On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 7:44 PM Christoph Paasch <cpaasch=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 24, 2022, at 1:57 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Christoph
>
> On Oct 24, 2022, at 22:08, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Sebastian,
>
> On Oct 23, 2022, at 4:57 AM, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2022, at 02:17, Glenn Fishbine via Rpm <
> rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> As a classic died in the wool empiricist, granted that you can identify
> "misery" factors, given a population of 1,000 users, how do you propose
> deriving a misery index for that population?
>
> We can measure download, upload, ping, jitter pretty much without user
> intervention.  For the measurements you hypothesize, how you you
> automatically extract those indecies without subjective user contamination.
>
> I.e.  my download speed sucks. Measure the download speed.
>
> My isp doesn't fix my problem. Measure what? How?
>
> Human survey technology is 70+ years old and it still has problems
> figuring out how to correlate opinion with fact.
>
> Without an objective measurement scheme that doesn't require human
> interaction, the misery index is a cool hypothesis with no way to link to
> actual data.  What objective measurements can be made?  Answer that and the
> index becomes useful. Otherwise it's just consumer whining.
>
> Not trying to be combative here, in fact I like the concept you support,
> but I'm hard pressed to see how the concept can lead to data, and the data
> lead to policy proposals.
>
>
> [SM] So it seems that outside of seemingly simple to test throughput
> numbers*, the next most important quality number (or the most important
> depending on subjective ranking) is how does latency change under "load".
> Absolute latency is also important albeit static high latency can be worked
> around within limits so the change under load seems more relevant.
> All of flent's RRUL test, apple's networkQuality/RPM, and iperf2's
> bounceback test offer methods to asses latency change under load**, as do
> waveforms bufferbloat tests and even to a degree Ookla's speedtest.net.
> IMHO something like latency increase under load or apple's responsiveness
> measure RPM (basically the inverse of the latency under load calculated on
> a per minute basis, so it scales in the typical higher numbers are better
> way, unlike raw latency under load numbers where smaller is better).
> IMHO what networkQuality is missing ATM is to measure and report the
> unloaded RPM as well as the loaded the first gives a measure over the
> static latency the second over how well things keep working if capacity
> gets tight. They report the base RTT which can be converted to RPM. As an
> example:
>
> macbook:~ user$ networkQuality -v
> ==== SUMMARY ====
>
> Upload capacity: 24.341 Mbps
> Download capacity: 91.951 Mbps
> Upload flows: 20
> Download flows: 16
> Responsiveness: High (2123 RPM)
> Base RTT: 16
> Start: 10/23/22, 13:44:39
> End: 10/23/22, 13:44:53
> OS Version: Version 12.6 (Build 21G115)
>
>
> You should update to latest macOS:
>
> $ networkQuality
> ==== SUMMARY ====
> Uplink capacity: 326.789 Mbps
> Downlink capacity: 446.359 Mbps
> Responsiveness: High (2195 RPM)
> Idle Latency: 5.833 milli-seconds
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> [SM] I wish... just updated to the latest and greatest for this hardware
> (A1398):
>
> macbook-pro:DPZ smoeller$ networkQuality
> ==== SUMMARY ====
>
> Upload capacity: 7.478 Mbps
> Download capacity: 2.415 Mbps
> Upload flows: 16
> Download flows: 20
> Responsiveness: Low (90 RPM)
> macbook-pro:DPZ smoeller$ networkQuality -v
> ==== SUMMARY ====
>
> Upload capacity: 5.830 Mbps
> Download capacity: 6.077 Mbps
> Upload flows: 12
> Download flows: 20
> Responsiveness: Low (56 RPM)
> Base RTT: 134
> Start: 10/24/22, 22:47:48
> End: 10/24/22, 22:48:09
> OS Version: Version 12.6.1 (Build 21G217)
> macbook-pro:DPZ smoeller$
>
> Still, I only see the "Base RTT" with the -v switch and I am not sure
> whether that is identical to your "Idle Latency".
>
>
> I guess I need to convince my employer to exchange that macbook (actually
> because the battery starts bulging and not because I am behind with
> networkQuality versions ;) )
>
>
> Yes, you would need macOS Ventura to get the latest and greatest.
>
> But, what I read is: You are suggesting that “Idle Latency” should be
> expressed in RPM as well? Or, Responsiveness expressed in millisecond ?
>
>
> [SM] Yes, I am fine with either (or both) the idea is to make it really
> easy to see whether/how much "working conditions" deteriorate the
> responsiveness / increase the latency-under-load. At least in verbose mode
> it would be sweet if nwtworkQuality could expose that information.
>
>
> I see - let me think about that…
>

+1 w/ Sebastian's point here. IMHO it would be great if the responsiveness
under load and when idle were reported:

  (a) symmetrically, with the same metrics for both cases, and

  (b) in both RPM and ms terms for both cases

So instead of:

Responsiveness: High (2195 RPM)
Idle Latency: 5.833 milli-seconds

Perhaps something like:

Loaded Responsiveness: High (XXXX RPM)
Loaded Latency: X.XXX milli-seconds
Idle Responsiveness: High (XXXX RPM)
Idle Latency: X.XXX milli-seconds

Having both RPM and ms available for loaded and unloaded cases would seem
to make it easier to compare loaded and idle performance more directly and
in a more apples-to-apples way.

best,
neal