Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: [Starlink] Starlink and bufferbloat status?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1625856001.74681750@apps.rackspace.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1625846401.13780.starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2266 bytes --]


Early measurements of performance of Starlink have shown significant bufferbloat, as Dave Taht has shown.
 
But...  Starlink is a moving target. The bufferbloat isn't a hardware issue, it should be completely manageable, starting by simple firmware changes inside the Starlink system itself. For example, implementing fq_codel so that bottleneck links just drop packets according to the Best Practices RFC,
 
So I'm hoping this has improved since Dave's measurements. How much has it improved? What's the current maximum packet latency under full load,  Ive heard anecdotally that a friend of a friend gets 84 msec. *ping times under full load*, but he wasn't using flent or some other measurement tool of good quality that gives a true number.
 
84 msec is not great - it's marginal for Zoom quality experience (you want latencies significantly less than 100 msec. as a rule of thumb for teleconferencing quality). But it is better than Dave's measurements showed.
 
Now Musk bragged that his network was "low latency" unlike other high speed services, which means low end-to-end latency.  That got him permission from the FCC to operate Starlink at all. His number was, I think, < 5 msec. 84 is a lot more than 5. (I didn't believe 5, because he probably meant just the time from the ground station to the terminal through the satellite. But I regularly get 17 msec. between California and Massachusetts over the public Internet)
 
So 84 might be the current status. That would mean that someone at Srarlink might be paying some attention, but it is a long way from what Musk implied.
 
 
PS: I forget the number of the RFC, but the number of packets queued on an egress link should be chosen by taking the hardware bottleneck throughput of any path, combined with an end-to-end Internet underlying delay of about 10 msec. to account for hops between source and destination. Lets say Starlink allocates 50 Mb/sec to each customer, packets are limited to 10,000 bits (1500 * 8), so the outbound queues should be limited to about 0.01 * 50,000,000 / 10,000, which comes out to about 250 packets from each terminal of buffering, total, in the path from terminal to public Internet, assuming the connection to the public Internet is not a problem.
 
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3930 bytes --]

       reply	other threads:[~2021-07-09 18:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <mailman.3.1625846401.13780.starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2021-07-09 18:40 ` David P. Reed [this message]
2021-07-09 18:45   ` Nathan Owens
2021-07-09 19:08   ` Ben Greear
2021-07-09 20:08   ` Dick Roy
2021-07-09 22:58   ` David Lang
2021-07-09 23:07     ` Daniel AJ Sokolov
2021-07-10 15:58       ` Dave Taht
2021-07-16 10:21     ` Wheelock, Ian
2021-07-16 17:08       ` David Lang
2021-07-16 17:13         ` Nathan Owens
2021-07-16 17:24           ` David Lang
2021-07-16 17:29             ` Nathan Owens
2021-07-16 17:31               ` Mike Puchol
2021-07-16 17:35                 ` Nathan Owens
2021-07-16 17:39                   ` Jonathan Bennett
2021-07-19  1:05                     ` Nick Buraglio
2021-07-19  1:20                       ` David Lang
2021-07-19  1:34                         ` Nick Buraglio
2021-07-17 18:36                   ` David P. Reed
2021-07-17 18:42                     ` David Lang
2021-07-18 19:05                     ` David Lang
2021-07-16 17:38                 ` David Lang
2021-07-16 17:42                   ` Mike Puchol
2021-07-16 18:48                     ` David Lang
2021-07-16 20:57                       ` Mike Puchol
2021-07-16 21:30                         ` David Lang
2021-07-16 21:40                           ` Mike Puchol
2021-07-16 22:40                             ` Jeremy Austin
2021-07-16 23:04                               ` Nathan Owens
2021-07-17 10:02                                 ` [Starlink] Free Space Optics - was " Michiel Leenaars
2021-07-17  1:12                             ` [Starlink] " David Lang
     [not found]                             ` <d86d6590b6f24dfa8f9775ed3bb3206c@DM6PR05MB5915.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
2021-07-17 15:55                               ` Fabian E. Bustamante
2021-07-16 20:51             ` Michael Richardson
2021-07-18 19:17               ` David Lang
2021-07-18 22:29                 ` Dave Taht
2021-07-19  1:30                   ` David Lang
2021-07-19 12:14                     ` Michael Richardson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1625856001.74681750@apps.rackspace.com \
    --to=dpreed@deepplum.com \
    --cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox