User comments on ISPs
  >> Virgin Media (Cable)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Thu 11-May-17 08:27:55
Print Post

Bufferbloat?


[link to this post]
 
What's this new speed test actually telling me about my Vivid 200 connection?

213 Mbps down, 12.5 Mbps up - this looks pretty good.

Your latency: 18 ms - seems fine for my location, could be better but is good enough for LoL

Bufferbloat v D ^ F - What ???

The explanation seems rather biased against certain network technologies:

"Bufferbloat is a measure of how delayed packets are due to excessive buffering in broadband routers and other locations on the Internet.

A is good, F is bad and is only something to be worried about if you upload a lot while also downloading or vice versa."

I'm reliably informed by my son that our connection is actually very good in terms of latency/lag when playing LoL regardless of what others are doing in the household.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 11-May-17 10:51:18
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
Question...does the son game while downloading a 50GB file that is arriving at the full 213 Mbps? Or do they time these to be at other times...my bet is the latter and this is because of buffer bloat

General web browsing and video streaming, even upload won't cause an issue, but buffer bloat is all about the delays introduced when you have saturated either the upload or download sides.

As for being 'biased against certain network technologies' I'd like to hear why you believe that to be the case, since there is no bias in the code or theory.

The buffer bloat and quality metric which is not reported yet to individual speed test users (but used in monthly round-up) are mechanisms to help expand how broadband is measured and extending beyond the game for just ever higher numbers.

Knowing who to show extra metrics to and who not to is impossible to predict, am planning to add an 'advanced' tab giving more detail to those who want it.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Fri 12-May-17 09:43:29
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Question...does the son game while downloading a 50GB file that is arriving at the full 213 Mbps? Or do they time these to be at other times...my bet is the latter and this is because of buffer bloat
He doesn't but if I happen to kick off a steam download while he is playing he doesn't notice, and LoL is very sensitive. I also have two daughters that are almost permanently attached to Netflix/YouTube. Even with all the bits going on with Nest, other cloud and RDP connections I don't often saturate the upstream but I've never had him complain when I have done the odd 4K upload. Hence my query as to what it actually means when it says my connection is bad?
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
As for being 'biased against certain network technologies' I'd like to hear why you believe that to be the case, since there is no bias in the code or theory.
We all know that, due to the way it works, cable needs more buffering which is why it suffers from higher jitter. My guess is that this is also feeding into the 'Bufferbloat' assessment and leads to showing a non-DSL connection that appears to work very well in all real world scenarios as a 'bad' connection (somewhat akin to the focus on single-threaded speed which is also affected by cable's required buffering).


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Fri 12-May-17 11:40:25
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
Buffering is nothing to do with single threaded speed issues, RWIN may mean it takes longer to reach full speed with a single thread, but given wider feedback from those in areas where they have issues I see no reason to drop single threaded testing.

Good to hear that saturating your downstream with a steam download (I presume it runs at connection speed) is not affecting game play. Maybe there is some UDP prioritisation at play somewhere.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User richbhanover
(newbie) Fri 12-May-17 12:54:15
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
It's good to hear that your latency/lag doesn't get bad during downloads. But the DSLReports.com/speedtest measures latency during transfers of both directions. I suspect the D-F grade comes from uploads.

Another way to test is to start a ping test to google.com and then run any speed test. Look to see if the latency increases during either phase of the test.

See "What can I do about Bufferbloat?" at https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/What... for more info
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Fri 12-May-17 13:19:24
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: richbhanover] [link to this post]
 
No, the D is the grade for download, the F is for upload. The new speedtest shows these with little graphic arrows which I substituted to v and ^.

Both imply I have a 'bad' connection though I haven't seen any practical evidence. It won't be long before someone is bashing VM about this just like they do on the single-thread issue.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sat 13-May-17 07:15:05
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
your reasoning is a bit like saying speedtests are unfair on dialup tech smile
bufferbloat only matters if you care about usability of connection during periods when the connection is saturated, if that is of no concern then dont stress over it.
But be aware tho in case of VM bufferbloat can also occur with just the headend saturated not your own connection.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 13-May-17 07:17:28)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 13-May-17 10:15:34
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
I am absolutely certain that providers would love me more if I dropped all diagnostics and just showed a 75th percentile result for download and make the upload testing an advanced option.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 13-May-17 21:20:22
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
I am absolutely certain that providers would love me more if I dropped all diagnostics and just showed a 75th percentile result for download and make the upload testing an advanced option.

