Toke, I actually tend to see a bit higher latency with ICMP at the higher percentiles.
http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat-on-comcasts-blast.html http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/measured-bufferbloat-on-orangefr-dsl.html Although the biggest "boost" I've seen ICMP given was on Free.fr's network: http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/01/bufferbloat-or-lack-thereof-on-freefr.html -Aaron On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Why not? They can be a quite useful measure of how competing traffic > >> performs when bulk flows congest the link. Which for many > >> applications is more important then the latency experienced by the > >> bulk flow itself. > > > > One clear objection is that ICMP is often prioritised when UDP is not. > > So measuring with UDP gives a better indication in those cases. > > Measuring with a separate TCP flow, such as HTTPing, is better still > > by some measures, but most truly latency-sensitive traffic does use > > UDP. > > Sure, well I tend to do both. Can't recall ever actually seeing any > performance difference between the UDP and ICMP latency measurements, > though... > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
