[Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Dave Taht]

see: http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/

(can't test myself, not being in england - can someone there test it
and post results/screenshots?)

and:

https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/

which is quite pretty, if mildly confusing.


I have issues with the language and testing methodologies, of course,
but it is good to see these arrive. When will speedtest.net get it
right?

-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Alan Jenkins]

On 01/06/2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> see: http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/
>
> (can't test myself, not being in england - can someone there test it
> and post results/screenshots?)

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1464821570474383655

(OpenWrt SQM. ISP _download_ is un-bloated already, for reasonable
numbers of streams. Though even with SQM, downloading multiple
torrents in Transmission can cause both latency up to 100ms & packet
loss).

> and:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/
>
> which is quite pretty, if mildly confusing.
>
>
> I have issues with the language and testing methodologies, of course,
> but it is good to see these arrive. When will speedtest.net get it
> right?

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Alan Jenkins]

On 01/06/2016, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/06/2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> see: http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/
>>
>> (can't test myself, not being in england - can someone there test it
>> and post results/screenshots?)
>
> http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1464821570474383655
>
> (OpenWrt SQM. ISP _download_ is un-bloated already, for reasonable
> numbers of streams. Though even with SQM, downloading multiple
> torrents in Transmission can cause both latency up to 100ms & packet
> loss).

oops...

the results page above omits the bufferbloat result.  The original
result has a sharing button that requires a Facebook login.  Here's
the screenshot

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/thinkbroadband.com/2016-06-01%20labs.thinkbroadband.com%20speedtest.png

>> and:
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/
>>
>> which is quite pretty, if mildly confusing.
>>
>>
>> I have issues with the language and testing methodologies, of course,
>> but it is good to see these arrive. When will speedtest.net get it
>> right?

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Alan Jenkins]

On 02/06/2016, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/06/2016, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> see: http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/
>>>
>>> (can't test myself, not being in england - can someone there test it
>>> and post results/screenshots?)
>>
>> http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1464821570474383655
>>
>> (OpenWrt SQM. ISP _download_ is un-bloated already, for reasonable
>> numbers of streams. Though even with SQM, downloading multiple
>> torrents in Transmission can cause both latency up to 100ms & packet
>> loss).
>
> oops...
>
> the results page above omits the bufferbloat result.  The original
> result has a sharing button that requires a Facebook login.  Here's
> the screenshot
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/thinkbroadband.com/2016-06-01%20labs.thinkbroadband.com%20speedtest.png

Sorry for noise, I should also say:

The latency: 58ms is due to testing on wifi (I guess it's the minimum
over a number of pings).  The "A" grades for bufferbloat do not seem
expandable / clickable

>>> and:
>>>
>>> https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/
>>>
>>> which is quite pretty, if mildly confusing.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have issues with the language and testing methodologies, of course,
>>> but it is good to see these arrive. When will speedtest.net get it
>>> right?
>


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> A: Top-posting.
>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Dave Taht]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Alan Jenkins
<alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/06/2016, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2016, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> see: http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/
>>>>
>>>> (can't test myself, not being in england - can someone there test it
>>>> and post results/screenshots?)
>>>
>>> http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1464821570474383655
>>>
>>> (OpenWrt SQM. ISP _download_ is un-bloated already, for reasonable
>>> numbers of streams. Though even with SQM, downloading multiple
>>> torrents in Transmission can cause both latency up to 100ms & packet
>>> loss).

I have generally felt that torrents would be better managed by the
ISP's use of tools like fq_codel or cake on their rate limiters,
rather than managed on the cpe.

a note from my nicaraguan trip - which I will write up more fully
later - was that the torrent problem had essentially vanished there in
the 5 years I was gone. The cybercafes had dropped from 6 overflowing
ones to two (as all the hotels had got their own links), and most
tourist and local usage had moved to smartphones *everywhere* rather
than laptops.

One former cybercafe owner I interviewed said "all they know is what
the phone offers" - and "skype and facetime" were all they wanted in
addition to web, email, snapchat, whatsapp, and youtube - they didn't
know what a torrent was. I found a surprising number of people using
whatsapp....

Latencies over the network were often horrible, yet several people
noted to me, while talking about it, how much better the wifi was
there than in the states. My channel scans showed fewer than 6APs
"hearable" everywhere I went (in multiple cases less than 2), and
there was little to no 5ghz present.

Both the "main" networks I got access to were completely behind
private ip address space - the condor.co.ni WISP (in one case) had 3
hops to the next public ip, the cable ISP - *6*. Sigh, an entire
country almost entirely behind NAT...

I left 2 archer c7v2's behind on those networks to see if they help...
and can survive the heat and humidity. The 5 mbit/.5mbit cable link I
left one on had over a second of download latency under load, 3
seconds up, before applying sqm - and one WISP link (1.5Mbits
symmetric) - over 600ms. Another WISP link - well over 3 seconds
sometimes but the problem was often 1-3 hops into their network....

