> On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > > how about keeping it simple and just give the latency increment under full > (bidirectional) link saturation (I guess a catchy acronym might be found)? > Yes this is a number where lower is better, but it also has immediate > information (like: "mmmh, at an added 3seconds under load, VoIP might suffer > a bit if I start heavy torrenting...”).
Couldn’t the number of flows contributing to the saturation affect the results though, so that it would have to be specified? I think this gets to the crux of the original thinking behind the RRUL specification. The RRUL “Score” section contains a lot of detail for an “optimum result”, and further admissions that it isn’t easy to assess: https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/RRUL_Spec/ <https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/RRUL_Spec/>. If we could come up with one all-encompassing and reliable metric for measuring the “goodness” of queueing behavior, it would also make testing much easier. I really wish for such a test, and sometimes try to figure out how it would look, but I don’t think it’s an easy problem to solve. > I am not opposed to the inverse per se and I also like the "bigger is better" > property, but mental division is hard and the period seems to be more > informative than the frequency. But at this point anything that will get some > traction will be a winner... > > Best Regards > Sebastian
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