They might we wouldn't. We rely on your scientific approach.

Isn't that just what fast.com does?!

plusnet unlimited fibre 80/20 since 2 Jun 14 - Sync as of 9th Apr 17: 56,605/9,592 kbps with G.INP
18 years of UK broadband since 1999 ntl:cable modem trial - Asus RT-AC68U and HG612 - BQM
Standard User JohnR
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 14-May-17 09:01:34
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Daemon66:
Both imply I have a 'bad' connection though I haven't seen any practical evidence. It won't be long before someone is bashing VM about this just like they do on the single-thread issue.


One reason NOT to read too much into test results. If it's running OK, then what is the point of testing connection?
Yes, if you are getting problems. Then testing can help prove a point. But if nothing is wrong in "Real life usage". Then often such as this tread, cause nothing other than confusion.

\_0-0_/ AdsL is Hell \_0-0_/
To Infinity
Wats SUP doc.... You using too much.....
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sun 14-May-17 18:20:15
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
and with 100 download threads smile

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Mon 15-May-17 09:51:29
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: JohnR] [link to this post]
 
Testing only when there is a problem is an obvious issue that I'm sure TB adjust for in their statistics, don't they?
Personnally I prefer to test before a problem becomes apparent in the hope that I can avert it. It is a shame the test becomes meaningless if it reports a connection that works well as being bad. I extensively investigated the connection in a fruitless effort to identify the issue TB told me I had only to find there is no issue.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Mon 15-May-17 10:00:41
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
your reasoning is a bit like saying speedtests are unfair on dialup tech smile
Sorry, I don't get your meaning. Speedtests reflect the transfer speed of the connection whatever the technology. Though some test do still attempt to highlight issues with some technologies more than others by focusing on single-threaded tests that are more sensitive to buffering (regardless of what some may assert, TCP is very sensitive to buffering).
It is well known that cable buffers more than other technologies, this is why so many complain about the level of jitter on cable. This buffering means that TB now show my cable connection as bad quality.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 15-May-17 12:40:22
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
Can you show me where we said your connection is bad quality?

Our explainer says....
Bufferbloat is a measure of how delayed packets are due to excessive buffering in broadband routers and other locations on the Internet. A is good, F is bad and is only something to be worried about if you upload a lot while also downloading or vice versa. Enabling QoS on some routers can improve performance.

And if as asserted the bufferbloat testing is weighted against cable why would the test at http://tbb.st/1494845036839948755
have shown with grades B and A.

As for single thread - nothing to do with buffer bloat at all, since we don't do any latency testing during the single thread test.

http://tbb.st/1494844753746210455

If you are worried so much about bufferbloat and single thread then perhaps http://www.broadband.co.uk/broadband-speed-test/ is a better test for you to use.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Mon 15-May-17 14:11:14
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
This is like talking to a politician, never a straight answer and often answers a different question:
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Can you show me where we said your connection is bad quality?
Other than what I said in my original post? Because you don't actually allow me to see/share the quality results after the test?
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
And if as asserted the bufferbloat testing is weighted against cable why would the test at http://tbb.st/1494845036839948755
have shown with grades B and A.
Did it? I can't see any ratings for bufferbloat on that link. Interesting that that test doesn't get near the full upload speed though.
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
As for single thread - nothing to do with buffer bloat at all, since we don't do any latency testing during the single thread test.
For more information on the effect of buffering on TCP throughput here is a simple primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_tuning
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
If you are worried so much about bufferbloat and single thread then perhaps http://www.broadband.co.uk/broadband-speed-test/ is a better test for you to use.
That's not the point, I'm not worried about it, it has no effect on my connection, my connection is not subject to bufferbloat. I just want to know why you are saying it is and hence reporting my connection as bad quality.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 15-May-17 14:23:55
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
We said the buffer bloat was poor not the WHOLE connection was bad quality, I cannot look at the actual numbers for your connection as you've not linked to a test.

And the primer tells me little I did not know - but reminds me to highlight that large buffers are ideally used on high latency networks, which I am sure we all agree is not what Virgin Media is.

As for the test linked to, what speed do you expect the upload to be on a 200 Mbps service?
The service is advertised currently as up to 12 Mbps, but have not heard any announcement to say Virgin Media has upgraded all 200 Mbps service customers to the latest 12 Mbps upload.

