Re: [PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:24:37PM -0700, Thomas Groman wrote:
> Here's a graph of latentcies i get to various sites of interest. the
> northwest IAX, a telephone exchange, ziply's gateway router, and some
> others.
> https://ttm.sh/qiv.png
[ ...205 2.3 ms ...18 2.9 ms ...129 3.2 ms ]
Thanks for the graph and the averages. I presume the
graph is a snapshot in time of a continuing ping process
that began long ago. One second ping rate?
For Comcast 40 Mbps service ("up to 50"), 12 one-second
pings average:
...205 21 ms...18 40 ms ...129 21 ms
Much larger ping times for ComCANT, different ratios.
- What extra services to you pay for?
- What do you pay per month?
Reply off-list if you prefer.
Keith
--
Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com
Re: [PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
Ziply will increase your billed rate yearly. After they did it twice,
switched to T-Mobile 5G, and happy with the service and the $50 flat rate
lifetime prie fixeé. Be happy to run tests for folks who are curious.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022, 20:44 wrote:
> Send PLUG mailing list submissions to
> plug@lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> plug-requ...@lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> plug-ow...@lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of PLUG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Internet services with lowest packet latency (Russell Senior)
>2. Re: Ubuntu 22.04.1, firefox snap, alternatives? (Russell Senior)
>3. Re: Internet services with lowest packet latency (Cy)
>4. Re: Ubuntu 22.04.1, firefox snap, alternatives? (Cy)
>5. Re: Internet services with lowest packet latency
> (John Jason Jordan)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 17:42:11 -0700
> From: Russell Senior
> To: kei...@keithl.com, "Portland Linux/Unix Group"
>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
> Message-ID:
> vhf-mnvg4zuxpg+8vr-...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1) you are autonomous creatures, not required to do things random people
> pester you into.
>
> 2) the new name for former-GTE/Verizon/Frontier is "Ziply" (
> https://ziplyfiber.com/) not "Bitly".
>
> 3) I don't really trust "speed test" sites. I'd suggest measuring what you
> care about rather than care about things you can conveniently measure. If
> latency is what you care about, "ping" is the traditional tool.
>
> 4) performance through a network subject to congestion will depend on other
> traffic and changes over time. Any measurement should cover the period you
> care about.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 5:27 PM Keith Lofstrom wrote:
>
> > The comcast telemarketers are pestering my wife with offers
> > to "upgrade" our service from many streaming megabytes per
> > second to many more streaming megabytes per second. That
> > way, we can watch 5 internet movies at once rather than 3.
> >
> > We don't watch movies on the net. We could get by with
> > far less bandwidth if packet performance was better.
> >
> > My bandwidth use is packets to and from my external
> > server/firewall. My M.D. wife's use is interactive
> > televisits with patients. In both cases, we care about
> > is interactive first packet latency and packet rate,
> > not stream rate.
> >
> > The comcast marketdweeb told her that with the twice-
> > as-expensive service ("new and improved fiber AND
> > coax!") we could have 100 megabytes per second,
> > and transfer 100 packets a second!" Probably idiot
> > noises from a marketing script, but what if that
> > dismal packet performance was actually true?
> >
> > When I use a service like "internet speed test", I see
> > the "needle" hovering near zero for about three seconds,
> > then it gently crawls towards 101% of our contracted
> > bandwidth. I used to believe the slow climb was what
> > the app animation did for show, but now I suspect I am
> > actually watching streaming latency, packets bouncing
> > through servers in Finland and Brazil, but the bandwidth
> > THE WAY WE ACTUALLY USE IT is the less-than-megabyte-
> > per-second slow crawl at the beginning.
> >
> > Decades ago, I designed and sold chips that went into
> > internet routers ... until our VC demanded that we move
> > from routers to ethernet chipsets, because the internet
> > wasn't real. Money doesn't talk, it babbles. So, I
> > understand how streaming routers can be optimized VERY
> > DIFFERENTLY than random packet routers.
> >
> > Perhaps there are linux tools that a small group of us can
> > use to characterize what our internet providers actually
> > provide, especially first-packet latency. Suggestions?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > P.S. We can also move to Bitly - the former Verizon fiber
> > modem is still in the garage. Is Bitly any better?
> >
> > --
> > Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com
> >
> >
>
&g
Re: [PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 02:14:57 + Cy dijo: >Oh, you could run i2p! >https://geti2p.net How is i2p different from using a VPN? From the above page: "I2P recommends that you use Tor Browser or a trusted VPN when you want to browse the Internet privately." OK, if I use a VPN (and I do), what more do I get with i2p?
