Re: [Rpm] Alternate definitions of "working condition" - unnecessary?

[Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com>]

Thanks for all these thoughts. I see that there *are* indeed other tests that could be applied. (And we mustn't forget the DSLReports or Waveform tools.)

I'm going to switch things up, and and argue the plight of the poor engineer at some Wi-Fi chip or router manufacturer.

Suppose the RPM Test tool is wildly successful. Customers everywhere are using it and finding that their current routers stink out loud. They complain to their vendors. The marketing department says, "This is terrible!" to their product managers, who all see the light, and walk into the design team to say, "We need to be responsive! Make it so!"

What's an engineer to do?

a) At the minimum, they should figure out how to get fq_codel/cake/PIE/whatever into the product. That'll make a world of difference.

b) But then ... what? Engineers need to optimize against some "standard". 

- Do we have an obligation to declare some "standard of goodness"?

- Is it sufficient to be "good enough"? What does that mean?
	- 95th percentile latency less than max(5 msec or 2 packet transmission times)? 
	- RPM above 2000?

- Something else?

Thanks again for indulging in my fantasy (that vendors will ever care about responsiveness...)

Rich