Run another test, and link to it so I can look at the underlying numbers, for all I know there may be a mathematical error, but without an example of test showing what you say its hard to say WHY we are saying buffer bloat appears to exist on that connection.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Mon 15-May-17 15:54:47
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Here is the test to which I referred, but the link doesn't show the bufferbloat/quality rating: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14944862896...

NOTE: That I didn't turn off my Nest Cam during the test so upload is a little lower than it could be, probably by about 0.5Mbps.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 15-May-17 16:35:31
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
Correct the link does not show the buffer bloat figures, and probably not going to.

So we recorded 18ms average TCP latency
When downloading latency was measured at 80ms
When uploading latency was measured at 131ms

So download was just in the D zone, and during upload in the F zone.

Maybe there is a wider debate to be had on whether to qualify for grade A the latency needs to be less than double. The original grading was determined by looking at the spread of values across the ISP range.

Existing plans were underway to make more info available at the end of a test to show people these values, so they can ignore the grading system and decide for themselves is a jump from 18ms to 131ms is an issue.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Tue 16-May-17 09:03:05
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Finally, thanks for the explanation.

Since anything < 150ms is generally considered perfectly fine for VOIP and < 100 ms is fine for LoL (not great but fine). I guess that's why I don't see any issue with my connection, though of course you appear to have a different view.

I would say that the grading should reflect the likelihood of bufferbloat actually causing an issue.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 09:36:31
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
So lets make this a RFC call and hear what people want for the grades?

i.e. latency at idle and what multiplier to consider acceptable for each grade?

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User smurf46
(committed) Tue 16-May-17 11:20:56
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
I too always get bufferbloat reported on the new test.

But my main question which I'll tag on here is whether there is an obvious reason why the new test for my connection always reports half the download and upload speeds reported for the old test done for comparison? So for instance just now New test: x1 10-12 download, upload 1-3 55ms latency; Old test x1 22-24 x6 24-26 down 5.5 up and 14ms latency. The old test is far closer to what I expect for my 35/6.5Mbps synch on an uninmpacted line and the actual performance of my service. (And to the latency reported by my TBBQM). It's the same difference tried on a different PC and whether on a wired or wifi connection.

Any other download measurement is also out of kilter with the new test, though not the old one. Strange.

We see things not as they are, but as we are .
- Anais Nin

Edited by smurf46 (Tue 16-May-17 13:08:02)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 12:41:13
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: smurf46] [link to this post]
 
So of all the speed tests that exist we are the only one reporting such a low speed?

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 12:50:14
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Firefox 47.0.2 - https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14949350878...

Hitting the connection limits, so question is how popular is the variant of firefox that you use, and what are they doing different compared to standard firefox

http://tbb.st/1494055466705404555 same browser and looks to be hitting maximum for VDSL2

Edited by MrSaffron (Tue 16-May-17 12:51:37)

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Tue 16-May-17 13:00:10
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
keep as is, if you do make a change make it stricter and harder to get the best grade.

There will always be some people unhappy.

i consider tbb and dslreports the only two proper speedtesters on the net.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 16-May-17 13:00:34)

Standard User smurf46
(committed) Tue 16-May-17 13:17:47
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Firefox 47.0.2 - https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14949350878...

Hitting the connection limits, so question is how popular is the variant of firefox that you use, and what are they doing different compared to standard firefox

http://tbb.st/1494055466705404555 same browser and looks to be hitting maximum for VDSL2


Thanks. It could be that, it's Pale Moon because of its sync with mobile where it uses less memory than standard Firefox. Though it's only testing on PCs that have the problem, not on the mobile as far as I can tell. Perhaps it' memory hungry on the PC though - could be as there are occasional (perhaps every few weeks or so) reboots whilst using the browser. I'm not worried about it, was just curious as the old "flash" test came out as expected. DSL Reports doesn't have the issue just for info.

