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:
Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas present
Hi RR,
> On Jan 5, 2023, at 04:11, Dick Roy via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On
Behalf Of
> 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/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/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. J
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
thereofJ) (and sets of bits (aka bytes or really octets)
because of ancient computer arcitecturesJ). 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
… J
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
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Department of Computer Science
>>>
>>> Room 303S.594
>>> Ph: (+64-9)-373-7599 ext. 85282
>>>
>>> The
>>> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
>>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
>>>
****************************************************************
>>> From: Starlink
<starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of rjmcmahon via
Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:02 AM
>>> To: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com <jf@jonathanfoulkes.com>
>>> Cc: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; IETF
IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Rpm
<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>; bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> 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
>>> >> <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>>> >> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>> >>
<image.png><tcp_nup-2023-01-04T090937.211620.LTE.flent.gz>_______________________________________________
>>> >> 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