Hi Sebastian, See below … -----Original Message----- From: Sebastian Moeller [mailto:moeller0@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:26 AM To: Dick Roy Cc: Dave Collier-Brown; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas present Hi RR, > On Jan 5, 2023, at 04:11, Dick Roy via Starlink wrote: > > > > From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Dave Collier-Brown via Starlink > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 6:48 PM > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas present > > I think using "speed" for "the inverse of delay" is pretty normal English, if technically erroneous when speaking nerd or physicist. > > [RR] I’ve not heard of that usage before. The units aren’t commensurate either. > > Using it for volume? Arguably more like fraudulent... > > [RR] I don’t think that was Bob’s intent. I think “load volume” was meant to be a metaphor for “number of bits/bytes” being transported (“by the semi”). > > That said, aren’t users these days educated on “gigs” which they intuitively understand to be Gigabits per second (or Gbps)? Oddly enough, that is an expression of “data/information/communication rate” in the appropriate units with the nominal technically correct meaning. [SM] Gigs would have the following confounds if used without a proper definition: a) base10 or base2^10? b) giga-what? Bit or Byte c) Volume or capacity d) if capacity, minimal, average, or maximal? I note (again, sorry to sound like a broken record) that the national regulatory agency for networks (Bundes-Netzagentur, short BNetzA) in Germany has some detailed instructions about what information ISPs need to supply to their potential customers pre-sale (see https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekom munikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transpar enzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1) where the headlines talk correctly about "data transmission rates" but in the text they occasionally fall back to "speed". They also state: "Data transmission rates must be given in megabits per second (Mbit/s)." This is both in response to our "speed" discussion, but also one potential way to clarify b) c) and d) above... given that is official this probably also answers a) (base10 otherwise the text would be "Data transmission rates must be given in mebibits per second (Mibit/s).") [RR] My reference to “gigs” was to the ads out nowadays from AT&T about becoming Gagillionaires (“Yes, I am Jurgous. … We know!”) that “now have gig speed wireless from AT&T” so they can play all kinds of VR games. :-) That said, not sure why BNetzA mandates a particular unit for information rates, but that’s their prerogative I guess. Given that the fundamental unit of information is the answer to a YES/NO question (aka a “bit”), it makes sense to measure information in bits (although trits or any other higher order concept could be used as long as the system accounted for fractions thereof:-)) (and sets of bits (aka bytes or really octets) because of ancient computer arcitectures:-)). Since we have pretty much settled on the SI second as the accepted unit of time (and multiples thereof e.g. msec, usec, nsec, etc.), it makes sense to measure information flow in bits/sec or some multiples thereof such as Gbps, Mbps, Kbps, etc. and their byte (really octet) versions GBps, MBps, KBps, etc.. Not sure why BNetzA mandates ONLY one of these, but whatever … :-) As for capacity, remember capacity is not something that is measured. It is a fundamental property (an information rate!) of a communication channel which has no other attributes such as minimal, average, or maximal (unless one is talking about time-varying channels and is wanting to characterize the capacity of the channel over time, but that’s another story). As such, comparing volume and capacity is comparing apples and oranges; one is a size of something (e.g. number of megabytes) and the other is a rate (e.g. MBps) so I am not sure what “Volume or capacity” really means. I suspect the concept you may be looking for is “achievable rate” rather than “capacity”. Achievable rate IS something that is measureable, and varies with load when channels are shared, etc.. Loosely speaking, achievable rate is always less than or equal to the capacity of a channel. HNY, RR --Sebastian > > RR > > --dave > > On 1/4/23 18:54, Bruce Perens via Starlink wrote: >> On the other hand, we would like to be comprehensible to normal users, especially when we want them to press their providers to deal with bufferbloat. Differences like speed and rate would go right over their heads. >> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:16 PM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote: >>> The use of the term "speed" in communications used to be restricted to the speed of light (or whatever propagation speed one happened to be dealing with. Everything else was a "rate". Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I think talking about "speed tests" muddies the waters rather a lot. >>> >>> -- >>> **************************************************************** >>> Dr. Ulrich Speidel >>> >>> Department of Computer Science >>> >>> Room 303S.594 >>> Ph: (+64-9)-373-7599 ext. 85282 >>> >>> The University of Auckland >>> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz >>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ >>> **************************************************************** >>> From: Starlink on behalf of rjmcmahon via Starlink >>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:02 AM >>> To: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com >>> Cc: Cake List ; IETF IPPM WG ; libreqos ; Dave Taht via Starlink ; Rpm ; bloat >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas present >>> >>> Curious to why people keep calling capacity tests speed tests? A semi at >>> 55 mph isn't faster than a porsche at 141 mph because its load volume is >>> larger. >>> >>> Bob >>> > HNY Dave and all the rest, >>> > >>> > Great to see yet another capacity test add latency metrics to the >>> > results. This one looks like a good start. >>> > >>> > Results from my Windstream DOCSIS 3.1 line (3.1 on download only, up >>> > is 3.0) Gigabit down / 35Mbps up provisioning. Using an IQrouter Pro >>> > (an i5 x86) with Cake set for 710/31 as this ISP can’t deliver >>> > reliable low-latency unless you shave a good bit off the targets. My >>> > local loop is pretty congested. >>> > >>> > Here’s the latest Cloudflare test: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > And an Ookla test run just afterward: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > They are definitely both in the ballpark and correspond to other tests >>> > run from the router itself or my (wired) MacBook Pro. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > >>> > Jonathan >>> > >>> > >>> >> On Jan 4, 2023, at 12:26 PM, Dave Taht via Rpm >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Please try the new, the shiny, the really wonderful test here: >>> >> https://speed.cloudflare.com/ >>> >> >>> >> I would really appreciate some independent verification of >>> >> measurements using this tool. In my brief experiments it appears - as >>> >> all the commercial tools to date - to dramatically understate the >>> >> bufferbloat, on my LTE, (and my starlink terminal is out being >>> >> hacked^H^H^H^H^H^Hworked on, so I can't measure that) >>> >> >>> >> My test of their test reports 223ms 5G latency under load , where >>> >> flent reports over 2seconds. See comparison attached. >>> >> >>> >> My guess is that this otherwise lovely new tool, like too many, >>> >> doesn't run for long enough. Admittedly, most web objects (their >>> >> target market) are small, and so long as they remain small and not >>> >> heavily pipelined this test is a very good start... but I'm pretty >>> >> sure cloudflare is used for bigger uploads and downloads than that. >>> >> There's no way to change the test to run longer either. >>> >> >>> >> I'd love to get some results from other networks (compared as usual to >>> >> flent), especially ones with cake on it. I'd love to know if they >>> >> measured more minimum rtts that can be obtained with fq_codel or cake, >>> >> correctly. >>> >> >>> >> Love Always, >>> >> The Grinch >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: >>> >> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666560 7352320-FXtz >>> >> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>> >> __________________ _____________________________ >>> >> Rpm mailing list >>> >> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Rpm mailing list >>> > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> >> >> -- >> Bruce Perens K6BP >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > -- > David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify > System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest > dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com | -- Mark Twain > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your inbox and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute an express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, nor does it constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment or an acceptance of a contract offer. Contract terms contained in this telecommunication are subject to legal review and the completion of formal documentation and are not binding until same is confirmed in writing and has been signed by an authorized signatory. > > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink