[190721] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: I recommend dslreports.com/speedtest these days (was
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Gettys)
Fri Jul 22 16:31:35 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7CeQLZsfVhnLjHGCZ+eyV0=1nGcY1NdCqZxokSaoioxaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:31:28 -0400
To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com=
>
wrote:
> Den 22. jul. 2016 21.34 skrev "Jim Gettys" <jg@freedesktop.org>:
> >
> >
> > So it is entirely appropriate in my view to give even "high speed"
> > connections low grades; it's telling you that they suck under load
> > =E2=80=8B, like when your kid is downloading a video (or uploading one =
for their
> > friends); your performance (e.g. web surfing) can go to hell in a
> > hand-basket despite having a lot of bandwidth on the
> > connection. For most use, I'll take a 20Mbps link without bloat to a
> > 200Mbps one with a half second of bloat any
> > =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B
> > day.
> > =E2=80=8B
>
> I will expect that high speed links will have little bloat simply because
> even large buffers empty quite fast.
>
=E2=80=8BUnfortunately, that is often/usually not the case.=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B The buffering has typically scaled up as fast/faster than the ba=
ndwidth
has, in my observation. You can have as much/more bloat on a higher
bandwidth line as a low bandwidth line.
That's why I always refer to buffering in seconds=E2=80=8B, not bytes, unle=
ss I'm
trying to understand how the identical equipment will behave at differing
bandwidths.
The worst is usually someone taking modern equipment and then running it at
low speed: e.g. a gigabit switch being used at 100Mbps will generally be
10x worse than the old equipment it replaces (at best).
- Jim
