NDT-DEV email list created

[Jordan McCarthy <>]

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

Hi everybody,
        Just a quick update: In line with Rich's suggestion, we're currently
in the midst of running a secondary battery of tests on the Websockets
client on dedicated hardware: two high-end boxes on a very quiet 1
Gigabit network, using the C client as our reference implementation
(we're not running tests across the public Internet, because we want
to remove as many variables as possible to get as clean a performance
profile as we can -- and any given link across the Internet is likely
to have a fair bit of congestion/variability).

We don't have any conclusive findings yet (we've only run tests on the
unrestricted 1 Gig pipe so far, which is clearly not representative of
most real-world links).  But even at that level we're not seeing any
disparities in the range of the ones observed in the AWS test. So
maybe there is some bizzare interaction effect stemming from running
the test across an AWS interface?  Anyway, we'll send along updates as
soon as we have them!

I'm not at all sure why only s2c results are being displayed, to the
client, but we definitely have the full c2s data in the datastore (in
should show up about 24 hours after a test is run).  So perhaps look
for more details there?

Thanks,
Jordan


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

On 07/13/2015 09:32 AM, Don Slaunwhite wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> 
> That's super info. I did notice the congestion avoidance number but
> only because Flash was 0 and websocket was so high. I really didn't
> get what it meant, so thank you very much for the great breakdown.
> 
> We have run tests on external real hardware (employees home
> computers) and we have seen a slight speed degradation from the
> flash. 3.034 Mpbs  - Flash Upload Avg versus  2.56 Mpbs - Websocket
> Upload Avg based on 200 tests.
> 
> But honestly my thoughts there were that given the low upload
> bandwidth that most people have a home, the variance isn't as large
> as on a high bandwidth pipe (ie the tests from the VM). This was
> one of the reasons we were trying to get a VM that had high
> bandwidth so we could test this scenario.
> 
> OK so in order to figure this out.
> 
> 1. Could anyone on this list with a high bandwidth real hardware
> connection try running a test from here
> 
> Flash - http://dev-soi-web-01.cira.ca/ Websocket -
> http://dev-soi-web-01.cira.ca/websocket/?testtype=websocket
> 
> and let us know what your Montreal/Calgary results are. We may or
> may not have another issue with connectivity to Toronto so I'd like
> to leave it out of the testing at this point.
> 
> 2. Rich if you are able to take a look at the websocket code and
> let us know if there is anything that you see, which may be
> problematic.
> 
> 3. We (CIRA) don't have direct access to the Mlab server so I'll
> see about getting the c2s data capture turned on.
> 
> So this brings up one last related question that I've always
> wondered and hopefully it's not too silly of a question. Why by
> default would NDT only capture and show S2C data and not the C2S as
> well?
> 
> Thanks, Don
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Richard Carlson
> [mailto:]
>  Sent: July-10-15 10:33 PM To: Don
> Slaunwhite; 
> 
>  Subject: Re: [ndt-dev] Websocket
> Client - Upload Speed Problem
> 
> Don;
> 
> I put the data into the attached spread sheet and sorted the
> variables to do a side-by-side comparison.
> 
> First off, the collected data comes from the server-to-client test
> (download).  This means we have some insights but to get more
> you'll need to turn on packet tracing on the server and look at
> that data off-line.
> 
> I'll try and look at the code later this weekend, I still suspect
> that there is a 10x math error in the code that is calculating the
> upload speed.
> 
> In any case I do see that the websocket client is not working as
> well as it should.  As noted in the spreadsheet.
> 
> The 1st think I notice is that the both clients are setting (or
> not setting) the TCP options to the same values, except that the
> flash client is using a slightly small receive window.
> 
> The websocket client has a theoretical max speed of 311 Mbps, and
> achieves 488 Mbps (or 491 Mbps).  The theoretical value is
> calculated based on the packet size, RTT, and loss rate.  The
> server noted a loss rate of 0 for the flash client and .0000235%.
> While that doesn't seem like a lot, it does make a big difference
> on 20 msec paths.  Since you wouldn't expect the network loss rate
> to vary between these 2 tests, I would suspect that the client is
> losing packets.  That is, it can't empty the buffer fast enough and
> packets are dropped.
> 
> Next I notice that both clients report the path is an OC-48 (2.4
> Gbps) path.  The server performs a packet-pair test for every
> packet it sends and receives.  During both test the network is
> delivering packets at line speed (or nearly so)  So I don't suspect
> a physical path problem.
