> On Nov 27, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> My pet suggestion here is to represent latency as its inverse,
> "responsiveness" with units of Hz. This has the dual advantages of bigger
> numbers being better, and the figures being directly comparable with
> framerates.
>
> As you say, the methodology will need to be very carefully specified, so that
> we get a meaningful measurement that's hard to game.
>
I like that idea...
Then it’s how to measure it. 1 / latency where latency is what…the maximum
value you’ll see considering all traffic as besteffort at a fixed number of
concurrent flows? Otherwise it would have do be expressed differently for
different traffic classes, which is probably already too complicated for most
people.
Food for thought, I know this is the opposite direction, but I’ve always liked
in Europe how car “mileage” is expressed as consumption (L/100km) instead of
efficiency (miles/gallon). Yes, then a lower number is better, but it’s easier
to calculate how much gas you’ll use for a given trip.
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
