From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A0AC3CB37 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 19:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id cl5so6414139wrb.9 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:31:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=4tqEOVVEoTm7DBN09eTW/e05kk2gPxi4lbCA2EO8GFc=; b=T+oXlitwkVPcYNDm4nY0MbLCy+59/WOjA3uAJJe/3+JWRNvBGHMAfUnVX0gAOgYn3g nJOKXDT04CTuyJCLpZ/b63zkwknn3mjhoOqKs0DEEI2bQ1tsYjONWf/jezzq7KIsOLg4 fT4KVSBKKzMgUbfuzlhChclMXXtmYorOyAw7Yfa8R9dpDn7H1NL9SYZwswrnD+BRBKLH x9VDJn0FN80CoGJMl62sQLSK2Ji4FmIUkVj3k0lFtnDeWYGSZmj5U3EDAlSlwCp1qlRk NkvxKLizoTsOOHnx88NOQeK4/PpnlA2Ek0zNqRA02Tu7EIQ6Caj2BhmBArrO2pUtmoRa NSmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4tqEOVVEoTm7DBN09eTW/e05kk2gPxi4lbCA2EO8GFc=; b=RgHIXwUsQ9bnMfLuQ+J83JuLW+FEOh3nakRqjJlcb7sMkXkeomKGTc0BqAHBjQW0Pd QPfohWIPxd4WMz49p121+o4TmMjv+3AMCR0c4N01vXmYWu6yUO8OKf5CbGIrxixJNHsP xRS+//1pKkPiFrECQVOzW5DJ+WFgaZTWgvlW7uwbe3U7569bXDfFbwrOyHtE8emncNKa fa4KediXfLhfho7EYv6O+zWFOvzfwer36DINVplPGxurPtH78LGLcZ2IXQkgnUWXWk8f WKptb40wd7/rKmAxd5FoGgR4q/1j8bcVaJxezhzHsQXjtgCrlG0/kUET/5iDPO9V9unA DcsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3b2QzxQTtmojswrsURPCx8W1qWPPXSYUBecQawY+5B6gbnXCzB vfyTX4MZ3ceDhF88aRyfRb5LhFU4AJA9Bk7vePM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6MRQTJ+J8tMUy1me0luDIUJ+MECiKa6FfL1evQ94a1a9ROuacFMqoVD5yPxdBc1lSKSdkiogr0vMze9daeyRk= X-Received: by 2002:adf:f242:0:b0:236:68ef:e76e with SMTP id b2-20020adff242000000b0023668efe76emr9909661wrp.482.1667259061821; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:31:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:30:49 -0700 Message-ID: To: "MORTON JR., AL" Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" , Rpm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Rpm] [ippm] Preliminary measurement comparison of "Working Latency" metrics X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:31:03 -0000 On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 1:41 PM MORTON JR., AL wrote: > > have you tried irtt? (https://github.com/heistp/irtt ) > I have not. Seems like a reasonable tool for UDP testing. The feature I d= idn't like in my scan of the documentation is the use of Inter-packet delay= variation (IPDV) instead of packet delay variation (PDV): variation from t= he minimum (or reference) delay. The morbidly curious can find my analysis = in RFC 5481: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5481 irtt was meant to simulate high speed voip and one day videoconferencing. Please inspect the json output for other metrics. Due to OS limits it is typically only accurate to a 3ms interval. One thing it does admirably is begin to expose the sordid sump of L2 behaviors in 4g, 5g, wifi, and other wireless technologies, as well as request/grant systems like cable and gpon, especially when otherwise idle. Here is a highres plot of starlink's behaviors from last year: https://forum.openwrt.org/t/cake-w-adaptive-bandwidth-historic/108848/3238 clearly showing them "optimizing for bandwidth" and changing next sat hop, and about a 40ms interval of buffering between these switches. I'd published elsewhere, if anyone cares, a preliminary study of what starlink's default behaviors did to cubic and BBR... > > irtt's use of IPDV means that the results won=E2=80=99t compare with UDPS= T, and possibly networkQuality. But I may give it a try anyway... The more the merrier! Someday the "right" metrics will arrive. As a side note, this paper focuses on RAN uplink latency https://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/itc/itc2021/1570740615.pdf which I think is a major barrier to most forms of 5G actually achieving good performance in a FPS game, if it is true for more RANs. I'd like more to be testing uplink latencies idle and with load, on all technologies. > > thanks again, Dave. > Al > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Taht > > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 12:52 PM > > To: MORTON JR., AL > > Cc: ippm@ietf.org; Rpm > > Subject: Re: [ippm] Preliminary measurement comparison of "Working Late= ncy" > > metrics > > > > Thank you very much for the steer to RFC9097. I'd completely missed tha= t. > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:04 AM MORTON JR., AL wrote= : > > > > > > (astute readers may have guessed that I pressed "send" too soon on pr= evious > > message...) > > > > > > I also conducted upstream tests this time, here are the results: > > > (capacity in Mbps, delays in ms, h and m are RPM categories, High and > > Medium) > > > > > > Net Qual UDPST (RFC9097) Ookla > > > UpCap RPM DelLD DelMin UpCap RTTmin RTTrange UpCap > > Ping(no load) > > > 34 1821 h 33ms 11ms 23 (42) 28 0-252 22 = 8 > > > 22 281 m 214ms 8ms 27 (52) 25 5-248 22 = 8 > > > 22 290 m 207ms 8ms 27 (55) 28 0-253 22 = 9 > > > 21 330 m 182ms 