> 
> I also notice that the websocket client reports the PC's receive
> buffr as limiting the throughput to 'NaN Mbps'.  NaN means 'Not a
> Number' so I suspect a bug in the client code not calculating this
> value correctly.
> 
> Looking at the Web100 variables I see the following.
> 
> avgrtt (Average RTT) 23.3 msec for both clients
> 
> bw (theoretical max) websocket client is limited by loss
> 
> CongAvoid (number of times the congestion window was increased by
> the congestion avoidance algorithm) Websocket - 120,998: This says
> that TCP was in the congestion avoidance state for a long time! In
> this state the server is increasing the number of packets it sends
> by 1 every RTT.  A very slow process on a 20 msec path and this is
> another indication of why the throughput is so low.
> 
> CWNDpeaks: this is a NDT derived number counting the number of time
> the congestion window increased and then dropped back down again.
> This is what gives TCP its classic sawtooth pattern.  These are the
> peaks of the teeth.  If you have the snaplog option on, you can
> generate a congestion window plot and see these peaks.  Notice that
> the flash client has 52 peaks, meaning it is cycling much faster.
> 
> loss: again a NDT derived value showing the packet loss rate.
> 
> order: another NDT derived value showing how many times packets
> arrived out of order.  The websocket client reported 1.65%.  Again
> this is probably inside the client as it is losing multiple
> packets.
> 
> SndLimTrans{Cwnd, Rwin, Sender}: these are web100 variables that
> count how many times the server switched from one state to another.
> Note that the flash client toggled rapidly between Congestion
> window limited and sender window limited while the websocket client
> sat in the congestion window state for the majority of the time.
> 
> My conclusion is that the websocket client is not processing
> network packets efficiently.  The packets are arriving and the
> network ring buffer is full so they are getting discarded.  The
> client's TCP stack notices this and informs the server of this and
> the server takes the appropriate action and cuts the send rate.
> 
> What I can't tell if this is due to the client living inside a VM
> and the virtual NIC just isn't interacting with the client code or
> if there is some other problem.  Have you tried running the clients
> on real hardware?
> 
> That's what I see from the data.  Again if you want some c2s data
> you need to enable packet tracing on the server.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/10/2015 03:17 PM, Don Slaunwhite wrote:
>> Hi Rich,
>> 
>> Here is an example of some data from two tests to the Calgary
>> Server. The first is the using the Websocket Client and the
>> second is using the Flash client. They were run one right after
>> the other. These results are indicative of what we are seeing
>> regularly. Websocket Uploads are always much slower.
>> 
>> I am not TCP literate enough to evaluate the results effectively
>> so any help on analysing the logs would be great.
>> 
>> Thanks, Don
>> 
>> Websocket Test from VM to Calgary 
>> ====================================
>> 
>> Upload 52 Mbps Ping 23 ms Download 488 Mbps
>> 
>> Client System Details Client version: v1.0.0.0 OS data:: Windows
>> Server 2012, Architecture:x86 Flash Info: Version = WIN
>> 18,0,0,203 The slowest link in the end-to-end path is a 2.4 Gbps
>>  OC-48 subnet Information: Other network traffic is congesting
>> the link This connection is network limited 94.49% of the time 
>> 2.4 Gbps OC-48 link found. Link set to Full Duplex mode 
>> Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic. Good
>> network cable(s) found Normal duplex operation found. Web100
>> reports the Round trip time = 23.28ms the Packet size = 1460bytes
>> No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 1.65% of the
>> time Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance
