[10564] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Results
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Wed Jul 9 18:31:52 1997
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 16:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@jain.com>
To: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen@quadrunner.com>
cc: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com>,
Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>, mohney@access.digex.net,
nanog@MERIT.EDU, GeneShklar@keynote.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.QUAD.3.96.970709122712.11820B-100000@quad.quadrunner.com>
I guess along these lines the following question came up.
If this was supposed to be an end-to-end user performance idea, why were
backbone provider sites being hit instead of sites more typical end users
would be using? Say, a major search engine? It smacks me that the
article's results were slanted to make a comment on backbones, not
user-viewed performance, where the test has been argued to be measuring
the latter.
DISCLOSURE: Then again, we do a god awful amount of web traffic and like
people looking at "real world" performance over any particular path
through any particular cloud.
-Deepak.
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Jack Rickard wrote:
>
> Before you start with your claims, Jack, that I have something to lose,
> you should realize that I am an independent consultant, and work for none
> of the people in the study.
>
> ==>what looks LOGICAL to me, not anything I know or have tested. I am rather
> ==>convinced that moving a single web site to another location, putting it on
> ==>larger iron, or using different OS will have very minor impact on the
> ==>numbers.
>
> You may be convinced because of the theory you've developed to match the
> flawed methodology with which the tests were performed. However, I have
> some tests that I did to measure the connect delays on sites.
>
> Here's the average for 200 web sites that were given to me when I polled
> some people for their favorite sites (duplicates excluded):
>
> (because in a lot of cases we're talking milliseconds, percentage is not
> really fine enough, but this was to satisfy personal curiosity)
>
> SYN -> SYN/ACK time (actual connection) 22%
> Web browser says "Contacting www.website.com..."
>
> SYN/ACK -> first data (web server work-- 78%
> getting material, processing material)
> Web browser says "www.website.com contacted, waiting for response"
>
> Note that this didn't include different types of content. But it *did*
> truly measure one thing--that the delay caused by web servers is
> considerably higher than that of "network performance" (or actual connect
> time).
>
> And, the biggest beef is that you claimed Boardwatch's test was BACKBONE
> NETWORK performance, not end-to-end user-perception performance. You
> threw in about 20 extra variables that cloud exactly what you were
> measureing. Not to mention completely misrepresenting what you actually
> measured.
>
> /cah
>
>
