There's a bit of discussion on the AFMUG list about that speed test Dave. People with 500Mb, 1Gb,10Gb pipes were getting drastically different results depending on what "type" of test they did. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/01/2015 10:52 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
I did the dslreports tests on the NANOG wifi while listening to srikanth today:
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/593926
And my own (flent data also in this dir)...
http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/nanog/download_cdf.png
pretty good bandwidth. Pretty horrific latency... a couple detours around the moon.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Srikanth Sundaresan <srikanth@gatech.edu> wrote:
While I agree that upload speeds aren't great, it doesn't mean that the buffers aren't big. Buffer sizes of the order of MB's are uncalled for at the edge, unless we're talking really high speeds. The miniscule performance increase for single TCP flows doesn't really justify the potential increase in latency for everyone else.
On 5/30/15 6:25 PM, Steven Tardy wrote:
There's a corollary of the bufferbloat phenomenon: buffer drain time. It's not the size of the buffer, but how long it takes to empty. And US ISPs continue to say "customers don't want upload speed". If the ISP upload speed was symmetric you'd likely never notice the 1-2MB of buffers.
I guess what I'm getting at is why do you continue to say buffers are too big instead of saying ISP upload is too slow?
On May 30, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/578850
I would get a kick out of it if folk here tried this new speedtest periodically (on the "cable" setting) during the nanog conference. ;) There is a hires option for more detail on the resulting charts...
(or fiddled with "flent" (flent.org))
-- Dave Täht What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast