[Bloat] Comparing bufferbloat tests (was: We built a new bufferbloat test and keen for feedback)

[Michael Richardson]

Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
    > I just wanted to note on this enormous thread that my primary beef
    > with most speedtests is the too short duration.

    > cable's "Powerboost" was optimized for speedtests' 20 sec duration.
    > The internet as a whole ended up optimized for a ~20sec download as a
    > result.... Run a test for 21 seconds, and boom.

What did they optimize for that duration?
"Tell me how your measure me, and I'll tell you have I'll behave"
(I was told Demming said this, but the quote sites disagree)

    > A scientific way of compensating for the balance of user attention and
    > an accurate test would be to always run some
    > subset of the tests initiated by users for this longer duration and
    > cross check those results.

Yes... and/or give them some feedback after 20s, and if they stay on the site,
keep running the test.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20201114/21510441/attachment.sig>