Hi Erik,
On Oct 10, 2022, at 11:32, Taraldsen Erik <erik.tarald...@telenor.no>
wrote:
On 10/10/2022, 11:09, "Sebastian Moeller" <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
Nice!
On Oct 10, 2022, at 07:52, Taraldsen Erik via Cake <
c...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
It took about 3 hours from the video was release before we got the
first request to have SQM on the CPE's we manage as a ISP. Finally
getting some customer response on the issue.
[SM] Will you be able to bump these requests to higher-ups and at
least change some perception of customer demand for tighter latency
performance?
That would be the hope.
[SM} Excellent, hope this plays out as we wish for.
We actually have fq_codel implemented on the two latest generations of
DSL routers. Use sync rate as input to set the rate. Works quite well.
[SM] Cool, if I might ask what fraction of the sync are you
setting the traffic shaper for and are you doing fine grained overhead
accounting (or simply fold that into a grand "de-rating"-factor)?
There is also a bit of traction around speedtest.net's inclusion of
latency under load internally.
[SM] Yes, although IIUC they are reporting the interquartile mean
for the two loaded latency estimates, which is pretty conservative and only
really "triggers" for massive consistently elevated latency; so I expect
this to be great for detecting really bad cases, but I fear it is too
conservative and will make a number of problematic links look OK. But hey,
even that is leaps and bounds better than the old only idle latency report.
My hope is that some publication in Norway will pick up on that score
and do a test and get some mainstream publicity with the results.
[SM] Inside the EU the challenge is to get national regulators and
the BEREC to start bothering about latency-under-load at all, "some
mainstream publicity" would probably help here as well.
Regards
Sebastian
-Erik
_______________________________________________
Make-wifi-fast mailing list
make-wifi-f...@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
