From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 421C43CB37 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id w14so16798837wru.8 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:52:18 -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=AxNp/R8icdul2sRXvJ5uVR9/pKAGYWDsdFLUSaxJa44=; b=KtyXKqxjDOQgwy2hphXHPQj3MASZF6xDTD+0lOemBD1MYnE3ZcYw4lBn/paEf6xeHQ vqF0yT/YBa762STOq070bJd28cqFvCSEYEPty29yRx3ku6Gsrjh7svIi1E8hcZRjwoYR AmyYL3RM6DRtdSwYRyLiCd2sh0GGRFoBsqjk+vEPECsWVtPS/9ejRWHZDzX2N0YCR88y E3/OH+2869MSQ8hQK/MhJ7pJHXKqqvDIuIhFmQ7H6h4pbt0yQ/mvpGEulpqNkeG/hkUA acDXPA9roCjkme/X87zcde0cqN/Uep2cuNHo+Rpx5MBO7qbMPA8lFGVK3AfHoSU5kbLr 2bfQ== 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=AxNp/R8icdul2sRXvJ5uVR9/pKAGYWDsdFLUSaxJa44=; b=Cy1VKXQqFXwA00ThnjMnh9DyW61rRYRktCAwfWgBdmPnyruKqkPcsu7y9KExZlJV69 WQEHhJO8c9JhVdUNyVpNq2Iv71DHYU508wRKrnVHk27Ojta685/rsHGdaKiuFtM+bruw 3uFezGuLy8P9aRp73BTy4/4U8m9XibIdbc6rauI5/KNFKEoqTyl+qQYE0aJbeqUAkvga BFu77E/sDwTsaAIjqACsolbKVoB/XbMKq1UaJnglOI2MWrjA9AxqCuN4m+tWo/z0ACzg LRQn5wxzOpEVpO1FdhcZQY6EnAs8Cf1N9hoh65gviIIYjM7EduoM0p6QWZ4Muyj5WABp MGdA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2uZx3dsoIKzF8Nhb41+ZPcsaJJv/drkaLyo8mO2rwYgVAHKOch pgxej9GJfbdd9VXkBxgUfwdll+LP2MeABXNAVrw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5PHHhl/raXU14UvbNdqYQ/+qz1yfe8PMBng2D3mfpnVyi3yDbGl97CMt24AMS9ZNcqpZ/Wx7o+6JBiUeoblV0= X-Received: by 2002:adf:f242:0:b0:236:68ef:e76e with SMTP id b2-20020adff242000000b0023668efe76emr9009331wrp.482.1667235136931; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:52:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:52:04 -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 16:52:18 -0000 Thank you very much for the steer to RFC9097. I'd completely missed that. 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 previo= us 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 Med= ium) > > 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 that we= can reliably and repeatably measure with UDPST. The first ~3 seconds of up= stream data experience a "turbo mode" of ~50Mbps. UDPST displays this behav= ior in its 1 second sub-interval measurements and has a bimodal reporting o= ption that divides the complete measurement interval in two time intervals = to report an initial (turbo) max capacity and a steady-state max capacity f= or the later intervals. The UDPST capacity results present both measurement= s: 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 length= . 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 mark ra= te. > > 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://github.com/network-quality/goresponsiveness 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 goresponsiveness? >I watched the upstream capacity measurements on the Ookla app, and could e= asily 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 m= easured by UDPST (RFC9097). Note that the networkQuality minimum delay is ~= 20ms lower than the UDPST RTTmin, so this accounts for some of the differen= ce in working latency. Also, we used the very dynamic Type C load adjustme= nt/search algorithm in UDPST during all of this testing, which could explai= n the higher working latency to some degree. > > So, it's worth noting that the measurements needed for assessing working = latency/responsiveness are available in the UDPST utility, and that the UDP= ST 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 Late= ncy" > > metrics > > > > > > Hi again RPM friends and IPPM'ers, > > > > As promised, I repeated the tests shared last week, this time using bot= h the > > verbose (-v) and sequential (-s) dwn/up test options of networkQuality.= I > > followed Sebastian's calculations as well. > > > > Working Latency & Capacity Summary > > > > Net Qual UDPST Ookla > > DnCap RPM DelLD DelMin DnCap RTTmin RTTrange DnCap > > 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 achieved= nearly > > the maximum capacity reported almost immediately at the start of a test= . > > However, the reported capacities are low by about 60Mbps, especially wh= en > > 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 netwo= rkQuality > > RPM measurements were categorized as "High". There doesn't seem to be m= uch > > 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 Latenc= y" > > > metrics > > > > > > > > > Hi RPM friends and IPPM'ers, > > > > > > I was wondering what a comparison of some of the "working latency" me= trics > > > would look like, so I ran some tests using a service on DOCSIS 3.1, w= ith the > > > downlink provisioned for 1Gbps. > > > > > > I intended to run apple's networkQuality, UDPST (RFC9097), and Ookla > > Speedtest > > > with as similar connectivity as possible (but we know that the traffi= c 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 Ping(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 compa= red 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 achi= eve the > > > actual 1Gbps capacity with networkQuality; intermediate values observ= ed were > > > certainly headed in the right direction. (I recently upgraded to Mont= erey > > 12.6 > > > on my MacBook, so should have the latest version.) > > > > > > Also, as Sebastian Moeller's message to the list reminded me, I shoul= d have > > > run the tests with the -v option to help with comparisons. I'll repea= t this > > > test when I can make time. > > > > > > The UDPST measurements of RTTmin (minimum RTT observed during the tes= t) and > > > the range of variation above the minimum (RTTVarRnge) add-up to very > > > reasonable responsiveness IMO, so I'm not clear why RPM graded this a= ccess > > and > > > path as "Low". The UDPST server I'm using is in NJ, and I'm in Chicag= o > > > conducting tests, so the minimum 28ms is typical. UDPST measurements = were > > run > > > on an Ubuntu VM in my MacBook. > > > > > > The big disappointment was that the Ookla desktop app I updated over = 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 area. > > > > > > So, I have some more work to do, but I hope this is interesting-enoug= h 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_l9MMSGNUge6FXDkL1npaKtKcyDtWLcTZGpCunxNNCcTImH8YjC9eUT262Wd8q= 1EBpiw$ > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --=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