>> Settings to: RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgement: ON RFC 896 Nagle
>> Algorithm: ON RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF RFC
>> 1323 Time Stamping: OFF RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON - Server=8,
>> Client=8 The theoretical network limit is 311.12 Mbps The NDT
>> server has a 2048.00 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to
>> 1374.33 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 6374.50 KByte buffer which
>> limits the throughput to NaN Mbps The network based flow control
>> limits the throughput to 939.09 Mbps Client Data reports link is
>> OC-48 Client Acks report link is GigE Server Data reports link is
>> OC-48 Server Acks report link is OC-48 WEB 100 - Detailed Test
>> Results
>> 
>> AckPktsIn : 130975 AckPktsOut : 0 aspd : 0.00000 avgrtt : 23.28 
>> bad_cable : 0 bw : 311.12 BytesRetrans : 0 c2sAck : 7 c2sData :
>> 8 c2sRate : 51541 ClientToServerSpeed : 51.541 CongAvoid :
>> 120998 congestion : 1 CongestionOverCount : 0 CongestionSignals :
>> 1 CountRTT : 128569 CurCwnd : 1582640 CurMSS : 1460 CurRTO : 223 
>> CurRwinRcvd : 3785728 CurRwinSent : 7040 CurSsthresh : 1432260 
>> cwin : 21.8657 CWND-Limited : -nan CWNDpeaks : 6 cwndtime :
>> 0.9449 DataBytesIn : 573 DataBytesOut : 625955378 DataPktsIn : 1 
>> DataPktsOut : 422956 DSACKDups : 0 DupAcksIn : 2159 DupAcksOut :
>> 0 Duration : 10183018 ECNEnabled : 0 FastRetran : 0 half_duplex :
>> 0 Jitter : 51 link : 0 loss : 0.000002364 MaxCwnd : 2865980 
>> maxCWNDpeak : 2865980 MaxMSS : 1460 MaxRTO : 274 MaxRTT : 74 
>> MaxRwinRcvd : 6527488 MaxRwinSent : 7040 MaxSsthresh : 1432260 
>> minCWNDpeak : 627800 MinMSS : 1460 MinRTO : 223 MinRTT : 23 
>> MinRwinRcvd : 0 MinRwinSent : 5840 mismatch : 0 NagleEnabled : 1 
>> order : 0.0165 OtherReductions : 5 PktsIn : 130976 PktsOut :
>> 422956 PktsRetrans : 0 RcvWinScale : 7 rttsec : 0.023284 rwin :
>> 49.8008 rwintime : 0.0221 s2cAck : 8 s2cData : 8 s2cRate :
>> 488203.7666613683 SACKEnabled : 3 SACKsRcvd : 35 SampleRTT : 23 
>> SendStall : 1 sendtime : 0.0330 ServerToClientSpeed :
>> 488.2037666613683 SlowStart : 2512 SmoothedRTT : 23 Sndbuf :
>> 4194304 SndLimBytesCwnd : 608691440 SndLimBytesRwin : 586080
>> SndLimBytesSender : 16677858 SndLimTimeCwnd : 9620260 
>> SndLimTimeRwin : 224548 SndLimTimeSender : 335983 SndLimTransCwnd
>> : 70 SndLimTransRwin : 10 SndLimTransSender : 65 SndWinScale : 8
>> spd : 491.87 StartTimeUsec : 822769 SubsequentTimeouts : 0 SumRTT
>> : 2993620 swin : 32.0000 Timeouts : 0 timesec : 10.00
>> TimestampsEnabled : 0 waitsec : 0.00 WinScaleRcvd : 8
>> WinScaleSent : 7 X_Rcvbuf : 87380 X_Sndbuf : 4194304
>> 
>> 
>> Flash Test from VM to Calgary 
>> ====================================
>> 
>> Upload 711 Mbps Ping 21 ms Download 776 Mbps
>> 
>> Client System Details Client version: v1.0.0.0 OS data:: Windows
>> Server 2012, Architecture: x86 Flash Info: Version = WIN
>> 18,0,0,203 The slowest link in the end-to-end path is a 2.4 Gbps
>> OC-48 subnet Information: Other network traffic is congesting the
>> link This connection is sender limited 82.56% of the time This
>> connection is network limited 17.02% of the time 2.4 Gbps OC-48
>> link found. Link set to Full Duplex mode Information: throughput
>> is limited by other network traffic. Good network cable(s) found 
>> Normal duplex operation found. Web100 reports the Round trip time
>> = 23.3ms the Packet size = 1460bytes No packet loss - but packets
>> arrived out-of-order 0.50% of the time C2S throughput test:
>> Packet queuing detected: 0.28% S2C throughput test: Packet
>> queuing detected: -2.41% Web100 reports TCP negotiated the
>> optional Performance Settings to: RFC 2018 Selective
>> Acknowledgement: ON RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON RFC 3168 Explicit
>> Congestion Notification: OFF RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF RFC 1323
