From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 676E23B260 for ; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:30:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1462483845; bh=jiRQkty+N+Gah72lga9nCpL5KnZZOYxiPPHQW7UQddM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ix8ARhXAb5lII/5zJ/OIH0CXvPItpjBprAm2L7slCZ81jP+A91rNaJ4dZbCOoQm5P yqM08Qx3wlgoXT3C1KOJIRqL/mANCFwNJ9daJ2kb57waWOwpawGUTy/5NA3+KiAXRC G/BJRkI3XT2I2Cnu0SJ95K+rh1jqpAjopBXtP98Q= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9BD2270F1ED; Thu, 5 May 2016 23:30:44 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Dave Taht Cc: Aaron Wood , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net References: Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 23:30:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Dave Taht's message of "Thu, 5 May 2016 10:27:36 -0700") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87mvo49oqj.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] hacking on the candelatech and qca ath10k firmware X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 21:30:48 -0000 Dave Taht writes: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Aaron Wood wrote: >> I think you might be mis-reading the box-plots as error-bars (since their >> quartile plots). I'll need to crunch the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that >> the fq results are going to show a higher median throughput (and lower >> median latency), with a fair bit of significance. I'll see if I can figure >> out how to calculate the SD of the mean (and other quartiles) from the flent >> output (I have scripts that can do this for iperf3's json output). > > Thanks in advance!!! > > I hate box plots honestly. They often lie. I'd rather look at a > detailed time series first, and the box plot *only* after I verified > that that was sane. And I'm not good at reading box plots right! Also note that a box plot of a single test will show you "error bars" which are really computed from the samples of the single flow; so they are not independent samples, and so care should be taken when interpreting them. -Toke