NDT-DEV email list created

[Jordan McCarthy <>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi everybody,
        We've also been monitoring the performance characteristics of
the WebSockets client closely, both before and after the client's
official publication in NDT 3.7.0, and we haven't been able to
reproduce the disparity that CIRA has encountered.  We've run
Websocket-based tests from several different browser combinations on a
variety of operating systems and consumer-grade connections, during
various times of the day, and haven't encountered any appreciable
differences (within any given machine/connection/time of day
combination).  Additionally, for the sake of thoroughness we've run
C-client tests from the same connections, and the numbers we got from
the C client runs were pretty comparable with what we were getting out
of all of the Websockets tests.

Don: could you tell us a little bit more about your testing
methodology?  I'm guessing you spun up a Linux VM, and used
X-forwarding to get access to an instance of the browser running on
the VM?

Off the top of my head that sounds reasonable, but we've
definitely seen weird artifacts introduced by running tests out of VM
environments, so perhaps that could be throwing things off somewhat.

Jordan

Jordan McCarthy
Open Technology Institute @ New America
Public Key: 0xC08D8042 | 4A61 3D39 4125 127D 65EA DDC2 BFBD A2E9 C08D 80
42

On 07/06/2015 02:45 PM, Don Slaunwhite wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> 
> 
> My name is Don Slaunwhite and I’m a Product Manager at CIRA. We
> have been utilizing the NDT tests as part of our Internet
> Performance Test up here in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> We have been working on transitioning to the Websocket client with
> our test, but we have been seeing some very different results in
> upload speeds as compared to the flash client.
> 
> 
> 
> We did a lot of internal/external testing and in every case the
> upload speeds for the websocket version were lower (most times
> significantly) than our current flash client. The download speeds
> are comparable, with websocket usually coming in a bit faster
> 
> 
> 
> For example we setup a VM at Amazon to run some (hopefully!)
> controlled tests. Using Chrome and Firefox.
> 
> 
> 
> Chrome Averages based on ~200 tests
> 
> Flash 19.3Mpbs Upload
> 
> Flash 49.8Mpbs Download
> 
> Websocket  9.3Mpbs Upload
> 
> Websocket  54.3Mpbs Download
> 
> 
> 
> Firefox Averages based on ~300 tests
> 
> Flash 27.4 Mpbs Upload
> 
> Flash 50.1 Mpbs Download
> 
> Websocket  11.1 Mpbs Upload
> 
> Websocket  57.2 Mpbs Download
> 
> 
> 
> In each case the websocket upload is significantly lower. I’m
> trying to determine if this is expected behaviour with the
> websocket code. If not what possible items might be causing this
> type of speed degradation.
> 
> 
> 
> We are running with client versions 3.7.0 (Flash has a buffer size
> of 32K) against mlab servers in Toronto.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize there will be new functionality/capability with the
> multiple stream releases, but right now I’d like to try and focus
> on one major change at a time, so any ideas on speed differences
> between Flash and Websocket using just 3.7.0 would be really
> helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVnC4sAAoJEL+9ounAjYBCfVgH/2q3PGodloBkPZoa6dW5nTmx
pLRAitSZwD8DS12VP2Wdy9zWNhmDExJuCVtRVQo9jF+ZwPqghh7U+ZpGRqWvFYdq
XOUYxwUzRlN4fkVF43k+huGdrfGrG5Guz+zkkiVKAD/4Z1vLB6tknVUFyo5gOXs5
WcchPM8Hi/8V1x4i+nVY+FiwiVqJBDqG2EJXDPqMP/G60kguJGra2PhlljNl7j8t
sM0X+jyzQQzuUTruBHvQFES0TDPtS+AO07eft2JWUqdt6PcPYQt1NcBn8WJ+b/Ks
JF6KKBlG+vm0pJt7nuCflIgXDMe7CW885WhMf+rMGC5GByDa+rzxATHCS9TZANE=
=Ai6W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----