My understanding is that Apple chose to report RTT as an inverse because people are used to "higher number means better". The target audience for network speed tests is the average slightly-tech-savvy consumer, and those aren't all familiar with what latency means. Also, car enthusiasts like RPMs :-) David
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 1:53 PM Sebastian Moeller via Bloat < bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi Julien, > > On 8 January 2024 22:04:23 CET, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> wrote: > >> (h++ps://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness). > > > >There's quite a few good ideas in this draft, but the one that I find > >intriguing is reporting RTT values in RPM (units of 1/60 Hz) rather than > >milliseconds. > > That idea, reporting the reciprocal has been around for some time, I think > I first heard it from Jonathan Morton. But this is the first > implementation.... > > Now personally I tend to think about 'latency' as sort of a budget, and > then accounting where this budget is spent is easier with durations than > periods. But I understand the attraction of 'bigger is better' numbers as > well. Though most people also know smaller is better number, like product > prices or taxes owed, but I digress. > > > > > >I wonder how well this works. I'll experiment with undergrads. > > The goresponsiveness code is quite readable and might give a convenient > starting point for some quick and dirty exploration... > > > > >-- Juliusz > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