>>
>> oops...
>>
>> the results page above omits the bufferbloat result.

Sigh. Can bugs be filed?


> The original
>> result has a sharing button that requires a Facebook login.  Here's
>> the screenshot

what was their bufferbloated result?

>>
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/thinkbroadband.com/2016-06-01%20labs.thinkbroadband.com%20speedtest.png
>
> Sorry for noise, I should also say:
>
> The latency: 58ms is due to testing on wifi (I guess it's the minimum
> over a number of pings).  The "A" grades for bufferbloat do not seem
> expandable / clickable
>
>>>> and:
>>>>
>>>> https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/
>>>>
>>>> which is quite pretty, if mildly confusing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have issues with the language and testing methodologies, of course,
>>>> but it is good to see these arrive. When will speedtest.net get it
>>>> right?
>>
>
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>> A: Top-posting.
>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[moeller0]

Hi Dave,


> On Jun 1, 2016, at 18:55 , Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> see: http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/
> 
> (can't test myself, not being in england - can someone there test it
> and post results/screenshots?)

	At least from Germany that test works, just leave both entry fields empty and hit the start button. It might be unhappy about transcontinental RTTs but I would guess it should also works US baseds computers (at least east cost). As Alan reports the bufferbloat results seem to be “ephemeral” as they are not shown on the results page and the initial result can not be linked…

Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> and:
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/
> 
> which is quite pretty, if mildly confusing.
> 
> 
> I have issues with the language and testing methodologies, of course,
> but it is good to see these arrive. When will speedtest.net get it
> right?
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> http://blog.cerowrt.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Alan Jenkins]

On 02/06/2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> what is the result with sqm off?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/thinkbroadband.com/2016-06-02%20NOSQM%20labs.thinkbroadband.com%20speedtest.png

(quantified test: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/4069263

v.s. (sqm on)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/thinkbroadband.com/2016-06-01%20labs.thinkbroadband.com%20speedtest.png

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/4064468

The [?] button expands to "Bufferbloat is a measure of how delayed
packets are due to excessive buffering in broadband routers and other
locations on the Internet.

A is good, F is bad and is only something to be worried about if you
upload a lot while also downloading or vice versa. Enabling QoS on
some routers can improve performance."


 > don't just tell meeeeee....

aaaaa fixed.  I probably shouldn't use an online-only mailer while I 
have flaky wifi; it makes it easier to go and click the wrong button 
during recovery.

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Kathleen Nichols]

Are these tools all active probes? It looks that way to me.

	Kathie

On 6/2/16 1:05 PM, Colin Dearborn wrote:
> Plenty of easy ways to do v4 and v6.
> DNS can be built to only have hosts for v4 or v6, and you run two tests, one to each set of hosts.
> Comcast has been doing it forever.
> http://speedtest.xfinity.com/ (they use speedtest.net's code, and they have it skinned).
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bloat [mailto:bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:57 PM
> To: Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com>
> Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat
> 
>> TL;DR - they seem to have all the elements in place to measure the 
>> latency during transfers. If they fix some of these problems, they'll 
>> have a winner.
> 
> No easy way to do both v4 and v6 tests -- you need to manually remove your
> IPv6 default route in order to test v4.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Colin Dearborn]

Plenty of easy ways to do v4 and v6.
DNS can be built to only have hosts for v4 or v6, and you run two tests, one to each set of hosts.
Comcast has been doing it forever.
http://speedtest.xfinity.com/ (they use speedtest.net's code, and they have it skinned).


-----Original Message-----
From: Bloat [mailto:bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:57 PM
To: Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com>
Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

> TL;DR - they seem to have all the elements in place to measure the 
> latency during transfers. If they fix some of these problems, they'll 
> have a winner.

No easy way to do both v4 and v6 tests -- you need to manually remove your
IPv6 default route in order to test v4.

-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> TL;DR - they seem to have all the elements in place to measure the
> latency during transfers. If they fix some of these problems, they'll
> have a winner.

No easy way to do both v4 and v6 tests -- you need to manually remove your
IPv6 default route in order to test v4.

-- Juliusz

Re: [Bloat] new public web tests for bufferbloat

[Rich Brown]

I just tested the Sourceforge.net tester. Comments:

- It's pretty, although only works if you have the screen maximized. Epic fail if you try it on a smart phone.
- My Adblock Plus also threw it for a loop. I had to switch to my secondary browser (unblocked) to test it
- Download measurement and bufferbloat numbers are believable
- Upload rate was not (768kbps DSL only measured at 100kbps)
- Result page is confusing

TL;DR - they seem to have all the elements in place to measure the latency during transfers. If they fix some of these problems, they'll have a winner.

I sent very shortfeedback (both good and bad) by clicking Like and Dislike buttons. I left an email address to see if they would like to receive a longer critique. We'll see what happens.

Rich