Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ndt-dev - Re: [ndt-dev] [ndt] r1012 committed - Download/upload speed in flash client is now being updated during test...

Subject: NDT-DEV email list created

List archive

Re: [ndt-dev] [ndt] r1012 committed - Download/upload speed in flash client is now being updated during test...


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Will Hawkins <>
  • To: Matt Mathis <>
  • Cc: Sebastian Kostuch <>, "<>" <>, Tiziana Refice <>
  • Subject: Re: [ndt-dev] [ndt] r1012 committed - Download/upload speed in flash client is now being updated during test...
  • Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:20:09 -0400
Excellent question. My hunch is that it will do this single-threaded
(although asynchronously). I am going to check in to this and I will let
you know asap.

Will

On 03/21/2014 03:05 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:
> Did you check to see how many concurrent connections it used? The risk
> with this approach is that it is entirely legal for the URL loading
> machinery to use multiple concurrent connections.
>
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
>
> Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our
> services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy
> and security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Will Hawkins
> <
>
> <mailto:>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello there!
>
> I will send you the full results of the speed testing that we've done as
> a separate email. We too have noticed that the Flash client does not
> seem to be as accurate as data rates increase.
>
> However, I've made some progress today and thought I'd use this
> opportunity to share:
>
> First, nothing about the upload test has changed. I've left that alone.
> This is all about the download test (S2C).
>
> I changed the NDT server to spit out a valid, minimal set of HTTP
> response headers before it starts sending random data. Then, on the
> Flash client side, I've treated that data like an HTTP request and used
> a built-in URL loading class. I thought this might get around some of
> the event-driven I/O latency that seems to be a problem (see follow-up
> email).
>
> Indeed there is some progress. From my desk to the testing server at
> nuq, I was able to get about 42 mbps download speeds. This is
> approximately 12 mbps higher than I was able to get with the
> socket-based version.
>
> More importantly, I got similar results between the Flash client and the
> Java client. Both report around 42 mbps download and around 80% receiver
> limited. They are eerily similar, actually. I will keep testing to see
> what I find but I wanted to send this out.
>
> Will
>
> On 03/21/2014 02:35 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:
> > Circumstantial evidence suggests that the flash runtime event
> processing
> > may be synchronized to the display refresh rate.... It would be
> > interesting to know it changing the display settings changed the
> maximum
> > performance.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --MM--
> > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
> >
> > Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our
> > services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat
> privacy
> > and security as matters of life and death, because for some users,
> they are.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Tiziana Refice
>
> <
>
> <mailto:>
> >
> <mailto:
>
> <mailto:>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Will and Matt have been doing some experiments about that
> recently.
> >
> > Will, could you share the results with Sebastian?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Sebastian Kostuch
> >
> <
>
> <mailto:>
>
> <mailto:
>
> <mailto:>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think that when connecting to localhost speed should be much
> > more higher (unfortunately I am not able to achieve better
> > results connecting to another server). I have just noticed
> that
> > when using C/Java client results are in fact way better
> > (around 14Gb/s for upload and almost 9Gb/s download). So it
> > seems like flash client is somehow restricted (tested on
> > different flash version and results are the same). Could also
> > someone confirm that on higher speeds flash client doesn't
> > give similar speeds compared to Java/C ones?
> >
> > Regards,
> > SK
> >
> >
> > On 21.03.2014 10 <tel:21.03.2014%2010>
> <tel:21.03.2014%2010>:51, Tiziana Refice wrote:
> >> Ideally, it would be better to test this change at much
> higher
> >> speed (i.e., as close to 1Gbps as possible).
> >> Would it be possible for you to make such test?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Sebastian Kostuch
> >>
> <
>
> <mailto:>
>
> <mailto:
>
> <mailto:>>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Tiziana,
