[Bloat] Updated Bufferbloat Test

Sina Khanifar sina at waveform.com
Fri Feb 26 13:41:29 EST 2021 

Just a quick follow-up question @Sebastian @Simon:

We're thinking of implementing a "download" button that would download
the same data currently shown in the JSON view but instead as a CSV.
Would that work?

Best,

Sina.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:23 AM Sina Khanifar <sina at waveform.com> wrote:
>
> > would it be an option to embed the details link into the results page?
>
> > Having more detail available but not shown by default on the main page might keep the geeks happy and make diagnosis easier.
>
> Will give this a bit of thought and see if we can make it happen!
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:15 PM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sina,
> >
> > most excellent! While I concur with Simon that "keeping it simple" is the right approach, would it be an option to embed the details link into the results page?
> >
> > Best Regards
> >         Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 25, 2021, at 21:50, Sina Khanifar <sina at waveform.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> https://bufferbloat.waveform.workers.dev/test-results?test-id=6fc7dd95-8bfa-4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9
> > >
> > > One quick edit, I just changed the route to these, the debug data is
> > > now available at:
> > >
> > > https://bufferbloat.waveform.com/test-results?test-id=6fc7dd95-8bfa-4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:41 PM Sina Khanifar <sina at waveform.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Sebastian!
> > >>
> > >>> [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add information on whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent was involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and firefox/chrome/safari/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? All of these can help to interpret the test results.
> > >>
> > >> We actually collect all this data, it's just a little bit hidden. If
> > >> you take the test-id from the end of the URL and put it at the end of
> > >> a URL like this:
> > >>
> > >> https://bufferbloat.waveform.workers.dev/test-results?test-id=6fc7dd95-8bfa-4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9
> > >>
> > >> You'll get a whole bunch of extra info, including useragent, a linux
> > >> timestamp, and a bunch of other fun stuff :). We'll consider surfacing
> > >> this more at some point in the future though!
> > >>
> > >>> Small typo "waus" instead of "ways".
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for catching this! A fix is in the works :).
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:49 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Sina,
> > >>>
> > >>> great work! I took the liberty to advertise this test already for some weeks, because even in its still evolving developing state it was/is already producubg interesting actionable results. Thanks foe fixing the latency numbers for (desktop) Safari. More below.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 19:22, Sina Khanifar <sina at waveform.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A couple of months ago my co-founder Sam posted an early beta of the
> > >>>> Bufferbloat test that we’ve been working on, and Dave also linked to
> > >>>> it a couple of weeks ago.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you all so much for your feedback - we almost entirely
> > >>>> redesigned the tool and the UI based on the comments we received.
> > >>>> We’re almost ready to launch the tool officially today at this URL,
> > >>>> but wanted to show it to the list in case anyone finds any last bugs
> > >>>> that we might have overlooked:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you find a bug, please share the "Share Your Results" link with us
> > >>>> along with what happened. We capture some debugging information on the
> > >>>> backend, and having a share link allows us to diagnose any issues.
> > >>>
> > >>>        [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add information on whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent was involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and firefox/chrome/safari/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? All of these can help to interpret the test results.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is really more of a passion project than anything else for us –
> > >>>> we don’t anticipate we’ll try to commercialize it or anything like
> > >>>> that. We're very thankful for all the work the folks on this list have
> > >>>> done to identify and fix bufferbloat, and hope this is a useful
> > >>>> contribution. I’ve personally been very frustrated by bufferbloat on a
> > >>>> range of devices, and decided it might be helpful to build another
> > >>>> bufferbloat test when the DSLReports test was down at some point last
> > >>>> year.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Our goals with this project were:
> > >>>> * To build a second solid bufferbloat test in case DSLReports goes down again.
> > >>>> * Build a test where bufferbloat is front and center as the primary
> > >>>> purpose of the test, rather than just a feature.
> > >>>> * Try to explain bufferbloat and its effect on a user's connection
> > >>>> as clearly as possible for a lay audience.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A few notes:
> > >>>> * On the backend, we’re using Cloudflare’s CDN to perform the actual
> > >>>> download and upload speed test. I know John Graham-Cunning has posted
> > >>>> to this list in the past; if he or anyone from Cloudflare sees this,
> > >>>> we’d love some help. Our Cloudflare Workers are being
> > >>>> bandwidth-throttled due to having a non-enterprise grade account.
> > >>>> We’ve worked around this in a kludgy way, but we’d love to get it
> > >>>> resolved.
> > >>>
> > >>>        [SM] I think this was a decent decision, as it seems your tests has less issues even filling 1Gbps links than most others.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> * We have lots of ideas for improvements, e.g. simultaneous
> > >>>> upload/downloads, trying different file size chunks, time-series
> > >>>> latency graphs, using WebRTC to test UDP traffic etc, but in the
> > >>>> interest of getting things launched we're sticking with the current
