Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> writes: >> * We tried really hard to get as close to saturating gigabit >> connections as possible. We redesigned completely the way we chunk >> files, added a “warming up” period, and spent quite a bit optimizing >> our code to minimize CPU usage, as we found that was often the >> limiting factor to our speed test results. > > Yup, this seems to work better now! I can basically saturate my > connection now; Chromium seems to be a bit better than Firefox in this > respect, but I ended up getting very close on both: > > Chromium: > https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=b14731d3-46d7-49ba-8cc7-3641b495e6c7 > Firefox: > https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=877f496a-457a-4cc2-8f4c-91e23065c59e > > (this is with a ~100Mbps base load on a Gbps connection, so at least the > Chromium result is pretty much link speed).
Did another test while replacing the queue on my router with a big FIFO. Still got an A+ score: https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=9965c8db-367c-45f1-927c-a94eb8da0e08 However, note the max latency in download; quite a few outliers, jet I still get a jitter score of only 22.6ms. Also, this time there's a warning triangle on the "low latency gaming" row of the table, but the score is still A+. Should it really be possible to get the highest score while one of the rows has a warning in it? -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
