From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) (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 A645021F232; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n12so1499645wgh.0 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:29:05 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8Ge6l1RQRnezeq3J7KCDNQvL3oYuiA6+P+uOBMEtPlc=; b=jJfcLUsX0xJxT9YOxUj3/QrpeuUOhJXzmgOFXBGfmFXRJtQHooGsxkBjgF3D5M7E4n 25HaDnuhG9fkeLbbA/XbAtQif1qbL9l0CGIMvN0lZlMsMfkdB2VkSKT+3z0oaBKTJygn u3CIMzQk8/sz7NAA5idB7ZQ9SaWa+S5j4H17f7VX/tDF15W6ZTYdYCjA8Da9HWHIPdDU qYNX8FOQjcaDYm9GwGjALpK8ImfCuP0kJpnO6HdPGkPVQE/A5ta5B9Mz4irnpgvwGwhq v193JEiTyhkE3ZIoHlrKIrihT/RWCVWt2SpENJiEgArrrGoCijBkBqLuGAjTxdX03IQ9 SyEw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.78.225 with SMTP id e1mr7602989wix.17.1397935745644; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.177.10 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:29:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Greg White Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= , "aqm@ietf.org" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] chrome web page benchmarker fixed X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:29:08 -0000 On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Greg White wrote: > On 4/18/14, 1:05 PM, "Dave Taht" wrote: > >>On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Greg White >>wrote: >>> >>> The choice of RTTs also came from the web traffic captures. I saw >>> RTTmin=3D16ms, RTTmean=3D53.8ms, RTTmax=3D134ms. >> >>Get a median? > > Median value was 62ms. > >> >>My own stats are probably quite skewed lower from being in california, >>and doing some tests from places like isc.org in redwood city, which >>is insanely well >>co-located. > > Mine are probably skewed too. I was told that global median (at the time = I > collected this data) was around 100ms. Well, the future is already here, just not evenly distributed. Nearly every sample I'd taken at the same time as from, almost entirely from major cities, came in at under 70ms median. It strikes me that a possibly useful metric would be object size vs RTT, over time. > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_= indecent.article