he also had a waveform result as best as I recall. Simpler than running flent. On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:23 PM Frantisek Borsik wrote: > Here are the tests Dave was talking about: > > [image: image.png] > rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz > > tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz > > tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz > > > All the best, > > Frank > > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 > > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > > Skype: casioa5302ca > > frantisek.borsik@gmail.com > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that. >> >> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data >> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech >> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that >> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated) >> >> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I >> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the >> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in >> the wind... >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink < >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >> >>> Colin, >>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent >>> latency. >>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or >>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume >>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP >>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service? >>> >>> Am I asking too much? >>> >>> Gene >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> Eugene Chang >>> IEEE Life Senior Member >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink < >>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>> >>> Gene, >>> >>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on >>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I >>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because >>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not >>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I >>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able >>> to perform standard Internet functions. >>> >>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to >>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people >>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to >>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they >>> don't plan based on bad assumptions. >>> >>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to >>> be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard >>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the >>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K >>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and >>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years. >>> >>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR >>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be >>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Starlink On Behalf Of >>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM >>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15 >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000 >>> From: Eugene Y Chang >>> To: Colin_Higbie , Dave Taht via Starlink >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. >>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care >>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios. >>> >>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch >>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer >>> bloat and high latency. >>> >>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user >>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive >>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email >>> and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more >>> people.) >>> >>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household? >>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve? >>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.) >>> >>> Gene >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> Eugene Chang >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> > -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos