[LibreQoS] [Starlink] [Rpm] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA

Dick Roy dickroy at alum.mit.edu
Mon Jan 9 16:02:33 EST 2023


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
rjmcmahon via Starlink
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 12:47 PM
To: Dave Taht
Cc: starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net; mike.reynolds at netforecast.com; libreqos;
David P. Reed; Rpm; bloat
Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA

 

The write to read latencies (OWD) are on the server side in CLT form. 

Use --histograms on the server side to enable them.

 

Your client side sampled TCP RTT is 6ms with less than a 1 ms of 

variance (or sqrt of variance as variance is typically squared)

[RR] or standard deviation (std for short) :-)

  No 

retries suggest the network isn't dropping packets.

 

All the newer bounceback code is only master and requires a compile from 

source. It will be released in 2.1.9 after testing cycles. Hopefully, in 

early March 2023

 

Bob

 

https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/

 

> The DC that so graciously loaned us 3 machines for the testbed (thx

> equinix!), does support ptp, but we have not configured it yet. In ntp

> tests between these hosts we seem to be within 500us, and certainly

> 50us would be great, in the future.

> 

> I note that in all my kvetching about the new tests' needing

> validation today... I kind of elided that I'm pretty happy with

> iperf2's new tests that landed last august, and are now appearing in

> linux package managers around the world. I hope more folk use them.

> (sorry robert, it's been a long time since last august!)

> 

> Our new testbed has multiple setups. In one setup - basically the

> machine name is equal to a given ISP plan, and a key testing point is

> looking at the differences between the FCC 25-3 and 100/20 plans in

> the real world. However at our scale (25gbit) it turned out that

> emulating the delay realistically has problematic.

> 

> Anyway, here's a 25/3 result for iperf (other results and iperf test

> type requests gladly accepted)

> 

> root at lqos:~# iperf -6 --trip-times -c c25-3 -e -i 1

> ------------------------------------------------------------

> Client connecting to c25-3, TCP port 5001 with pid 2146556 (1 flows)

> Write buffer size: 131072 Byte

> TOS set to 0x0 (Nagle on)

> TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)

> ------------------------------------------------------------

> [  1] local fd77::3%bond0.4 port 59396 connected with fd77::1:2 port

> 5001 (trip-times) (sock=3) (icwnd/mss/irtt=13/1428/948) (ct=1.10 ms)

> on 2023-01-09 20:13:37 (UTC)

> [ ID] Interval            Transfer    Bandwidth       Write/Err  Rtry

>    Cwnd/RTT(var)        NetPwr

> [  1] 0.0000-1.0000 sec  3.25 MBytes  27.3 Mbits/sec  26/0          0

>      19K/6066(262) us  562

> [  1] 1.0000-2.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>      15K/4671(207) us  673

> [  1] 2.0000-3.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>      13K/5538(280) us  568

> [  1] 3.0000-4.0000 sec  3.12 MBytes  26.2 Mbits/sec  25/0          0

>      16K/6244(355) us  525

> [  1] 4.0000-5.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>      19K/6152(216) us  511

> [  1] 5.0000-6.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>      22K/6764(529) us  465

> [  1] 6.0000-7.0000 sec  3.12 MBytes  26.2 Mbits/sec  25/0          0

>      15K/5918(605) us  554

> [  1] 7.0000-8.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>      18K/5178(327) us  608

> [  1] 8.0000-9.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>      19K/5758(473) us  546

> [  1] 9.0000-10.0000 sec  3.00 MBytes  25.2 Mbits/sec  24/0          0

>       16K/6141(280) us  512

> [  1] 0.0000-10.0952 sec  30.6 MBytes  25.4 Mbits/sec  245/0

> 0       19K/5924(491) us  537

> 

> 

> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:13 AM rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com> 

> wrote:

>> 

>> My biggest barrier is the lack of clock sync by the devices, i.e. very

>> limited support for PTP in data centers and in end devices. This 

>> limits

>> the ability to measure one way delays (OWD) and most assume that OWD 

>> is

>> 1/2 and RTT which typically is a mistake. We know this intuitively 

>> with

>> airplane flight times or even car commute times where the one way time

>> is not 1/2 a round trip time. Google maps & directions provide a time

>> estimate for the one way link. It doesn't compute a round trip and

>> divide by two.

>> 

>> For those that can get clock sync working, the iperf 2 --trip-times

>> options is useful.

>> 

>> --trip-times

>>    enable the measurement of end to end write to read latencies 

>> (client

>> and server clocks must be synchronized)

>> 

>> Bob

>> > I have many kvetches about the new latency under load tests being

>> > designed and distributed over the past year. I am delighted! that they

>> > are happening, but most really need third party evaluation, and

>> > calibration, and a solid explanation of what network pathologies they

>> > do and don't cover. Also a RED team attitude towards them, as well as

>> > thinking hard about what you are not measuring (operations research).