Re: [PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 17:21:58 -0700 Keith Lofstrom wrote: > When I use a service like "internet speed test", I see > the "needle" hovering near zero for about three seconds, > then it gently crawls towards 101% of our contracted > bandwidth. This maybe isn't so helpful, but I remember hearing the other day that there's an official FCC speed test. https://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america I wouldn't trust the FCC far as I can spit, as they're basically a department of Verizon, Inc. now, but far as reliable speed tests... that might help? I dunno any Linux tools that would help. Ultimately you'll always have to deal with at least 3 organizations, your ISP, their ISP, and Google who bought all the Internet backbone so they could steal it for Youtube. Passing through several different routers, and that is what determines what your b/w is going to be like. So, traceroute/tracepath, ping, and then just have a bunch of people download something from you using $ time curl $yoururl and you can get an idea of what sort of upload speed you have various places. I definitely don't know how to test a back/forth bandwidth situation (outside of you both doing the curl thing for each other at the same time), or non-streaming stuff, but... Oh, you could run i2p! https://geti2p.net That's an anonymizing mixnet, but it also uses streaming *and* packet based protocols, and collects statistics on how well different peers are performing. There's a lot of back/forth, even if you aren't serving anything, because you'll be relaying stuff that other people are serving. (The very low risk file sharing is a nice bonus on top of that.)
Re: [PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
Some thoughts:
1) you are autonomous creatures, not required to do things random people
pester you into.
2) the new name for former-GTE/Verizon/Frontier is "Ziply" (
https://ziplyfiber.com/) not "Bitly".
3) I don't really trust "speed test" sites. I'd suggest measuring what you
care about rather than care about things you can conveniently measure. If
latency is what you care about, "ping" is the traditional tool.
4) performance through a network subject to congestion will depend on other
traffic and changes over time. Any measurement should cover the period you
care about.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 5:27 PM Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> The comcast telemarketers are pestering my wife with offers
> to "upgrade" our service from many streaming megabytes per
> second to many more streaming megabytes per second. That
> way, we can watch 5 internet movies at once rather than 3.
>
> We don't watch movies on the net. We could get by with
> far less bandwidth if packet performance was better.
>
> My bandwidth use is packets to and from my external
> server/firewall. My M.D. wife's use is interactive
> televisits with patients. In both cases, we care about
> is interactive first packet latency and packet rate,
> not stream rate.
>
> The comcast marketdweeb told her that with the twice-
> as-expensive service ("new and improved fiber AND
> coax!") we could have 100 megabytes per second,
> and transfer 100 packets a second!" Probably idiot
> noises from a marketing script, but what if that
> dismal packet performance was actually true?
>
> When I use a service like "internet speed test", I see
> the "needle" hovering near zero for about three seconds,
> then it gently crawls towards 101% of our contracted
> bandwidth. I used to believe the slow climb was what
> the app animation did for show, but now I suspect I am
> actually watching streaming latency, packets bouncing
> through servers in Finland and Brazil, but the bandwidth
> THE WAY WE ACTUALLY USE IT is the less-than-megabyte-
> per-second slow crawl at the beginning.
>
> Decades ago, I designed and sold chips that went into
> internet routers ... until our VC demanded that we move
> from routers to ethernet chipsets, because the internet
> wasn't real. Money doesn't talk, it babbles. So, I
> understand how streaming routers can be optimized VERY
> DIFFERENTLY than random packet routers.
>
> Perhaps there are linux tools that a small group of us can
> use to characterize what our internet providers actually
> provide, especially first-packet latency. Suggestions?
>
> Keith
>
> P.S. We can also move to Bitly - the former Verizon fiber
> modem is still in the garage. Is Bitly any better?
>
> --
> Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com
>
>
[PLUG] Internet services with lowest packet latency
The comcast telemarketers are pestering my wife with offers
to "upgrade" our service from many streaming megabytes per
second to many more streaming megabytes per second. That
way, we can watch 5 internet movies at once rather than 3.
We don't watch movies on the net. We could get by with
far less bandwidth if packet performance was better.
My bandwidth use is packets to and from my external
server/firewall. My M.D. wife's use is interactive
televisits with patients. In both cases, we care about
is interactive first packet latency and packet rate,
not stream rate.
The comcast marketdweeb told her that with the twice-
as-expensive service ("new and improved fiber AND
coax!") we could have 100 megabytes per second,
and transfer 100 packets a second!" Probably idiot
noises from a marketing script, but what if that
dismal packet performance was actually true?
When I use a service like "internet speed test", I see
the "needle" hovering near zero for about three seconds,
then it gently crawls towards 101% of our contracted
bandwidth. I used to believe the slow climb was what
the app animation did for show, but now I suspect I am
actually watching streaming latency, packets bouncing
through servers in Finland and Brazil, but the bandwidth
THE WAY WE ACTUALLY USE IT is the less-than-megabyte-
per-second slow crawl at the beginning.
Decades ago, I designed and sold chips that went into
internet routers ... until our VC demanded that we move
from routers to ethernet chipsets, because the internet
wasn't real. Money doesn't talk, it babbles. So, I
understand how streaming routers can be optimized VERY
DIFFERENTLY than random packet routers.
Perhaps there are linux tools that a small group of us can
use to characterize what our internet providers actually
provide, especially first-packet latency. Suggestions?
Keith
P.S. We can also move to Bitly - the former Verizon fiber
modem is still in the garage. Is Bitly any better?
--
Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com
