[LibreQoS] cloudflare on a roll

[LibreQoS] cloudflare on a roll

[Dave Taht]

https://blog.cloudflare.com/making-home-internet-faster/


-- 
AMA March 31: https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-grant-events/dave-taht
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [LibreQoS] [Rpm] cloudflare on a roll

[rjmcmahon]

> https://blog.cloudflare.com/making-home-internet-faster/

I wonder if we're all still missing it a bit. We're complaining that 
internet providers are using speed applied to a rated link capacity and 
then we say to use latency or responsiveness in its place. It's like 
saying a road has a speed and a latency. The road really has neither as 
direct attributes. It's stationary as are waveguides. Sure, we can come 
up with a rating of link capacity and link delay per what's attached to 
those waveguides and we also need to add the highly variable "working 
conditions" in order to take a synthetic measurement.

Us now saying "speed is the wrong metric" so use network latency can be 
equally confusing and equally wrong, e.g. if the app thread is CPU 
limited.

I think it's the travel times that matter to the end users. But the user 
doesn't know their destinations, A to B so-to-speak, so instead of 
execution times, we need to find a metric to hint at the users awaiting 
their devices (helping engineers to mitigate and eliminate the dreaded 
indeterminate progress indicators which is sad way to spend device 
energy.)

An indirect way of measuring travel times may be to measure the thread 
write delays. A thread will run as fast as possible (AFAP) when its 
threads don't block, e.g. on network i/o.

I've added support for --tcp-write-times in iperf 2. This gives the 
amount of time the thread's select() blocks awaiting on the ability to 
write (or, with linux, the amount of time awaiting the syscall write() 
to complete. This along with --tcp-write-prefetch sets TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT 
should give an idea of the amount of time awaiting network availability 
by a thread.

[rjmcmahon@ryzen3950 iperf2-code]$ src/iperf -c mail.rjmcmahon.com 
--tcp-write-times --histograms=1m --tcp-write-prefetch 16K -i 1 -t4
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to mail.rjmcmahon.com, TCP port 5001 with pid 212310 
(1 flows)
Write buffer size: 131072 Byte (writetimer-enabled)
TCP congestion control using cubic
TOS set to 0x0 (Nagle on)
TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)
Event based writes (pending queue watermark at 16384 bytes)
Enabled write histograms bin-width=1.000 ms, bins=100000
------------------------------------------------------------
[  1] local 192.168.1.99%enp7s0 port 38538 connected with 45.33.58.123 
port 5001 (prefetch=16384) (sock=3) (icwnd/mss/irtt=14/1448/12335) 
(ct=12.45 ms) on 2023-04-18 10:52:02.956 (PDT)
[ ID] Interval        Transfer    Bandwidth       Write/Err  Rtry     
Cwnd/RTT        NetPwr  write-times avg/min/max/stdev (cnt)
[  1] 0.00-1.00 sec  5.25 MBytes  44.0 Mbits/sec  42/1          0     
360K/65206 us  84.43  24.173/13.509/39.347/4.196 ms (42)
[  1] 0.00-1.00 sec W8-PDF: 
bin(w=1ms):cnt(42)=14:1,15:1,19:1,21:2,23:5,24:12,25:11,26:2,27:2,28:1,29:1,33:1,35:1,40:1 
(5.00/95.00/99.7%=19/33/40,Outliers=0,obl/obu=0/0)
[  1] 1.00-2.00 sec  4.75 MBytes  39.8 Mbits/sec  38/0          6     
173K/35105 us  142  26.079/22.403/39.766/4.142 ms (38)
[  1] 1.00-2.00 sec W8-PDF: 
bin(w=1ms):cnt(38)=23:6,24:7,25:9,26:6,27:1,28:1,30:1,32:1,33:3,34:1,35:1,40:1 
(5.00/95.00/99.7%=23/35/40,Outliers=0,obl/obu=0/0)
[  1] 2.00-3.00 sec  4.88 MBytes  40.9 Mbits/sec  39/0          4     
100K/19518 us  262  25.673/22.276/35.668/2.602 ms (39)
[  1] 2.00-3.00 sec W8-PDF: 
bin(w=1ms):cnt(39)=23:2,24:6,25:10,26:9,27:5,28:5,35:1,36:1 
(5.00/95.00/99.7%=23/35/36,Outliers=0,obl/obu=0/0)
[  1] 3.00-4.00 sec  5.00 MBytes  41.9 Mbits/sec  40/0          1     
101K/19337 us  271  25.073/14.430/35.911/2.864 ms (40)
[  1] 3.00-4.00 sec W8-PDF: 
bin(w=1ms):cnt(40)=15:1,23:3,24:7,25:13,26:4,27:6,28:3,29:1,30:1,36:1 
(5.00/95.00/99.7%=23/30/36,Outliers=0,obl/obu=0/0)
[  1] 0.00-4.06 sec  20.0 MBytes  41.3 Mbits/sec  160/2         11     
103K/20126 us  257  25.230/13.509/39.766/3.563 ms (160)
[  1] 0.00-4.06 sec W8(f)-PDF: 
bin(w=1ms):cnt(160)=14:1,15:2,19:1,21:2,23:16,24:32,25:43,26:21,27:15,28:10,29:2,30:2,32:1,33:4,34:1,35:3,36:2,40:2 
(5.00/95.00/99.7%=23/34/40,Outliers=0,obl/obu=0/0)

