Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare's christmas present

[Dave Collier-Brown <dave.collier-Brown@indexexchange.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7002 bytes --]

I think using "speed" for "the inverse of delay" is pretty normal English, if technically erroneous when speaking nerd or physicist.

Using it for volume? Arguably more like fraudulent...

--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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> 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<mailto:u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Eulrich/>
****************************************************************
________________________________
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> on behalf of rjmcmahon via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:02 AM
To: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com<mailto:jf@jonathanfoulkes.com> <jf@jonathanfoulkes.com<mailto:jf@jonathanfoulkes.com>>
Cc: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>; libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>>; Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>; Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>>; bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto: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<mailto:rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Please try the new, the shiny, the really wonderful test here:
>> https://speed.cloudflare.com/<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<mailto:Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


--
Bruce Perens K6BP



_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto: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<mailto: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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12185 bytes --]