On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> 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.
There were also huge discussions of the dsl
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
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
a
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 incre
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 w
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 Tä
6 matches
Mail list logo
