Hi Jason, I’ve found that idle is a good descriptor for unloaded metrics, and for semi-technical audiences ‘working’ is a very good term. But for lay people, the term ‘loaded’ seems to work better, especially since we are talking about a metric that relates to capacity.
e.g. When my truck is unloaded, my truck stops quickly, but when loaded, it takes longer to stop. so now: When my Internet line is unloaded, my latency is low, but when it is highly loaded (iCloud photo sync), the latency is very high. Cheers, Jonathan Foulkes > On May 4, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Livingood, Jason via Bloat > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Like many of you I have been immersed in buffer bloat discussions for many > years, almost entirely within the technical community. Now that I am starting > to explain latency & latency under load to internal non-technical folks, I > have noticed some people don’t really understand “traditional” latency vs. > latency under load (LUL). > > As a result, I am planning to experiment in some upcoming briefings and call > traditional latency “idle latency” – a measure of latency conducted on an > otherwise idle connection. And then try calling LUL either “active latency” > or perhaps “working latency” (suggested by an external colleague – can’t take > credit for that one) – to try to communicate it is latency when the > connection is experiencing normal usage. > > Have any of you here faced similar challenges explaining this to > non-technical audiences? Have you had any success with alternative terms? > What do you think of these? > > Thanks for any input, > Jason > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