11ms 23 (44) 28 0-255 22 = 7 > > > 22 334 m 180ms 9ms 33 (56) 25 0-255 22 = 9 > > > > > > The Upstream capacity measurements reflect an interesting feature tha= t we > > can reliably and repeatably measure with UDPST. The first ~3 seconds of > > upstream data experience a "turbo mode" of ~50Mbps. UDPST displays this > > behavior in its 1 second sub-interval measurements and has a bimodal re= porting > > option that divides the complete measurement interval in two time inter= vals to > > report an initial (turbo) max capacity and a steady-state max capacity = for the > > later intervals. The UDPST capacity results present both measurements: = steady- > > state first. > > > > Certainly we can expect bi-model distributions from many ISPs, as, for > > one thing, the "speedboost" concept remains popular, except that it's > > misnamed, as it should be called speed-subtract or speed-lose. Worse, > > it is often configured "sneakily", in that it doesn't kick in for the > > typical observed duration of the test, for some, they cut the > > available bandwidth about 20s in, others, 1 or 5 minutes. > > > > One of my biggest issues with the rpm spec so far is that it should, > > at least, sometimes, run randomly longer than the overly short > > interval it runs for and the tools also allow for manual override of le= ngth. > > > > we caught a lot of tomfoolery with flent's rrul test running by default= for > > 1m. > > > > Also, AQMs on the path can take a while to find the optimal drop or mar= k rate. > > > > > > > > The capacity processing in networkQuality and Ookla appear to report = the > > steady-state result. > > > > Ookla used to basically report the last result. Also it's not a good > > indicator of web traffic behavior at all, watching the curve > > go up much more slowly in their test on say, fiber 2ms, vs starlink, > > (40ms).... > > > > So adding another mode - how quickly is peak bandwidth actually > > reached, would be nice. > > > > I haven't poked into the current iteration of the goresponsiveness > > test at all: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/network- > > quality/goresponsiveness__;!!BhdT!giGhURYxqguQCyB3NT8rE0vADdzxcQ2eCzfS4= NRMsdvb > > K2bOqw0uMPbFeJ7PxzxTc48iQFubYTxxmyA$ it > > would be good to try collecting more statistics and histograms and > > methods of analyzing the data in that libre-source version. > > > > How does networkQuality compare vs a vs your tool vs a vs goresponsiven= ess? > > > > >I watched the upstream capacity measurements on the Ookla app, and cou= ld > > easily see the initial rise to 40-50Mbps, then the drop to ~22Mbps for = most of > > the test which determined the final result. > > > > I tend to get upset when I see ookla's new test flash a peak result in > > the seconds and then settle on some lower number somehow. > > So far as I know they are only sampling the latency every 250ms. > > > > > > > > The working latency is about 200ms in networkQuality and about 280ms = as > > measured by UDPST (RFC9097). Note that the networkQuality minimum delay= is > > ~20ms lower than the UDPST RTTmin, so this accounts for some of the dif= ference > > in working latency. Also, we used the very dynamic Type C load > > adjustment/search algorithm in UDPST during all of this testing, which = could > > explain the higher working latency to some degree. > > > > > > So, it's worth noting that the measurements needed for assessing work= ing > > latency/responsiveness are available in the UDPST utility, and that the= UDPST > > measurements are conducted on UDP transport (used by a growing fraction= of > > Internet traffic). > > > > Thx, didn't know of this work til now! > > > > have you tried irtt? > > > > > > > > comments welcome of course, > > > Al > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ippm On Behalf Of MORTON JR., AL > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2022 8:09 PM > > > > To: ippm@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [ippm] Preliminary measurement comparison of "Working > > Latency" > > > > metrics > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again RPM friends and IPPM'ers, > > > > > > > > As promised, I repeated the tests shared last week, this time using= both > > the > > > > verbose (-v) and sequential (-s) dwn/up test options of networkQual= ity. I > > > > followed Sebastian's calculations as well. > > > > > > > > Working Latency & Capacity Summary > > > > > > > > Net Qual UDPST Ook= la > > > > DnCap RPM DelLD DelMin DnCap RTTmin RTTrange DnC= ap > > > > Ping(no load) > > > > 885 916 m 66ms 8ms 970 28 0-20 940= 8 > > > > 888 1355 h 44ms 8ms 966 28 0-23 940= 8 > > > > 891 1109 h 54ms 8ms 968 27 0-19 940= 9 > > > > 887 1141 h 53ms 11ms 966 27 0-18 937= 7 > > > > 884 1151 h 52ms 9ms 968 28 0-20 937= 9 > > > > > > > > With the sequential test option, I noticed that networkQuality achi= eved > > nearly > > > > the