From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com (mail-ua1-x932.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A90153B2A4 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:31:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-7d250629e25so58003241.1 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:31:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705343476; x=1705948276; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vy1LlYnrA7xWkJzwuegtIH+26Ut1RpCBMzYk+ENIyEs=; b=e2sa1AzTSn5Z+2s835JrXYHC2oj8nQmf5xl8MOFPfvzwKpmJyietyc+JLB91aCICyX BDtM7bOeHyoBYO42E/COJUJbwktU9DbzDL2X4v6gUbRgPkPkt1RGlqFgXzcWFL9auyaH 0BRBRqypL//e/2WvMX9d95+po0Xo+g1kdK/6L6QdmF+SRD5W9FxOVhTP2g5K+oifSVN6 kADLy6zI9tgHPoe52WLwbIgeCAhBJbglYfBJsmyQrAFATtng4BPDkWBg3EDTUdAAK+yc vEjZ6bmwQCCCVvD4Wvo4nRS/JZixuZSVYA68ofbLZhSeMUG3yFXGhwBMJys3dj7wX126 xolw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705343476; x=1705948276; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=vy1LlYnrA7xWkJzwuegtIH+26Ut1RpCBMzYk+ENIyEs=; b=GpdgaO1D+tX1/yXx3sd/xqTRGWuXwyR7/EGIslGqKQh9+PYPwi9hVRIlmQ9jeo5ILp Y9ZDmckbUljqDIbI/2Uwc0bziqaMXNtlwAkuLxJi+ZmzLObGwVW5duXIYJjayu6wN49d 35CMAjHys8L7+J/mnUSHEpcM9uUnCFCAIUtHJEKfEjncLEVorIM5iBMmwCpDcDuQ2XLq Z0gkyHGUkFZ1O5WEEk3ouT5XevqmDJnaYHaqq6XQb9v+9Kc92bYyweEoOwvOtZRQIaAV J/peX50+IN6nR9b+hNteHuW1olHzcqHhrZP6WloI0t2o01axrfIA8Lr+8wkcGrn9iJBV 8rdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx3UGdb3Z3KYDGElXxX5xQFFcUdYzW2yeyhXgTKKhdDEcp4Shln Nu1xhwG3qxaRDmohlXrED1DIIPIs2rRoNuJbliY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH38yC96+1YoIMSXEvY+jDsxWcInStkd6cRu0jLkyhrKD3C/1V0qU0jMAjbzsSDZ8jGs+lTdjqgm4NKtWFwZP0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:249a:b0:4b7:8196:7715 with SMTP id by26-20020a056122249a00b004b781967715mr2529771vkb.14.1705343475687; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:31:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "Luis A. Cornejo" Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:31:05 -0600 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000016a66a060f0038e0" Subject: Re: [Starlink] musk on mean latency X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 18:31:16 -0000 --00000000000016a66a060f0038e0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don=E2=80=99t have my Starlink anymore, but I=E2=80=99ve just noticed tha= t at least with Speedtest screen shots, the bufferbloat seems to be much more under control. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/s/THVeQ3r43D Hopefully it=E2=80=99s not just an =E2=80=9Coptimization=E2=80=9C for the t= est. Maybe Nathan has had a positive influence in that respect. I still own the v2 hardware and would love to supports them instead of Verizon, but if they had a more affordable 50/5 package for $50 which is what Verizon charges for their 50/5 LTE service I would jump ship and run some flent tests. Anybody in this list able to confirm the better bufferbloat results? -Luis On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 9:22=E2=80=AFAM Dave Taht via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > I would rather like starlink to get latency for > voip/gaming/videoconferencing down to consistently (99.8%) below 40ms. > > from > https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/01/13/live-coverage-spacex-to-launch-falc= on-9-rocket-on-starlink-mission-from-cape-canaveral/ > =E2=80=A6 > =E2=80=9CThe biggest, single goal for Starlink from a technical standpoin= t is > to get the mean latency below 20 milliseconds,=E2=80=9D Musk said. > > mean latency is a somewhat wrong goal. It misses the impact of slow > start. I figure he is mostly describing the difficult layer 2 work it > requires to accomplish that, everything from doing sat handoffs and > rerouting stuff on the ground, to needing more ground stations, which > is indeed a giant task. I keep hoping that in particular they get > away from the "recalculate connectivity and bandwidth every 15 > seconds", into something more responsive for normal traffic. DNS > servers on the sats would help too! and does not fit into the concept > of "mean latency" at all. > > ... and me, all I want to see is cake on the "glitchy", fq_codel on > the wifi, and for them to find some way to leverage at least some of > the techniques in LibreQos (like ebpf and cake) to somehow manage > their downlinks better. > > It does look like they are now achieving sub 30ms latency to 1.1.1.1 > in some places for dns. > > https://home.sjh.at/starlinksmokeping/?target=3DDNS.CloudflareDNS1 > > > -- > 40 years of net history, a couple songs: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DD9RGX6QFm5E > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > --00000000000016a66a060f0038e0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don=E2=80=99t have my Starlink anymore, but I=E2=80=99v= e just noticed that at least with Speedtest screen shots, the bufferbloat s= eems to be much more under control. E.g.

<= div dir=3D"auto">
Hopefully it=E2=80=99s not just an =E2=80=9Coptimization=E2= =80=9C for the test. Maybe Nathan has had a positive influence in that resp= ect.

I still own the v2 = hardware and would love to supports them instead of Verizon, but if they ha= d a more affordable 50/5 package for $50 which is what Verizon charges for = their 50/5 LTE service I would jump ship and run some flent tests.

Anybody in this list able to con= firm the better bufferbloat results?

-Luis

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 9:22=E2=80=AFAM Dave Taht vi= a Starlink <starlink@l= ists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
I would rathe= r like starlink to get latency for
voip/gaming/videoconferencing down to consistently (99.8%) below 40ms.

from https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/01/13/live-co= verage-spacex-to-launch-falcon-9-rocket-on-starlink-mission-from-cape-canav= eral/=E2=80=A6
=E2=80=9CThe biggest, single goal for Starlink from a technical standpoint = is
to get the mean latency below 20 milliseconds,=E2=80=9D Musk said.

mean latency is a somewhat wrong goal. It misses the impact of slow
start. I figure he is mostly describing the difficult layer 2 work it
requires to accomplish that, everything from doing sat handoffs and
rerouting stuff on the ground, to needing more ground stations, which
is indeed a giant task.=C2=A0 I keep hoping that in particular they get
away from the "recalculate connectivity and bandwidth every 15
seconds", into something more responsive for normal traffic. DNS
servers on the sats would help too! and does not fit into the concept
of "mean latency" at all.

... and me, all I want to see is cake on the "glitchy", fq_codel = on
the wifi, and for them to find some way to leverage at least some of
the techniques in LibreQos (like ebpf and cake) to somehow manage
their downlinks better.

It does look like they are now achieving sub 30ms latency to 1.1.1.1
in some places for dns.

https://home.sjh.at/starlinksmokep= ing/?target=3DDNS.CloudflareDNS1


--
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DD9RGX6QFm5E
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
--00000000000016a66a060f0038e0--