[Rpm] [Starlink] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com
Mon Jan 9 15:46:40 EST 2023
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) 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
More information about the Rpm
mailing list