Bob

https://developer.android.com/reference/android/widget/ProgressBar

Indeterminate Progress
Use indeterminate mode for the progress bar when you do not know how 
long an operation will take. Indeterminate mode is the default for 
progress bar and shows a cyclic animation without a specific amount of 
progress indicated. The following example shows an indeterminate 
progress bar.

Re: [LibreQoS] [Bloat] cloudflare on a roll

[Sebastian Moeller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2467 bytes --]

Also this:
https://blog.cloudflare.com/aim-database-for-internet-quality/

A pretty decent article explaining the issue in a very accessible way.

Nitpicks (in case David Tuber is on this list):
A) jitter is important for gaming (if only as it affects the necessary added delay for de-jitter buffers), just think extreme cases like packet reordering, so I think the gaing score should include the jitte sub-score.
B) "You have to make video calls to her clients all day and you sit in the office farthest away from the wireless access point." Probably "calls to your clients" instead.

Also I am a big fan of the cloudflare test including a packetloss test under idle conditions. This was really helpful in getting enough users to chip in loss data to convince my ISP that they had a severe loss problem (sustained packetloss from ~1-10% even under idle conditions like 1AM), which in turn resulted in ISP and some not revealed manufacturer going ona deep debug session and apparently squelching the issue.
Sidenotes.:
A) even at 0.8% random loss TCPs struggle to keep utilisation high, and it takes an ungodly numer of concurrent flows to saturate even a moderate link.
B) tying into an earlier discussion about monitoring latency/loss along network paths and the utility of doing so for endusers, I caught my ISPs attention by posting a series of MTR traces taken at the middle of the night against a set of DNS servers (including my ISP's). All showing increased sustained loss after a single gateway in Hamburg (and no such loss for other gateways of the same ISP). There had been complaints of reduced download rates before, but it apparently it was the longitudinal set of traces that made their NOC take the matter seriously and spring into action. Yes, that ISP should have found/fixed the issue pro-actively, but to paraphrase D. Rumsfeld, you go on the internet with the ISP you have, not the one you want to have....

Regards
        Sebastian


On 18 April 2023 17:31:44 CEST, Dave Taht via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>https://blog.cloudflare.com/making-home-internet-faster/
>
>
>-- 
>AMA March 31: https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-grant-events/dave-taht
>Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>_______________________________________________
>Bloat mailing list
>Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2767 bytes --]