>> Window Scaling: ON; Scaling Factors - Server=8, Client=7 The
>> theoretical network limit is 47808.50 Mbps The NDT server has a
>> 2048.00 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 1373.45 Mbps
>> Your PC/Workstation has a 8272.25 KByte buffer which limits the
>> throughput to 2773.81 Mbps The network based flow control limits
>> the throughput to 1033.62 Mbps Client Data reports link is OC-48
>> Client Acks report link is OC-48 Server Data reports link is
>> OC-48 Server Acks report link is 10 Gig WEB 100 - Detailed Test
>> Results
>> 
>> Timeouts : 0 waitsec : 0 PktsRetrans : 0 timesec : 10 
>> SndLimBytesSender : 882965584 CongestionOverCount : 0 link : 100 
>> MinRwinRcvd : 64768 DupAcksIn : 957 rwintime : 0.0042 
>> SubsequentTimeouts : 0 MaxRwinRcvd : 8470784 sendtime : 0.8256 
>> MinRwinSent : 5840 MaxRwinSent : 5888 cwndtime : 0.1702 Sndbuf :
>> 4194304 rttsec : 0.023299 CongAvoid : 0 X_Sndbuf : 4194304 rwin :
>> 64.627 OtherReductions : 105 DataPktsOut : 680854 swin : 32 
>> minCWNDpeak : 1874640 FastRetran : 0 cwin : 24.0823 X_Rcvbuf :
>> 87380 AckPktsOut : 0 spd : 790.47 DupAcksOut : 0 SACKsRcvd : 63 
>> order : 0.005 MaxMSS : 1460 CurCwnd : 2823640 PktsIn : 189616 
>> CWNDpeaks : 52 MaxCwnd : 3156520 maxCWNDpeak : 3156520 
>> SmoothedRTT : 23 SndLimTimeRwin : 42777 StartTimeUsec : 686140 
>> SndLimTimeCwnd : 1735558 SndLimTimeSender : 8416704 Duration :
>> 10195551 DataBytesOut : 1007364024 AckPktsIn : 189616 SendStall :
>> 0 SndLimTransRwin : 1 SlowStart : 21762 SndLimTransCwnd : 1680 
>> aspd : 0 SndLimTransSender : 1681 DataPktsIn : 0 MaxSsthresh : 0 
>> CurRTO : 223 MaxRTO : 231 SampleRTT : 23 DataBytesIn : 0 MinRTO :
>> 221 CurSsthresh : 2147483647 MinRTT : 21 MaxRTT : 43 DSACKDups :
>> 0 CurRwinRcvd : 5015040 SndWinScale : 8 MinMSS : 1460 c2sData :
>> 8 CurRwinSent : 5888 c2sAck : 8 s2cData : 8 s2cAck : 9 PktsOut :
>> 680854 ECNEnabled : 0 mismatch : 0 NagleEnabled : 1 congestion :
>> 1 SACKEnabled : 3 bad_cable : 0 TimestampsEnabled : 0 half_duplex
>> : 0 SndLimBytesRwin : 79920 CongestionSignals : 0 BytesRetrans :
>> 0 RcvWinScale : 7 SndLimBytesCwnd : 124318520 bw : 47808.5 
>> WinScaleRcvd : 8 CountRTT : 188334 loss : 0 WinScaleSent : 7 
>> CurMSS : 1460 avgrtt : 23.3 SumRTT : 4387999
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: 
>> 
>>  
>> [mailto:]
>>  On Behalf Of Richard
>> Carlson Sent: July-08-15 8:28 PM To: 
>> 
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [ndt-dev] Websocket Client - Upload Speed Problem
>> 
>> Don;
>> 
>> Forgive me for sounding like a broken record on this topic, but
>> the NDT (Network Diagnostic Tool) system was specifically
>> designed to go beyond merely reporting up/down load speeds.  The
>> server captures dozens of TCP variables and analyzes them to
>> identify why a given result was posted.
>> 
>> You don't need to guess if there were packet retransmissions, the
>> NDT server tells you that.  You don't need to guess if the delay
>> is high, low, or varying, just look at the test results.  You
>> don't need to guess if the client's configuration is limiting
>> throughput, just look at the test results.
>> 
>> If the results given at the end of the test aren't enough, then
>> turn on more diagnostics, capture the packet trace, get TCP
>> variables at 5 msec intervals for the 10 sec test.  Use the data
>> that's being collected, and reported, to better understand what
>> is going on.
>> 
>> If you need help reading the test results, post a question to the
>> ndt-dev email list.  We'll be glad to help walk you through the
>> results.
>> 
>> What I would start looking at is,
>> 
>> What is the TCP window size set to?  The 100% increase in speed
>> between Calgary and Montreal probably means the receive window is
>> the limited factor.  (assuming the RTT to Montreal is 2x the RTT
>> to Calgary). Then look at the time spend in the various states.