> >> I have performed some simple test which was executing
> >> flash client 10 times on my changes (with timer set
> to 1s)
> >> and on newest trunk version of client. Both were made
> >> toward localhost NDT server (newest web10g) to
> achieve big
> >> speed. Here are results (download/upload in Mb/s):
> >>
> >> *trunk version* *version from Issue131 branch*
> >> 110.9/439.0 128.1/486.0
> >> 121.8/456.8 122.2/471.9
> >> 104.1/471.9 123.6/452.7
> >> 120.5/478.7 126.4/451.0
> >> 123.2/515.1 113.3/468.9
> >> 120.8/462.7 130.8/476.8
> >> 121.0/433.3 116.7/442.5
> >> 109.1/473.7 115.6/442.8
> >> 128.0/469.3 112.5/467.6
> >> 118.8/469.0 126.5/496.2
> >>
> >> average:
> >> 117.82/466.95 121.57/465.64
> >>
> >> These results are very similar to each other so it seems
> >> that these new events won't impact accuracy of test.
> Is it
> >> valuable proof for you?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Sebastian Kostuch
> >>
> >>
> >> On 17.03.2014 11:40, Tiziana Refice wrote:
> >>> I am concerned this change (which adds new events that
> >>> will fire during the execution of the test) will affect
> >>> the accuracy of the test.
> >>> I would prefer to have test data that show that this is
> >>> not the case, especially for very high speeds (e.g.,
> >>> 900+Mbps). See last email by Matt Mathis to ndt-dev on
> >>> this topic for details on the issue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM,
>
> <
>
> <mailto:>
> >>>
> <mailto:
>
> <mailto:>>>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Revision: 1012
> >>> Author:
>
>
> <mailto:>
> >>>
> <mailto:
>
> <mailto:>>
> >>> Date: Wed Mar 12 12:17:39 2014 UTC
> >>> Log: Download/upload speed in flash client is
> >>> now being updated during test duration
> >>>
> >>> http://code.google.com/p/ndt/source/detail?r=1012
> >>>
> >>> Modified:
> >>> /branches/Issue131/flash-client/src/TestC2S.as
> >>> /branches/Issue131/flash-client/src/TestS2C.as
> >>>
> >>> =======================================
> >>> --- /branches/Issue131/flash-client/src/TestC2S.as
> >>> Fri Feb 21 07:41:20 2014 UTC
> >>> +++ /branches/Issue131/flash-client/src/TestC2S.as
> >>> Wed Mar 12 12:17:39 2014 UTC
> >>> @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@
> >>> * This class performs the Client-to-Server
> >>> throughput test.
> >>> */
> >>> public class TestC2S {
> >>> + private const SPEED_UPDATE_TIMER:int =
> 1000; // ms
> >>> +
> >>> // Valid values for _testStage.
> >>> private static const PREPARE_TEST1:int = 0;
> >>> private static const PREPARE_TEST2:int = 1;
> >>> @@ -45,12 +47,14 @@
> >>> private var _c2sTestSuccess:Boolean;
> >>> // Time to send data to server on the C2S
> socket.
> >>> private var _c2sTestDuration:Number;
> >>> + private var _c2sTestStartTime:Number;
> >>> private var _ctlSocket:Socket;
> >>> private var _c2sSocket:Socket;
> >>> private var _c2sSendCount:int;
> >>> // Bytes not sent from last send operation on
> >>> the C2S socket.
> >>> private var _c2sBytesNotSent:int;
> >>> private var _c2sTimer:Timer;
> >>> + private var _speedUpdateTimer:Timer;
> >>> private var _dataToSend:ByteArray;
> >>> private var _msg:Message;
> >>> private var _serverHostname:String;
> >>> @@ -64,6 +68,7 @@
> >>>
> >>> _c2sTestSuccess = true; // Initially the
> test
> >>> has not failed.
> >>> _c2sTestDuration = 0;
> >>> + _c2sTestStartTime = 0;
> >>> _dataToSend = new ByteArray();
> >>> _c2sSendCount = 0;
> >>> _c2sBytesNotSent = 0;
> >>> @@ -175,6 +180,8 @@
> >>>
> >>> _c2sTimer = new
> Timer(NDTConstants.C2S_DURATION);
> >>> _c2sTimer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onC2STimeout);
> >>> + _speedUpdateTimer = new
> Timer(SPEED_UPDATE_TIMER);
> >>> +
> >>>
> _speedUpdateTimer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onSpeedUpdate);
> >>> _msg = new Message();
> >>> _testStage = START_TEST;
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg("C2S test:
> >>> START_TEST stage.");
> >>> @@ -244,6 +251,16 @@
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg("Timeout for
> >>> sending data on C2S socket.");
> >>> closeC2SSocket();
> >>> }
> >>> +
> >>> + private function
> onSpeedUpdate(e:TimerEvent):void {
> >>> + _c2sTestDuration = getTimer() -
> _c2sTestStartTime;
> >>> + _c2sBytesNotSent = _c2sSocket.bytesPending;
> >>> + var c2sByteSent:Number = (
> >>> + _c2sSendCount *
> >>> NDTConstants.PREDEFINED_BUFFER_SIZE
> >>> + + (NDTConstants.PREDEFINED_BUFFER_SIZE -
> >>> _c2sBytesNotSent));
> >>> +
> >>> + TestResults.ndt_test_results::c2sSpeed =
> >>> (c2sByteSent * NDTConstants.BYTES2BITS);
> >>> + }
> >>>
> >>> private function startTest():void {
> >>> if (!_msg.readHeader(_ctlSocket))
> >>> @@ -267,9 +284,10 @@
> >>> removeCtlSocketOnReceivedDataListener();
> >>>
> >>> _c2sTimer.start();
> >>> + _speedUpdateTimer.start();
> >>> // Record start time right before it starts
> >>> sending data, to be as
> >>> // accurate as possible.
> >>> - _c2sTestDuration = getTimer();
