[Bloat] extremely good dslreports result for bufferbloat on free.fr

[Dave Taht]

About to go try disabling the shaper here...

But I might argue for getting best results you should add buttons for

fiber cable dsl
wifi   wifi    wifi

Because wifi itself is so jittery, and it would be good to distinguish
ethernet results from wifi ones in your db.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> A: (fq_codel no ecn) (http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/393466
>
> A+ (fq_codel + ecn was enabled) http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/393300
>
> A: (fq_codel) http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/393241
>
> A: (fq_codel) http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/391178
>
> D: (fq_codel on the link but over wifi)
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/391178
>
> Lemme go check native comcast and pie....
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:33 PM, jb <justin at dslr.net> wrote:
>> yes it did get no rating, I don't generate ratings unless everything looks
>> "right",
>> meaning a decent number of down idle and up pings.
>>
>> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377563
>>
>> There are only 6 latency samples during download, even though the download
>> phase started at the 12 second mark and continued until the 23 second mark,
>> (meaning 11 seconds).
>>
>> The latency pings that happened during the download got held up to the
>> extent
>> that they came in and were counted as "idle" ones. I'll have to ponder on
>> this,
>> I think my pings need to be labelled by origin (what we were doing when they
>> were sent) not classified as they return.
>>
>> if it did get a rating it would be an "D" or "F"..
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Heh. Anything above a 250ms gets a F from me. But I strongly approve
>>> of simplification to a set of grades.
>>>
>>> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/378980 F, for sure.
>>>
>>> Secondly, we tend to regard bufferbloat as one word not two.
>>>
>>> This result got no rating. http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377563
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, jb <justinbeech at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I've added the discussed "bloat rating".
>>> >
>>> > It takes the idle period before download uses the lowest latency as a
>>> > baseline.
>>> > then it takes the median download and median of upload+trailing idle
>>> > time,
>>> > and
>>> > subtracts to get the latency increase, then converts to a grade.
>>> >
>>> > Based on a very few results I've looked at the Grade seems reasonable.
>>> > I've
>>> > added
>>> > a link below the grade for the WTF is this moment a lot of people will
>>> > have,
>>> > which
>>> > takes them to a short FAQ entry, and then a link to bufferbloat.net ..
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
>>> >> <jch at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>>> >> > Free.fr (Proxad) is certainly much better than other ISPs -- they've
>>> >> > been
>>> >> > the first to give sort-of-native (6rd) IPv6 to the masses.  However,
>>> >> > there's one thing that annoys me -- they have two distinct CPEs, the
>>> >> > classic FreeBox (which I have) and the FreeBox Revolution (which is
>>> >> > slightly less cheap, and takes more physical space -- a big deal if
>>> >> > you
>>> >> > live in Paris).  The classic FreeBox needs some love from the
>>> >> > firmware
>>> >> > developers, and I'd be curious to know whether your results apply
>>> >> > equally
>>> >> > to both boxen.
>>> >>
>>> >> All ya gotta do is run the new dslreports and/or rrul test(s) on your
>>> >> own older box, and post. ;)
>>> >>
>>> >> My understanding was that the old freebox was too weak to run anything
>>> >> but SFQ, but it did run that on the outbound.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (The thing that most pisses me off with the classic FreeBox is that
>>> >> > it
>>> >> > doesn't allow IPv6 subnetting -- unless you order the FreeBox
>>> >> > Revolution,
>>> >> > you're condemned to the purgatory of ND-proxying.  Grr.)
>>> >>
>>> >> As tiny as the mods now are to support more extensive ipv6 in openwrt,
>>> >> that certainly was not the case in 2012.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -- Juliusz
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Dave Täht
>>> >> Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware**
>>> >>
>>> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Bloat mailing list
>>> >> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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



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

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