>> Sitting in the send or receive states indicates a host resource
>> issue.   Look at the number of packets sent/ack's received.
>> 
>> Given that the Websocket Upload numbers are 10x lower than the
>> others, I'd wonder if there isn't a math error in the code
>> somewhere and you are simply seeing a reporting error, not a
>> testing error.  Looking at the packet traces and other diagnostic
>> data will quickly point out that type of code bug.
>> 
>> Rich (NDT grandfather).
>> 
>> On 07/08/2015 01:38 PM, Don Slaunwhite wrote:
>>> Hi Jordan,
>>> 
>>> It seems we may have multiple email threads going on about this
>>> issue. I'll respond with details on the other thread. 8) But to
>>> help clarify for the people here.
>>> 
>>> We were running a Windows 2012 Server  as the Amazon VM. At
>>> first we chose one with "Low" network bandwidth, but we also
>>> created another with "High" network bandwidth. On those Windows
>>> machines we have testing software which runs our IPT test
>>> through the Chrome browser. It basically just goes flash then
>>> websocket etc. The times between runs is roughly 30 seconds and
>>> we let it run overnight.
>>> 
>>> We did see slower values coming from the Toronto site, so we
>>> ran the same tests to Calgary and Montreal. Those sites gave us
>>> much better results (in both Flash and Websocket) but still
>>> Flash was significantly faster. I'm not sure if it is our
>>> implementation of the Flash/websockets client or what.
>>> 
>>> For instance in Montreal
>>> 
>>> Flash Upload - 304Mbps Flash Download - 220Mbps Websocket
>>> Upload - 45Mbps Webscoket Download - 230Mbps
>>> 
>>> And in Calgary
>>> 
>>> Flash Upload - 616Mbps Flash Download - 542Mbps Websocket
>>> Upload - 44Mbps Webscoket Download - 472Mbps
>>> 
>>> So even on other servers we are definitely seeing a degradation
>>> of Websocket upload. Now perhaps it truly is something with the
>>> VM. But even then it seems a bit odd. We have no
>>> firewall/anti-virus on. What sort of things have you seen gone
>>> wrong with VM testing?
>>> 
>>> We did do some external real life testing via our employee's
>>> home systems (not through VPN etc) and we still saw slower
>>> Websocket speeds. (But not anything of this magnitude of
>>> difference.)
>>> 
>>> For example:
>>> 
>>> (about 200 tests from around Ottawa)
>>> 
>>> 20.8 Mbps - Flash Chrome Download Avg 3.034 Mpbs  - Flash
>>> Chrome Upload Avg 21.2 Mpbs - Websocket Chrome Download Avg 
>>> 2.56 Mpbs - Websocket Chrome Upload Avg
>>> 
>>> So not as big a difference, but still large enough to wonder.
>>> Then combined with the VM testing above.
>>> 
>>> Do you have a dataset from your testing that we could look at? 
>>> Honestly if you have a good sample size of data that we can
>>> feel comfortable with, then we can start looking at what
>>> exactly on our implementation is going wrong. (if it is indeed
>>> our implementation.)
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Don
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jordan McCarthy
>>> [mailto:]
>>>  Sent: July-07-15 3:53
>>> PM To: Don Slaunwhite Cc: 
>>> ;
>>> 
>>>  Subject: Re: [ndt-dev] Websocket
>>> Client - Upload Speed Problem
>>> 
> 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)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVo8cCAAoJEL+9ounAjYBCmC4H/RynglmR8HPAUDysv2Kr4Dlv
Tr3aFvOnfxpZpc6c4yQP2+vTvgdxNmLa4KaU71hncMFtTwhkuYT5rLVvFxnKqyU+
CXehFjgRcbZBACcj2S64czidMdlHwjnW6KCkweNxRxFPbUVJkLDvEEAVfKPKcu83
LMc52LvjdX7i7iBy5j25OuSVzc2zRqG1q6OsPddTe5moUdV9dIWQ4wfBovjHb70l
bPXNScO9kCyCr6/e2ZSW5Vbi2sa7tFZr/6xgOUXiA24W8UXqyqqF7YfXmmZfzSy1
WZ0aelGeR9e1L1CX4iayRjXsQyEYuwj2TGvwVScUwDij4ZROnrSKuqeHFI9sIok=
=dphS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----