Hi Carl,

> On May 12, 2022, at 23:04, Klatsky, Carl via Bloat 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Its good that they are running the latency test also during the load test, 
> but from what it looks like, they seem to be running the latency test to the 
> same server as the load test.  I think a more realistic test is to run the 
> load test to one server and the latency test to a different server.  That's a 
> more realistic use case...

        The question boils down to what "latency-under-load" should be measured 
here:
a) latency of different flows/hosts
b) latency of the load bearing flow(s)

both are informative, but if I had to choose I would ask Ookla for b), because 
running mtr/gping in parallel to a speedtest is comparatively easy compared to 
post-hoc deducing latency in the load bearing connection*... (I would assume 
that from a packet capture one might be able to piece this together when 
looking at the delay between sending a segment and receiving that matching ACK, 
which is more hassle than running e.g. "mtr -ezb4 --order LSNBAWVJMXI 8.8.8.8" 
;) ) 

Regards
        Sebastian


*) Well, there are pping (https://github.com/pollere/pping) and DlyLoc 
(https://github.com/pollere/DlyLoc), but so far I have not tried to make these 
run on my router (probably should start on an endhost first).


> 
> Regards,
> Carl Klatsky
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bloat <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Christoph 
> Paasch via Bloat
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 4:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Bloat] Ookla - Introducing a Better Measure of Latency
> 
> I'm not aware of any rigorous study. But, just from the code, I know ICMP 
> ping in many cases has a different traffic-class and thus implicitly gets 
> quite a different treatment than real traffic.
> 
> However, Ookla uses TCP (port 8080) to probe the latency in their app.
> 
> 
> Christoph
> 
>> On May 12, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Kathleen Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> a ping by any other name...
>> 
>> Has anyone ever done a rigorous study to see how well ping delays correspond 
>> to the delay that information-carrying packets experience?
>> 
>> On 5/12/22 10:15 AM, Christoph Paasch via Bloat wrote:
>>> Ookla's measure of "loaded latency":
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ookla.com/articles/introducin
>>> g-loaded-latency__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DHnGDBw2sqsRwHiidAQUOhjXEavZmBOtJKb_IzPhxMm2vqUPyRC2pkVnScJId_KdaNVLsOS7sD0E8QRQ0m8B7LqBavY$
>>>   
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ookla.com/articles/introducing-loaded-latency__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DHnGDBw2sqsRwHiidAQUOhjXEavZmBOtJKb_IzPhxMm2vqUPyRC2pkVnScJId_KdaNVLsOS7sD0E8QRQ0m8B7LqBavY$
>>>  > This will hopefully be a shift in how operators approach the bufferbloat 
>>> problem.
>>> Christoph
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bloat mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bl
>>> oat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DHnGDBw2sqsRwHiidAQUOhjXEavZmBOtJKb_IzPhxMm2vqUPyR
>>> C2pkVnScJId_KdaNVLsOS7sD0E8QRQ0m8BllXPjdw$
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/blo
>> at__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DHnGDBw2sqsRwHiidAQUOhjXEavZmBOtJKb_IzPhxMm2vqUPyRC2
>> pkVnScJId_KdaNVLsOS7sD0E8QRQ0m8BllXPjdw$
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DHnGDBw2sqsRwHiidAQUOhjXEavZmBOtJKb_IzPhxMm2vqUPyRC2pkVnScJId_KdaNVLsOS7sD0E8QRQ0m8BllXPjdw$
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Reply via email to