[Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in

[Dave Taht]

justin:

thx for nuking the log scale. that makes the bloat much more visible
here (typical cablemodem)

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/322800

I am puzzled as to my post fq_codel result here at T+40 and will have
to repeat...

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/322992

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> So my "acid test", taken on a linux box over ethernet, through a
> cerowrt box with sqm-scripts turned off. This is my gf's comcast
> "blast" service, which is rated for 55mbits down and 5.5mbits up. The
> new speedtest does indeed show results that have the typical bloat
> (nearly a second) a cable modem has when tested solely for up and
> down, separately.
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/322800
>
> A) I definitely am not particularly huge on defaulting to a log scale
> for this graph. Or rather, I would be huge on the graph defaulting to
> a linear scale AND huge when you get numbers as bad as this. :)
>
> B) is there a way to specify ipv6?
>
> 2) So I did a follow on speedtest with fq_codel enabled to shape with
> sqm. it may be that my upload shaper is a bit over what is desirable
> for this link, and I need to repeat.
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/322992
>
> 3) For giggles, this one is with ecn enabled both on the shaper and on
> the tcp I am using, showing that this speedtest site will use ecn when
> enabled:
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/323101
>
> Some ecn mark results on the shaper for that:
>
> http://pastebin.com/sniePC1M
>
> Both these tests are showing some latency spikes so it does look like
> I should tune down the shaper a bit.
>
> 3) The rrul, rrul_be, tcp_upload, and tcp_download test data from
> netperf-wrapper under both these circumstances (no ecn) is up at:
>
> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/lorna-ethernet.tgz
>
> Feel free to create graphs and comparisons to suit selves.
>
> A few graphs:
> cdf plot of latency (have to use a log scale!!) compared between the
> shaped and unshaped alternatives...
>
> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/lorna-ethernet/comcast_55_speedtest_comparison.png
>
> what the overbuffered download looks like:
>
> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/lorna-ethernet/comcast_55_speedtest_comparison_download_bloated.png
>
> The shaped fq_codeled equivalent:
> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/lorna-ethernet/comcast_55_speedtest_comparison_download_fq_codeled.png
>
> (log scale comparison again - 10ms of induced latency vs 400+! Aggh)
>
> And a graph of probably minimal usefulness comparing the behavior of
> the shaped vs unshaped download flow configurations, for both ipv4 and
> ipv6.
>
> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/lorna-ethernet/comcast_55_speedtest_comparison_download_compared.png
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am going to do an acid test today. The line I tested last night is a
>> comcast cable line (with htb+fq_codel on the link). So I plan to plug
>> in the ethernet on both my mac and linux laptops and repeat the
>> comparison with the shaper on and off, with both linux and osx.
>>
>> the *really funny* part of this is that I do not have a single extra
>> ethernet cable in my gf's SF apartment, and the less funny part of
>> this is the nearest radio shack is now closed....
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware**
>
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67



-- 
Dave Täht
Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware**

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67