> > >>>> featureset.
> > >>>
> > >>>        [SM] Reasonable trade-off, and hopefully potential for pleasant surprises in the future ;)
> > >>>
> > >>>> * There are a lot of browser-specific workarounds that we had to
> > >>>> implement, and latency itself is measured in different ways on
> > >>>> Safari/Webkit vs Chromium/Firefox due to limitations of the
> > >>>> PerformanceTiming APIs. You may notice that latency is different on
> > >>>> different browsers, however the actual bufferbloat (relative increase
> > >>>> in latency) should be pretty consistent.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In terms of some of the changes we made based on the feedback we
> > >>>> receive on this list:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on Toke’s feedback:
> > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015960.html
> > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015976.html
> > >>>> * We changed the way the speed tests run to show an instantaneous
> > >>>> speed as the test is being run.
> > >>>
> > >>>        [SM] Great, if only so it feels comparable to "other" speedtests.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> * We moved the bufferbloat grade into the main results box.
> > >>>
> > >>>        [SM] +1; that helps set the mood ;)
> > >>>
> > >>>> * We tried really hard to get as close to saturating gigabit
> > >>>> connections as possible. We redesigned completely the way we chunk
> > >>>> files, added a “warming up” period, and spent quite a bit optimizing
> > >>>> our code to minimize CPU usage, as we found that was often the
> > >>>> limiting factor to our speed test results.
> > >>>> * We changed the shield grades altogether and went through a few
> > >>>> different iterations of how to show the effect of bufferbloat on
> > >>>> connectivity, and ended up with a “table view” to try to show the
> > >>>> effect that bufferbloat specifically is having on the connection
> > >>>> (compared to when the connection is unloaded).
> > >>>> * We now link from the results table view to the FAQ where the
> > >>>> conditions for each type of connection are explained.
> > >>>> * We also changed the way we measure latency and now use the faster
> > >>>> of either Google’s CDN or Cloudflare at any given location. We’re also
> > >>>> using the WebTiming APIs to get a more accurate latency number, though
> > >>>> this does not work on some mobile browsers (e.g. iOS Safari) and as a
> > >>>> result we show a higher latency on mobile devices. Since our test is
> > >>>> less a test of absolute latency and more a test of relative latency
> > >>>> with and without load, we felt this was workable.
> > >>>> * Our jitter is now an average (was previously RMS).
> > >>>> * The “before you start” text was rewritten and moved above the start button.
> > >>>> * We now spell out upload and download instead of having arrows.
> > >>>> * We hugely reduced the number of cross-site scripts. I was a bit
> > >>>> embarrassed by this if I’m honest - I spent a long time building web
> > >>>> tools for the EFF, where we almost never allowed any cross-site
> > >>>> scripts. * Our site is hosted on Shopify, and adding any features via
> > >>>> their app store ends up adding a whole lot of gunk. But we uninstalled
> > >>>> some apps, rewrote our template, and ended up removing a whole lot of
> > >>>> the gunk. There’s still plenty of room for improvement, but it should
> > >>>> be a lot better than before.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on Dave Collier-Brown’s feedback:
> > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015966.html
> > >>>> * We replaced the “unloaded” and “loaded” language with “unloaded”
> > >>>> and then “download active”  and “upload active.” In the grade box we
> > >>>> indicate that, for example, “Your latency increased moderately under
> > >>>> load.”
> > >>>> * We tried to generally make it easier for non-techie folks to
> > >>>> understand by emphasizing the grade and adding the table showing how
> > >>>> bufferbloat affects some commonly-used services.
> > >>>> * We didn’t really change the candle charts too much - they’re
> > >>>> mostly just to give a basic visual - we focused more on the actual
> > >>>> meat of the results above that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on Sebastian Moeller’s feedback:
> > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015963.html
> > >>>> * We considered doing a bidirectional saturating load, but decided
> > >>>> to skip on implementing it for now. * It’s definitely something we’d
> > >>>> like to experiment with more in the future.
> > >>>> * We added a “warming up” period as well as a “draining” period to
> > >>>> help fill and empty the buffer. We haven’t added the option for an
> > >>>> extended test, but have this on our list of backlog changes to make in
> > >>>> the future.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on Y’s feedback (link):
> > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015962.html
> > >>>> * We actually ended up removing the grades, but we explained our
> > >>>> criteria for the new table in the FAQ.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on Greg White's feedback (shared privately):
> > >>>> * We added an FAQ answer explaining jitter and how we measure it.
> > >>>
> > >>> [SM] "There are a number of different waus of measuring and defining jitter. For the purpose of this test, we calculate jitter by taking the average of the deviations from the mean latency."
> > >>>
> > >>> Small typo "waus" instead of "ways".
> > >>>
> > >>> Best Regards
> > >>>        Sebastian
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We’d love for you all to play with the new version of the tool and
> > >>>> send over any feedback you might have. We’re going to be in a feature
> > >>>> freeze before launch but we'd love to get any bugs sorted out. We'll
> > >>>> likely put this project aside after we iron out a last round of bugs
> > >>>> and launch, and turn back to working on projects that help us pay the
> > >>>> bills, but we definitely hope to revisit and improve the tool over
> > >>>> time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sina, Arshan, and Sam.
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Bloat mailing list
> > >>>> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> > >>>
> >

More information about the Bloat mailing list