Hi Sebastian! > [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add information on > whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent was > involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and > firefox/chrome/safari/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? > All of these can help to interpret the test results.
We actually collect all this data, it's just a little bit hidden. If you take the test-id from the end of the URL and put it at the end of a URL like this: https://bufferbloat.waveform.workers.dev/test-results?test-id=6fc7dd95-8bfa-4b76-b141-ed423b6580a9 You'll get a whole bunch of extra info, including useragent, a linux timestamp, and a bunch of other fun stuff :). We'll consider surfacing this more at some point in the future though! > Small typo "waus" instead of "ways". Thanks for catching this! A fix is in the works :). On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:49 AM Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sina, > > great work! I took the liberty to advertise this test already for some weeks, > because even in its still evolving developing state it was/is already > producubg interesting actionable results. Thanks foe fixing the latency > numbers for (desktop) Safari. More below. > > > > On Feb 24, 2021, at 19:22, Sina Khanifar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > A couple of months ago my co-founder Sam posted an early beta of the > > Bufferbloat test that we’ve been working on, and Dave also linked to > > it a couple of weeks ago. > > > > Thank you all so much for your feedback - we almost entirely > > redesigned the tool and the UI based on the comments we received. > > We’re almost ready to launch the tool officially today at this URL, > > but wanted to show it to the list in case anyone finds any last bugs > > that we might have overlooked: > > > > https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat > > > > If you find a bug, please share the "Share Your Results" link with us > > along with what happened. We capture some debugging information on the > > backend, and having a share link allows us to diagnose any issues. > > [SM] not a bug, more of a feature request, could you add information > on whether the test ran over IPv6 or IPv4, and which browser/user agent was > involved (nothing too deep, just desktop/mobile and > firefox/chrome/safari/brave/...) as well as the date and time of the test? > All of these can help to interpret the test results. > > > > > > This is really more of a passion project than anything else for us – > > we don’t anticipate we’ll try to commercialize it or anything like > > that. We're very thankful for all the work the folks on this list have > > done to identify and fix bufferbloat, and hope this is a useful > > contribution. I’ve personally been very frustrated by bufferbloat on a > > range of devices, and decided it might be helpful to build another > > bufferbloat test when the DSLReports test was down at some point last > > year. > > > > Our goals with this project were: > > * To build a second solid bufferbloat test in case DSLReports goes down > > again. > > * Build a test where bufferbloat is front and center as the primary > > purpose of the test, rather than just a feature. > > * Try to explain bufferbloat and its effect on a user's connection > > as clearly as possible for a lay audience. > > > > A few notes: > > * On the backend, we’re using Cloudflare’s CDN to perform the actual > > download and upload speed test. I know John Graham-Cunning has posted > > to this list in the past; if he or anyone from Cloudflare sees this, > > we’d love some help. Our Cloudflare Workers are being > > bandwidth-throttled due to having a non-enterprise grade account. > > We’ve worked around this in a kludgy way, but we’d love to get it > > resolved. > > [SM] I think this was a decent decision, as it seems your tests has > less issues even filling 1Gbps links than most others. > > > > * We have lots of ideas for improvements, e.g. simultaneous > > upload/downloads, trying different file size chunks, time-series > > latency graphs, using WebRTC to test UDP traffic etc, but in the > > interest of getting things launched we're sticking with the current > > featureset. > > [SM] Reasonable trade-off, and hopefully potential for pleasant > surprises in the future ;) > > > * There are a lot of browser-specific workarounds that we had to > > implement, and latency itself is measured in different ways on > > Safari/Webkit vs Chromium/Firefox due to limitations of the > > PerformanceTiming APIs. You may notice that latency is different on > > different browsers, however the actual bufferbloat (relative increase > > in latency) should be pretty consistent. > > > > In terms of some of the changes we made based on the feedback we > > receive on this list: > > > > Based on Toke’s feedback: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015960.html > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015976.html > > * We changed the way the speed tests run to show an instantaneous > > speed as the test is being run. > > [SM] Great, if only so it feels comparable to "other" speedtests. > > > > * We moved the bufferbloat grade into the main results box. > > [SM] +1; that helps set the mood ;) > > > * 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. > > * We changed the shield grades altogether and went through a few > > different iterations of how to show the effect of bufferbloat on > > connectivity, and ended up with a “table view” to try to show the > > effect that bufferbloat specifically is having on the connection > > (compared to when the connection is unloaded). > > * We now link from the results table view to the FAQ where the > > conditions for each type of connection are explained. > > * We also changed the way we measure latency and now use the faster > > of either Google’s CDN or Cloudflare at any given location. We’re also > > using the WebTiming APIs to get a more accurate latency number, though > > this does not work on some mobile browsers (e.g. iOS Safari) and as a > > result we show a higher latency on mobile devices. Since our test is > > less a test of absolute latency and more a test of relative latency > > with and without load, we felt this was workable. > > * Our jitter is now an average (was previously RMS). > > * The “before you start” text was rewritten and moved above the start > > button. > > * We now spell out upload and download instead of having arrows. > > * We hugely reduced the number of cross-site scripts. I was a bit > > embarrassed by this if I’m honest - I spent a long time building web > > tools for the EFF, where we almost never allowed any cross-site > > scripts. * Our site is hosted on Shopify, and adding any features via > > their app store ends up adding a whole lot of gunk. But we uninstalled > > some apps, rewrote our template, and ended up removing a whole lot of > > the gunk. There’s still plenty of room for improvement, but it should > > be a lot better than before. > > > > Based on Dave Collier-Brown’s feedback: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015966.html > > * We replaced the “unloaded” and “loaded” language with “unloaded” > > and then “download active” and “upload active.” In the grade box we > > indicate that, for example, “Your latency increased moderately under > > load.” > > * We tried to generally make it easier for non-techie folks to > > understand by emphasizing the grade and adding the table showing how > > bufferbloat affects some commonly-used services. > > * We didn’t really change the candle charts too much - they’re > > mostly just to give a basic visual - we focused more on the actual > > meat of the results above that. > > > > Based on Sebastian Moeller’s feedback: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015963.html > > * We considered doing a bidirectional saturating load, but decided > > to skip on implementing it for now. * It’s definitely something we’d > > like to experiment with more in the future. > > * We added a “warming up” period as well as a “draining” period to > > help fill and empty the buffer. We haven’t added the option for an > > extended test, but have this on our list of backlog changes to make in > > the future. > > > > Based on Y’s feedback (link): > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2020-November/015962.html > > * We actually ended up removing the grades, but we explained our > > criteria for the new table in the FAQ. > > > > Based on Greg White's feedback (shared privately): > > * We added an FAQ answer explaining jitter and how we measure it. > > [SM] "There are a number of different waus of measuring and defining jitter. > For the purpose of this test, we calculate jitter by taking the average of > the deviations from the mean latency." > > Small typo "waus" instead of "ways". > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > We’d love for you all to play with the new version of the tool and > > send over any feedback you might have. We’re going to be in a feature > > freeze before launch but we'd love to get any bugs sorted out. We'll > > likely put this project aside after we iron out a last round of bugs > > and launch, and turn back to working on projects that help us pay the > > bills, but we definitely hope to revisit and improve the tool over > > time. > > > > Best, > > > > Sina, Arshan, and Sam. > > _______________________________________________ > > Bloat mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
