[180288] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 300+ms of hotel wifi bufferbloat - peaking at 1.5 sec!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Srikanth Sundaresan)
Sat May 30 22:01:52 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 18:59:53 -0700
From: Srikanth Sundaresan <srikanth@gatech.edu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <6D5BCABB-AD36-415F-8B8E-D0287F5B0785@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