>> >

>> > I actually rather love the new cloudflare speedtest, because it tests

>> > a single TCP connection, rather than dozens, and at the same time folk

>> > are complaining that it doesn't find the actual "speed!". yet... the

>> > test itself more closely emulates a user experience than speedtest.net

>> > does. I am personally pretty convinced that the fewer numbers of flows

>> > that a web page opens improves the likelihood of a good user

>> > experience, but lack data on it.

>> >

>> > To try to tackle the evaluation and calibration part, I've reached out

>> > to all the new test designers in the hope that we could get together

>> > and produce a report of what each new test is actually doing. I've

>> > tweeted, linked in, emailed, and spammed every measurement list I know

>> > of, and only to some response, please reach out to other test designer

>> > folks and have them join the rpm email list?

>> >

>> > My principal kvetches in the new tests so far are:

>> >

>> > 0) None of the tests last long enough.

>> >

>> > Ideally there should be a mode where they at least run to "time of

>> > first loss", or periodically, just run longer than the

>> > industry-stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hstandard 20 seconds. There be dragons

>> > there! It's really bad science to optimize the internet for 20

>> > seconds. It's like optimizing a car, to handle well, for just 20

>> > seconds.

>> >

>> > 1) Not testing up + down + ping at the same time

>> >

>> > None of the new tests actually test the same thing that the infamous

>> > rrul test does - all the others still test up, then down, and ping. It

>> > was/remains my hope that the simpler parts of the flent test suite -

>> > such as the tcp_up_squarewave tests, the rrul test, and the rtt_fair

>> > tests would provide calibration to the test designers.

>> >

>> > we've got zillions of flent results in the archive published here:

>> > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/found_in_flent/

>> > ps. Misinformation about iperf 2 impacts my ability to do this.

>> 

>> > The new tests have all added up + ping and down + ping, but not up +

>> > down + ping. Why??

>> >

>> > The behaviors of what happens in that case are really non-intuitive, I

>> > know, but... it's just one more phase to add to any one of those new

>> > tests. I'd be deliriously happy if someone(s) new to the field

>> > started doing that, even optionally, and boggled at how it defeated

>> > their assumptions.

>> >

>> > Among other things that would show...

>> >

>> > It's the home router industry's dirty secret than darn few "gigabit"

>> > home routers can actually forward in both directions at a gigabit. I'd

>> > like to smash that perception thoroughly, but given our starting point

>> > is a gigabit router was a "gigabit switch" - and historically been

>> > something that couldn't even forward at 200Mbit - we have a long way

>> > to go there.

>> >

>> > Only in the past year have non-x86 home routers appeared that could

>> > actually do a gbit in both directions.

>> >

>> > 2) Few are actually testing within-stream latency

>> >

>> > Apple's rpm project is making a stab in that direction. It looks

>> > highly likely, that with a little more work, crusader and

>> > go-responsiveness can finally start sampling the tcp RTT, loss and

>> > markings, more directly. As for the rest... sampling TCP_INFO on

>> > windows, and Linux, at least, always appeared simple to me, but I'm

>> > discovering how hard it is by delving deep into the rust behind

>> > crusader.

>> >

>> > the goresponsiveness thing is also IMHO running WAY too many streams

>> > at the same time, I guess motivated by an attempt to have the test

>> > complete quickly?

>> >

>> > B) To try and tackle the validation problem:ps. Misinformation about

>> > iperf 2 impacts my ability to do this.

>> 

>> >

>> > In the libreqos.io project we've established a testbed where tests can

>> > be plunked through various ISP plan network emulations. It's here:

>> > https://payne.taht.net (run bandwidth test for what's currently hooked

>> > up)

>> >

>> > We could rather use an AS number and at least a ipv4/24 and ipv6/48 to

>> > leverage with that, so I don't have to nat the various emulations.

>> > (and funding, anyone got funding?) Or, as the code is GPLv2 licensed,

>> > to see more test designers setup a testbed like this to calibrate

>> > their own stuff.

>> >

>> > Presently we're able to test:

>> > flent

>> > netperf

>> > iperf2

>> > iperf3

>> > speedtest-cli

>> > crusader

>> > the broadband forum udp based test:

>> > https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obudpst

>> > trexx

>> >

>> > There's also a virtual machine setup that we can remotely drive a web

>> > browser from (but I didn't want to nat the results to the world) to

>> > test other web services.

>> > _______________________________________________

>> > Rpm mailing list

>> > Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net

>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm

_______________________________________________

Starlink mailing list

Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net

https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos/attachments/20230109/d0a3a7c6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the LibreQoS mailing list