> >>> + _c2sTestStartTime = getTimer();
> >>>
> >>> _testStage = SEND_DATA;
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg("C2S test:
> >>> SEND_DATA stage.");
> >>> @@ -288,9 +306,11 @@
> >>> private function closeC2SSocket():void {
> >>> // Record end time right after it stops
> >>> sending data, to be as accurate as
> >>> // possible.
> >>> - _c2sTestDuration = getTimer() -
> _c2sTestDuration;
> >>> + _c2sTestDuration = getTimer() -
> _c2sTestStartTime;
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg(
> >>> "C2S test lasted " + _c2sTestDuration + "
> >>> msec.");
> >>> + _speedUpdateTimer.stop();
> >>> +
> >>>
> _speedUpdateTimer.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onSpeedUpdate);
> >>> _c2sTimer.stop();
> >>>
> >>> _c2sTimer.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onC2STimeout);
> >>>
> >>> =======================================
> >>> --- /branches/Issue131/flash-client/src/TestS2C.as
> >>> Fri Feb 21 07:41:20 2014 UTC
> >>> +++ /branches/Issue131/flash-client/src/TestS2C.as
> >>> Wed Mar 12 12:17:39 2014 UTC
> >>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> >>> public class TestS2C {
> >>> // Timer for single read operation.
> >>> private const READ_TIMEOUT:int = 15000; //
> 15sec
> >>> + private const SPEED_UPDATE_TIMER:int =
> 1000; // ms
> >>>
> >>> // Valid values for _testStage.
> >>> private static const PREPARE_TEST1:int = 0;
> >>> @@ -48,17 +49,18 @@
> >>> private var _ctlSocket:Socket;
> >>> private var _msg:Message;
> >>> private var _readTimer:Timer;
> >>> + private var _speedUpdateTimer:Timer;
> >>> private var _s2cByteCount:int;
> >>> private var _s2cSocket:Socket;
> >>> private var _s2cTimer:Timer;
> >>> // Time to send data to client on the S2C
> socket.
> >>> private var _s2cTestDuration:Number;
> >>> + private var _s2cTestStartTime:Number;
> >>> private var _s2cTestSuccess:Boolean;
> >>> private var _serverHostname:String;
> >>> private var _testStage:int;
> >>> private var _web100VarResult:String;
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> public function TestS2C(ctlSocket:Socket,
> >>> serverHostname:String,
> >>>
> callerObj:NDTPController) {
> >>> _callerObj = callerObj;
> >>> @@ -67,6 +69,7 @@
> >>>
> >>> _s2cTestSuccess = true; // Initially the
> test
> >>> has not failed.
> >>> _s2cTestDuration = 0;
> >>> + _s2cTestStartTime = 0;
> >>> _s2cByteCount = 0;
> >>> _web100VarResult = "";
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -172,6 +175,8 @@
> >>> }
> >>> _readTimer = new Timer(READ_TIMEOUT);
> >>> _readTimer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onS2CTimeout);
> >>> + _speedUpdateTimer = new
> Timer(SPEED_UPDATE_TIMER);
> >>> +
> >>>
> _speedUpdateTimer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onSpeedUpdate);
> >>> _s2cTimer = new
> Timer(NDTConstants.S2C_DURATION);
> >>> _s2cTimer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onS2CTimeout);
> >>> _msg = new Message();
> >>> @@ -234,6 +239,13 @@
> >>> _readTimer.start();
> >>> receiveData();
> >>> }
> >>> +
> >>> + private function
> onSpeedUpdate(e:TimerEvent):void {
> >>> + _s2cTestDuration = getTimer() -
> _s2cTestStartTime;
> >>> + TestResults.ndt_test_results::s2cSpeed =
> >>> _s2cByteCount
> >>> + *
> >>> NDTConstants.BYTES2BITS
> >>> + /
> >>> _s2cTestDuration;
> >>> + }
> >>>
> >>> private function startTest():void {
> >>> if (!_msg.readHeader(_ctlSocket))
> >>> @@ -258,9 +270,10 @@
> >>>
> >>> _readTimer.start();
> >>> _s2cTimer.start();
> >>> + _speedUpdateTimer.start();
> >>> // Record start time right before it starts
> >>> receiving data, to be as
> >>> // accurate as possible.
> >>> - _s2cTestDuration = getTimer();
> >>> + _s2cTestStartTime = getTimer();
> >>>
> >>> _testStage = RECEIVE_DATA;
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg("S2C test:
> >>> RECEIVE_DATA stage.");
> >>> @@ -290,9 +303,11 @@
> >>> // Record end time right after it stops
> >>> receiving data, to be as accurate
> >>> // as possible.
> >>> _s2cTimer.stop();
> >>> - _s2cTestDuration = getTimer() -
> _s2cTestDuration;
> >>> + _s2cTestDuration = getTimer() -
> _s2cTestStartTime;
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg(
> >>> "S2C test lasted " + _s2cTestDuration + "
> >>> msec.");
> >>> + _speedUpdateTimer.stop();
> >>> +
> >>>
> _speedUpdateTimer.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onSpeedUpdate);
> >>> _readTimer.stop();
> >>>
> >>> _readTimer.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onS2CTimeout);
> >>>
> >>> _s2cTimer.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,
> >>> onS2CTimeout);
> >>> @@ -485,7 +500,6 @@
> >>> removeCtlSocketOnReceivedDataListener();
> >>>
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg("S2C test:
> END_TEST
> >>> stage.");
> >>> -
> >>> if (_s2cTestSuccess)
> >>> TestResults.appendDebugMsg(
> >>>
> ResourceManager.getInstance().getString(
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page