From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E58B21F44B for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D2AE9A1; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:19:32 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1429471172; bh=WackZ5kkqG5CylsNnStUuXr+yJVkpr+hG3GER6tFj/k=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0LqJL/DgkmjGsN41X4lTdIwB/vcMAjW9G+gSZFYnbU6F/USh51zGASaKjOol3DcwR FEG46jO49tNFwaC4drtgrR7fT6W3bGZ6h30faZdDwyU2jmv9RcsnyNSH4KwYFmRE2M YTYUIOGhS1Uc1X5q720Oz0NrYSBTICW26WXtrE44= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADF69F; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:19:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:19:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: <87fv7wj9lh.fsf@toke.dk> Message-ID: References: <87wq18jmak.fsf@toke.dk> <87oamkjfhf.fsf@toke.dk> <87k2x8jcnw.fsf@toke.dk> <87fv7wj9lh.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-137064504-414771715-1429471172=:16871" Cc: 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: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:20:05 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---137064504-414771715-1429471172=:16871 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sun, 19 Apr 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > 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... I agree, but it's also easy to create a two queue system where ICMP is sent in the second queue. So for stupid FIFOs, yes, they measure what you want, but for anything else they don't. > I do agree, though, that other types of measurements are also needed. > Ideally we should have good latency characteristics for *both* competing > traffic and the bulk flows themselves. My thinking was that instead of using ICMP PING, for instance a simulated UDP VoIP call could be done, send one packet every 100ms (yes, I know most VoIP is 20ms or so) and use that. ICMP is not a good measurement, UDP would be more valid. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ---137064504-414771715-1429471172=:16871--