From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (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 3C0D23B2A4; Mon, 9 Jan 2023 15:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id m26-20020a05600c3b1a00b003d9811fcaafso8065049wms.5; Mon, 09 Jan 2023 12:50:01 -0800 (PST) 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=JeLK1itx8YT6N/BVZwhS+9Rdd0QwyMOyEptwJQam0/I=; b=GKoYS6dFNXmXuFmNTqPCVwTpH0I1dCDhsbj1ExFE66S8EZ7lMl81tLshg589bM1xLK H/xN/Znw6GB9kFd06QPjcYJdcw9tRQLDEQ4IMhQtE/pfr/l9dURCe2sEJwiAaQrFdFtr pcLXUPPZbFLYvyEwhP6psQ8GHfKiTgIotteUuuAkjPfXf1R1vziDHqua4C1DHb/OZa9S /c0vgM1eC3IRz6HHSyEkjTbRSjye6fpTehnYO6RUMwyTm3lqV8pQIpHgrgoC3HtxhMGM DM8/orIcwB0udKVO6IuZILvtcqRtk0NnHoqX1/tuAf5mmrVISddVmh5lDnwpi2EneDuL A/qg== 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=JeLK1itx8YT6N/BVZwhS+9Rdd0QwyMOyEptwJQam0/I=; b=aSAMHjoVwnq5Qb4IIUWwYWOMf7gFnhP+K+H/xWpCskn9mrR1ChmjnfmDft6n3IPS6i dcwoWHLNw5C1yaAMcHNVaphqsnwve3gWeXz6jeemqGKFpTfeDaLf7jd11cffk3DO1frl LBLjwbEAkq2gFjZe12CEp3RlohxJcdH6Qrzv5Zh7EUgv/sI16OeSt6WtPCv56Hl1gqSz 7fuWrkfX9RJlQvI3hIV/Fmx522ksm3Tt69TLlPakOjBA27CRiEWNcUkkctQukIqEqmqE Lyc7AfZJ8705ZgMhwdt4mw/mu9Vo15YerybY5IZzahvwZBCeQqHy6EOZuJyrGP6pOZ3C pTfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kqE0/QCgfPtMZKjHAcsc87XDp0HBdlq11wA2DBzZwfsxVpoibbi KyrokYel93A6znhZmcl/egJNM9AHHW3oKk1DWSSUvIpRhCs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXs3C1VWJeVqGhilAhXIV1qtZMXuO3OaJJL+rmj0aiPK4HBD66v0fGy0gamg+uLtKuqGEzhE0dOGJ7aRlqtMWuw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2f17:b0:3cf:a6e8:b59b with SMTP id r23-20020a05600c2f1700b003cfa6e8b59bmr4506715wmn.128.1673297400094; Mon, 09 Jan 2023 12:50:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1672786712.106922180@apps.rackspace.com> <77CCAD19-07E0-4F9E-88C1-D207CF7BF376@cable.comcast.com> In-Reply-To: <77CCAD19-07E0-4F9E-88C1-D207CF7BF376@cable.comcast.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 12:49:48 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Livingood, Jason" Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Rpm , bloat , libreqos Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Rpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Starlink] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA 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, 09 Jan 2023 20:50:01 -0000 On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:54 AM Livingood, Jason wrote: > > > 0) None of the tests last long enough. > > The user-initiated ones tend to be shorter - likely because the average u= ser does not want to wait several minutes for a test to complete. But IMO t= his is where a test platform like SamKnows, Ookla's embedded client, NetMic= roscope, and others can come in - since they run in the background on some = randomized schedule w/o user intervention. Thus, the user's time-sensitivit= y is no longer a factor and a longer duration test can be performed. I would be so happy if someone independent ( and not necessarily me!) was validating those more private tests, and retaining reference packet captures of the various behaviors observed. Bloat is just one problem among many, that shows up on a speedtest. I have, for example, been working for months, on a very difficult problem occurring on at least one wifi6 chipset... where the block-ack window is being violated, leading to a ton of jitter under certain loads, and a bandwidth reduction, that doesn't show up in summary data. Samknows published a really good blog recently, here: https://samknows.com/blog/testing-principles about how they are going about things... however... > > > 1) Not testing up + down + ping at the same time > > You should consider publishing a LUL BCP I-D in the IRTF/IETF - like in I= PPM... I have cc'd ippm a few times on these threads, and am on that mailing list. It's pretty moribund compared to around here. I am primarily interested in correct code (be it from a specification, or not), and in looking at packet captures, to validate that it is doing what it says on the tin, and moreover getting more stuff on those tin, that I already know, should be tested for. I agree that someday trying to nail down what latency under load means, would be good to do. I'd settle at the moment, for single flow simultaneous, tcp up, down, ping, and within stream latencies... all plotted on the same chart. > JL > --=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