maximum capacity reported almost immediately at the start of a = test. > > > > However, the reported capacities are low by about 60Mbps, especiall= y when > > > > compared to the Ookla TCP measurements. > > > > > > > > The loaded delay (DelLD) is similar to the UDPST RTTmin + (the high= end of > > the > > > > RTTrange), for example 54ms compared to (27+19=3D46). Most of the > > networkQuality > > > > RPM measurements were categorized as "High". There doesn't seem to = be much > > > > buffering in the downstream direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: ippm On Behalf Of MORTON JR., AL > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 6:36 PM > > > > > To: ippm@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: [ippm] Preliminary measurement comparison of "Working La= tency" > > > > > metrics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi RPM friends and IPPM'ers, > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering what a comparison of some of the "working latency= " > > metrics > > > > > would look like, so I ran some tests using a service on DOCSIS 3.= 1, with > > the > > > > > downlink provisioned for 1Gbps. > > > > > > > > > > I intended to run apple's networkQuality, UDPST (RFC9097), and Oo= kla > > > > Speedtest > > > > > with as similar connectivity as possible (but we know that the tr= affic > > will > > > > > diverge to different servers and we can't change that aspect). > > > > > > > > > > Here's a quick summary of yesterday's results: > > > > > > > > > > Working Latency & Capacity Summary > > > > > > > > > > Net Qual UDPST Ookla > > > > > DnCap RPM DnCap RTTmin RTTVarRnge DnCap Pin= g(no > > load) > > > > > 878 62 970 28 0-19 941 6 > > > > > 891 92 970 27 0-20 940 7 > > > > > 891 120 966 28 0-22 937 9 > > > > > 890 112 970 28 0-21 940 8 > > > > > 903 70 970 28 0-16 935 9 > > > > > > > > > > Note: all RPM values were categorized as Low. > > > > > > > > > > networkQuality downstream capacities are always on the low side c= ompared > > to > > > > > others. We would expect about 940Mbps for TCP, and that's mostly = what > > Ookla > > > > > achieved. I think that a longer test duration might be needed to = achieve > > the > > > > > actual 1Gbps capacity with networkQuality; intermediate values ob= served > > were > > > > > certainly headed in the right direction. (I recently upgraded to > > Monterey > > > > 12.6 > > > > > on my MacBook, so should have the latest version.) > > > > > > > > > > Also, as Sebastian Moeller's message to the list reminded me, I s= hould > > have > > > > > run the tests with the -v option to help with comparisons. I'll r= epeat > > this > > > > > test when I can make time. > > > > > > > > > > The UDPST measurements of RTTmin (minimum RTT observed during the= test) > > and > > > > > the range of variation above the minimum (RTTVarRnge) add-up to v= ery > > > > > reasonable responsiveness IMO, so I'm not clear why RPM graded th= is > > access > > > > and > > > > > path as "Low". The UDPST server I'm using is in NJ, and I'm in Ch= icago > > > > > conducting tests, so the minimum 28ms is typical. UDPST measureme= nts > > were > > > > run > > > > > on an Ubuntu VM in my MacBook. > > > > > > > > > > The big disappointment was that the Ookla desktop app I updated o= ver the > > > > > weekend did not include the new responsiveness metric! I included= the > > ping > > > > > results anyway, and it was clearly using a server in the nearby a= rea. > > > > > > > > > > So, I have some more work to do, but I hope this is interesting-e= nough > > to > > > > > start some comparison discussions, and bring-out some suggestions= . > > > > > > > > > > happy testing all, > > > > > Al > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > ippm mailing list > > > > > ippm@ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm_= _;!!Bhd > > > > > > > > > > > T!hd5MvMQw5eiICQbsfoNaZBUS38yP4YIodBvz1kV5VsX_cGIugVnz5iIkNqi6fRfIQzWef= _xKqg4$ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > ippm mailing list > > > > ippm@ietf.org > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm_= _;!!Bhd > > > > T!g- > > FsktB_l9MMSGNUge6FXDkL1npaKtKcyDtWLcTZGpCunxNNCcTImH8YjC9eUT262Wd8q1EBp= iw$ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ippm mailing list > > > ippm@ietf.org > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm_= _;!!Bhd > > T!giGhURYxqguQCyB3NT8rE0vADdzxcQ2eCzfS4NRMsdvbK2bOqw0uMPbFeJ7PxzxTc48iQ= Fub_gMs > > KXU$ > > > > > > > > -- > > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mu= shroom- > > song-activity-6981366665607352320- > > FXtz__;!!BhdT!giGhURYxqguQCyB3NT8rE0vADdzxcQ2eCzfS4NRMsdvbK2bOqw0uMPbFe= J7PxzxT > > c48iQFub34zz4iE$ > > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC --=20 This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-69813666656= 07352320-FXtz Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC