That's a good maxim: Don't believe a speed test that is hosted by your own ISP. On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 2:36 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Thank you for the dialog,. > This discussion with regards to Starlink is interesting as it confirms my > guesses about the gap between Starlinks overly simplified, over optimistic > marketing and the reality as they acquire subscribers. > > I am actually interested in a more perverse issue. I am seeing latency and > bufferbloat as a consequence from significant under provisioning. It > doesn’t matter that the ISP is selling a fiber drop, if (parts) of their > network is under provisioned. Two end points can be less than 5 mile apart > and realize 120+ ms latency. Two Labor Days ago (a holiday) the max latency > was 230+ ms. The pattern I see suggest digital redlining. The older > communities appear to have much more severe under provisioning. > > Another observation. Running speedtest appears to go from the edge of the > network by layer 2 to the speedtest host operated by the ISP. Yup, bypasses > the (suspected overloaded) routers. > > Anyway, just observing. > > Gene > ---------------------------------------------- > Eugene Chang > IEEE Senior Life Member > eugene.chang@ieee.org > 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 11:20 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi Gene, > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 23:10, Eugene Y Chang wrote: > > Comments inline below. > > Gene > ---------------------------------------------- > Eugene Chang > IEEE Senior Life Member > eugene.chang@ieee.org > 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi Eugene, > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 22:54, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > Ok, we are getting into the details. I agree. > > Every node in the path has to implement this to be effective. > > > Amazingly the biggest bang for the buck is gotten by fixing those nodes > that actually contain a network path's bottleneck. Often these are pretty > stable. So yes for fully guaranteed service quality all nodes would need to > participate, but for improving things noticeably it is sufficient to > improve the usual bottlenecks, e.g. for many internet access links the home > gateway is a decent point to implement better buffer management. (In short > the problem are over-sized and under-managed buffers, and one of the best > solution is better/smarter buffer management). > > > This is not completely true. > > > [SM] You are likely right, trying to summarize things leads to partially > incorrect generalizations. > > > Say the bottleneck is at node N. During the period of congestion, the > upstream node N-1 will have to buffer. When node N recovers, the > bufferbloat at N-1 will be blocking until the bufferbloat drains. Etc. > etc. Making node N better will reduce the extent of the backup at N-1, but > N-1 should implement the better code. > > > [SM] It is the node that builds up the queue that profits most from better > queue management.... (again I generalize, the node with the queue itself > probably does not care all that much, but the endpoints will profit if the > queue experiencing node deals with that queue more gracefully). > > > > > > In fact, every node in the path has to have the same prioritization or the > scheme becomes ineffective. > > > Yes and no, one of the clearest winners has been flow queueing, IMHO not > because it is the most optimal capacity sharing scheme, but because it is > the least pessimal scheme, allowing all (or none) flows forward progress. > You can interpret that as a scheme in which flows below their capacity > share are prioritized, but I am not sure that is the best way to look at > these things. > > > The hardest part is getting competing ISPs to implement and coordinate. > > > [SM] Yes, but it turned out even with non-cooperating ISPs there is a lot > end-users can do unilaterally on their side to improve both ingress and > egress congestion. Admittedly especially ingress congestion would be even > better handled with cooperation of the ISP. > > Bufferbloat and handoff between ISPs will be hard. The only way to fix > this is to get the unwashed public to care. Then they can say “we don’t > care about the technical issues, just fix it.” Until then ….. > > > [SM] Well we do this one home network at a time (not because that is > efficient or ideal, but simply because it is possible). Maybe, if you have > not done so already try OpenWrt with sqm-scripts (and maybe cake-autorate > in addition) on your home internet access link for say a week and let us > know ih/how your experience changed? > > Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > > Regards > Sebastian > > > > Gene > ---------------------------------------------- > Eugene Chang > IEEE Senior Life Member > eugene.chang@ieee.org > 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 10:48 AM, David Lang wrote: > > software updates can do far more than just improve recovery. > > In practice, large data transfers are less sensitive to latency than > smaller data transfers (i.e. downloading a CD image vs a video conference), > software can ensure better fairness in preventing a bulk transfer from > hurting the more latency sensitive transfers. > > (the example below is not completely accurate, but I think it gets the > point across) > > When buffers become excessivly large, you have the situation where a video > call is going to generate a small amount of data at a regular interval, but > a bulk data transfer is able to dump a huge amount of data into the buffer > instantly. > > If you just do FIFO, then you get a small chunk of video call, then > several seconds worth of CD transfer, followed by the next small chunk of > the video call. > > But the software can prevent the one app from hogging so much of the > connection and let the chunk of video call in sooner, avoiding the impact > to the real time traffic. Historically this has required the admin classify > all traffic and configure equipment to implement different treatment based > on the classification (and this requires trust in the classification > process), the bufferbloat team has developed options (fq_codel and cake) > that can ensure fairness between applications/servers with little or no > configuration, and no trust in other systems to properly classify their > traffic. > > The one thing that Cake needs to work really well is to be able to know > what the data rate available is. With Starlink, this changes frequently and > cake integrated into the starlink dish/router software would be far better > than anything that can be done externally as the rate changes can be fed > directly into the settings (currently they are only indirectly detected) > > David Lang > > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2022, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote: > > You already know this. Bufferbloat is a symptom and not the cause. > Bufferbloat grows when there are (1) periods of low or no bandwidth or (2) > periods of insufficient bandwidth (aka network congestion). > > If I understand this correctly, just a software update cannot make > bufferbloat go away. It might improve the speed of recovery (e.g. throw > away all time sensitive UDP messages). > > Gene > ---------------------------------------------- > Eugene Chang > IEEE Senior Life Member > eugene.chang@ieee.org > 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 10:04 AM, Bruce Perens wrote: > > Please help to explain. Here's a draft to start with: > > Starlink Performance Not Sufficient for Military Applications, Say > Scientists > > The problem is not availability: Starlink works where nothing but another > satellite network would. It's not bandwidth, although others have questions > about sustaining bandwidth as the customer base grows. It's latency and > jitter. As load increases, latency, the time it takes for a packet to get > through, increases more than it should. The scientists who have fought > bufferbloat, a major cause of latency on the internet, know why. SpaceX > needs to upgrade their system to use the scientist's Open Source > modifications to Linux to fight bufferbloat, and thus reduce latency. This > is mostly just using a newer version, but there are some tunable > parameters. Jitter is a change in the speed of getting a packet through the > network during a connection, which is inevitable in satellite networks, but > will be improved by making use of the bufferbloat-fighting software, and > probably with the addition of more satellites. > > We've done all of the work, SpaceX just needs to adopt it by upgrading > their software, said scientist Dave Taht. Jim Gettys, Taht's collaborator > and creator of the X Window System, chimed in: > Open Source luminary Bruce Perens said: sometimes Starlink's latency and > jitter make it inadequate to remote-control my ham radio station. But the > military is experimenting with remote-control of vehicles on the > battlefield and other applications that can be demonstrated, but won't > happen at scale without adoption of bufferbloat-fighting strategies. > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:59 PM Eugene Chang > wrote: > The key issue is most people don’t understand why latency matters. They > don’t see it or feel it’s impact. > > First, we have to help people see the symptoms of latency and how it > impacts something they care about. > - gamers care but most people may think it is frivolous. > - musicians care but that is mostly for a hobby. > - business should care because of productivity but they don’t know how to > “see” the impact. > > Second, there needs to be a “OMG, I have been seeing the action of latency > all this time and never knew it! I was being shafted.” Once you have this > awakening, you can get all the press you want for free. > > Most of the time when business apps are developed, “we” hide the impact of > poor performance (aka latency) or they hide from the discussion because the > developers don’t have a way to fix the latency. Maybe businesses don’t care > because any employees affected are just considered poor performers. (In bad > economic times, the poor performers are just laid off.) For employees, if > they happen to be at a location with bad latency, they don’t know that > latency is hurting them. Unfair but most people don’t know the issue is > latency. > > Talking and explaining why latency is bad is not as effective as showing > why latency is bad. Showing has to be with something that has a person > impact. > > Gene > ----------------------------------- > Eugene Chang > eugene.chang@alum.mit.edu > +1-781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 6:32 AM, Bruce Perens via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> > wrote: > > If you want to get attention, you can get it for free. I can place > articles with various press if there is something interesting to say. Did > this all through the evangelism of Open Source. All we need to do is write, > sign, and publish a statement. What they actually write is less relevant if > they publish a link to our statement. > > Right now I am concerned that the Starlink latency and jitter is going to > be a problem even for remote controlling my ham station. The US Military is > interested in doing much more, which they have demonstrated, but I don't > see happening at scale without some technical work on the network. Being > able to say this isn't ready for the government's application would be an > attention-getter. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dave Taht via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> > wrote: > These days, if you want attention, you gotta buy it. A 50k half page > ad in the wapo or NYT riffing off of It's the latency, Stupid!", > signed by the kinds of luminaries we got for the fcc wifi fight, would > go a long way towards shifting the tide. > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:29 AM Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:20 AM Livingood, Jason > > wrote: > > > The awareness & understanding of latency & impact on QoE is nearly unknown > among reporters. IMO maybe there should be some kind of background > briefings for reporters - maybe like a simple YouTube video explainer that > is short & high level & visual? Otherwise reporters will just continue to > focus on what they know... > > > That's a great idea. I have visions of crashing the washington > correspondents dinner, but perhaps > there is some set of gatherings journalists regularly attend? > > > On 9/21/22, 14:35, "Starlink on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink" < > starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > wrote: > > I still find it remarkable that reporters are still missing the > meaning of the huge latencies for starlink, under load. > > > > > -- > FQ World Domination pending: > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/< > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > > > > > -- > FQ World Domination pending: > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/< > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink < > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink> > > > -- > Bruce Perens K6BP > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink < > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink> > > > > > -- > Bruce Perens K6BP > > > _______________________________________________ > 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