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 http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ **************************************************************** ________________________________ From: Starlink on behalf of rjmcmahon via Starlink Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:02 AM To: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com Cc: Cake List ; IETF IPPM WG ; libreqos ; Dave Taht via Starlink ; Rpm ; bloat 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 >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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