "boost" I've seen ICMP given was on Free.fr's network: http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/01/bufferbloat-or-lack-thereof-on-free= fr.html -Aaron On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Jonathan Morton writes: > > >> Why not? They can be a quite useful measure of how competing traffic > >> performs when bulk flows congest the link. Which for many > >> applications is more important then the latency experienced by the > >> bulk flow itself. > > > > One clear objection is that ICMP is often prioritised when UDP is not. > > So measuring with UDP gives a better indication in those cases. > > Measuring with a separate TCP flow, such as HTTPing, is better still > > by some measures, but most truly latency-sensitive traffic does use > > UDP. > > Sure, well I tend to do both. Can't recall ever actually seeing any > performance difference between the UDP and ICMP latency measurements, > though... > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --001a1146f10022eb0b05141f5893 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Toke,

I actually tend to see a bit high= er latency with ICMP at the higher percentiles.

http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat= -on-comcasts-blast.html

Although the biggest "boost" I've s= een ICMP given was on Free.fr's network:

-Aaron

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM,= Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:

>> Why not? They can be a quite useful measure of how competing traff= ic
>> performs when bulk flows congest the link. Which for many
>> applications is more important then the latency experienced by the=
>> bulk flow itself.
>
> One clear objection is that ICMP is often prioritised when UDP is not.=
> So measuring with UDP gives a better indication in those cases.
> Measuring with a separate TCP flow, such as HTTPing, is better still > by some measures, but most truly latency-sensitive traffic does use > UDP.

Sure, well I tend to do both. Can't recall ever actually seeing = any
performance difference between the UDP and ICMP latency measurements,
though...

-Toke
_____________________= __________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

--001a1146f10022eb0b05141f5893--