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

[Dick Roy]

-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller [mailto:moeller0 at gmx.de] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 11:45 PM
To: dickroy at alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy; 'Robert McMahon'
Cc: mike.reynolds at netforecast.com; 'libreqos'; 'David P. Reed'; 'Rpm';
'bloat'
Subject: RE: [Starlink] [Rpm] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA

 

Hi RR

 

On 12 January 2023 22:57:32 CET, Dick Roy <dickroy at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>FYI .

> 

> 

> 

>https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/cbrs-based-fwa-beats-starlink-performan
c

>e-madden

> 

 

[SM] He is so close:

[RR] Which is why I posted the link :-)  I knew you'd latch on to his
thread! 

  

'Speed tests don't tell us much about the capacity of the network, or the
reliability of the network, or the true latency with larger packet sizes.
Packet loss testing can help to fill in key missing information to give the
end customer the smooth experience they're looking for.'

and

'Packets received over 250 ms latency are considered too late to be useful
for video conferencing.'

 

He actually reports both loss numbers and delay > 250ms, so in spite arguing
that loss is the relevant metric he already dips his toes into the latency
issue... I wonder whether his view will refine over time now that he
apparently moved from a link with 8% packet loss to one with a more sane
0.1% loss rate (no idea how he measured lossrate though, or latency). I
guess this shows that there is no single solution for all links, it really
matters where one starts which of throughput, delay, loss is the most
painful and hence the dimension in need of a fix first.

 

Regards

        Sebastian

 

 

 

> 

> 

>Nothing earth-shaking :-)

> 

> 

>RR

> 

> 

> 

>  _____  

> 

>From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of

>Robert McMahon via Starlink

>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 9:50 AM

>To: Sebastian Moeller

>Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink; mike.reynolds at netforecast.com; libreqos; David

>P. Reed; Rpm; bloat

>Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA

> 

> 

> 

>Hi Sebastien,

> 

>You make a good point. What I did was issue a warning if the tool found it

>was being CPU limited vs i/o limited. This indicates the i/o test likely is

>inaccurate from an i/o perspective, and the results are suspect. It does

>this crudely by comparing the cpu thread doing stats against the traffic

>threads doing i/o, which thread is waiting on the others. There is no

>attempt to assess the cpu load itself. So it's designed with a singular

>purpose of making sure i/o threads only block on syscalls of write and
read.

> 

>I probably should revisit this both in design and implementation. Thanks
for

>bringing it up and all input is truly appreciated. 

> 

>Bob

> 

>On Jan 12, 2023, at 12:14 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:

> 

>Hi Bob,

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On Jan 11, 2023, at 21:09, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Iperf 2 is designed to measure network i/o. Note: It doesn't have to move

>large amounts of data. It can support data profiles that don't drive TCP's

>CCA as an example.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Two things I've been asked for and avoided:

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 1) Integrate clock sync into iperf's test traffic

> 

> 

> 

> [SM] This I understand, measurement conditions can be unsuited for tight

>time synchronization...

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 2) Measure and output CPU usages

> 

> 

> 

> [SM] This one puzzles me, as far as I understand the only way to properly

>diagnose network issues is to rule out other things like CPU overload that

>can have symptoms similar to network issues. As an example, the cake qdisc

>will if CPU cycles become tight first increases its internal queueing and

>jitter (not consciously, it is just an observation that once cake does not

>get access to the CPU as timely as it wants, queuing latency and
variability

>increases) and then later also shows reduced throughput, so similar things

>that can happen along an e2e network path for completely different reasons,

>e.g. lower level retransmissions or a variable rate link. So i would think

>that checking the CPU load at least coarse would be within the scope of

>network testing tools, no?

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>Regards

> 

> 

> Sebastian

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> I think both of these are outside the scope of a tool designed to test

>network i/o over sockets, rather these should be developed & validated

>independently of a network i/o tool.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Clock error really isn't about amount/frequency of traffic but rather

>getting a periodic high-quality reference. I tend to use GPS pulse per

>second to lock the local system oscillator to. As David says, most every

>modern handheld computer has the GPS chips to do this already. So to me it

>seems more of a policy choice between data center operators and device mfgs

>and less of a technical issue.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Bob

> Hello,

> 

> 

>  Yall can call me crazy if you want.. but... see below [RWG]

> Hi Bib,

> On Jan 9, 2023, at 20:13, rjmcmahon via Starlink

><starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> 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.

>  [SM] +1; and yet even with unsynchronized clocks one can try to measure

>how latency changes under load and that can be done per direction. Sure
this

>is far inferior to real reliably measured OWDs, but if life/the internet

>deals you lemons....

> [RWG] iperf2/iperf3, etc are already moving large amounts of data

> 

> 

> back and forth, for that matter any rate test, why not abuse some of

> 

> 

> that data and add the fundemental NTP clock sync data and

> 

> 

> bidirectionally pass each others concept of "current time".  IIRC (its

> 

> 

> been 25 years since I worked on NTP at this level) you *should* be

> 

> 

> able to get a fairly accurate clock delta between each end, and then

> 

> 

> use that info and time stamps in the data stream to compute OWD's.

> 

> 

> You need to put 4 time stamps in the packet, and with that you can

> 

> 

> compute "offset".

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --trip-times

> 

> 

>  enable the measurement of end to end write to read latencies (client and

>server clocks must be synchronized)

> 

> [RWG] --clock-skew

> 

> 

>  enable the measurement of the wall clock difference between sender and

>receiver

>  [SM] Sweet!

> 

> 

> Regards

> 

> 

>  Sebastian

> 

> 

> 

> 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

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  _____  

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Starlink mailing list

> 

> 

> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net

> 

> 

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

> 

 

-- 

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos/attachments/20230113/c931e4b6/attachment-0001.html>