We see things not as they are, but as we are .
- Anais Nin
Standard User 4M2
(knowledge is power) Tue 16-May-17 13:26:52
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Just to add:

With Firefox 53.0.2 (64-bit) on ubuntu 14.04 the new speed tester is fine regarding downstream and upstream throughput on ADSL - not sure about latency though, usually gives a higher reading than your Traceroute, e.g. ~80ms rather than 31ms (64-8 interleave depth.)
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 15:20:50
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: 4M2] [link to this post]
 
A good reason we call it latency, its a small TCP packet latency, so ping/traceroute values will be lower

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 15:23:14
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: smurf46] [link to this post]
 
That fits as of the few running it most were on mobile - though that PlusNet test if I recall was windows 7

With Flash you were reliant more on Adobe code which was a little more consistent (usually) but with new version quirks of browsers are much more common, for the large browsers a lot of time has gone into addressing them. Currently waiting to see how long for competitors to catch up on some recent changes too.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Wed 17-May-17 09:34:19
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
A good reason we call it latency, its a small TCP packet latency, so ping/traceroute values will be lower
A very interesting statement! So for your test I assume you mean that you send several KB of data and see how long that takes? (Even on a basic 10Mbps connection the transmission time difference between a full TCP packet of 1400 bytes and a ICMP packet of 74 bytes will be a less than a mllisecond.)
Standard User 4M2
(knowledge is power) Wed 17-May-17 13:52:21
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
Interesting stuff smile

Compare this:

~$ ping -s 1464 -c1 distrowatch.com
PING distrowatch.com (82.103.136.226) 1464(1492) bytes of data.
1472 bytes from e82-103-136-226s.easyspeedy.com (82.103.136.226): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=66.5 ms

--- distrowatch.com ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 66.525/66.525/66.525/0.000 ms

and


~$ mtr distrowatch.com --report
Start: Wed May 17 13:23:52 2017
HOST: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Loss% Sent Last Avg Best Wrst StDev


12.|-- e82-103-136-226s.easyspee 0.0% 10 52.1 52.9 51.4 61.9 3.1
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Wed 17-May-17 15:03:12
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
That is what the theory says and I can only share what we see from observation means that while high TCP latency usually indicates high periods of ICMP latency the two numbers can be different absolute values with the ICMP generally being lower.

Also as 'ping' usually implies ICMP echo to most people I was being open and upfront by saying small TCP packet.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 17-May-17 22:08:02
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Also as 'ping' usually implies ICMP echo to most people I was being open and upfront by saying small TCP packet.

Could go one worse and call it a "gaming style ping" !!!

http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp...

wink

plusnet unlimited fibre 80/20 since 2 Jun 14 - Sync as of 9th Apr 17: 56,605/9,592 kbps with G.INP
18 years of UK broadband since 1999 ntl:cable modem trial - Asus RT-AC68U and HG612 - BQM
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 18-May-17 09:43:48
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
For those worried about the grades http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest now has an analysis button and shows the individual latency measurements and a couple of other new bits

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Thu 18-May-17 12:59:43
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
is it possible to have the grade show without analysis been clicked?

I noticed now I have to click analysis to see the grade. I like of course the extra information tho. smile

Also the quality score seems a bit whacked?

"Quality at 228.83 is worse than the average 1.51 on your ISP using VDSL2/FTTC " It may have happened as I noticed the start of the speed graph was about 1.2gbit/sec then dropped to my actual speed, I guess thats why I had the weird quality score?

--edit--

confirmed smile second test didnt have the spike and now get this

"Quality at 1.00 is better than the average 1.51 on your ISP using VDSL2/FTTC"

Only got a B grade for download on second test as first latency check spiked high, does that mean I need to work on my QoS setup or I should blame tbb tongue

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 18-May-17 13:03:54)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 18-May-17 13:41:39
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
Spiking is something am looking at, and by exposing the score to individuals we'll get more feedback as people raise their oddities (theory is that the adverts are causing a side-effect, this is not affecting speed figures but makes graphs a bit odd at start and skews quality), was not noticeable so much on old site format even with same speed test code.

On the A-F grade do I worry if I get C grades no - it just reminds me that if doing multi-gig downloads don't also expect my uploads or gaming traffic to be totally unaffected.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User ian007jen
(experienced) Fri 19-May-17 08:15:20
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
The "Back to Main Graphs" button does not seem to work
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Fri 19-May-17 09:51:21
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: ian007jen] [link to this post]
 
Browser and platform?

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User LightFantastic
(newbie) Fri 19-May-17 10:04:22
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: ian007jen] [link to this post]
 
'Back to Main Graphs' button also not working for me.

Firefox 53.0.2 running on Windows 10 Pro 64 bit.

Tried it on IE 11 and works okay on that.

Edited by LightFantastic (Fri 19-May-17 10:04:48)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Fri 19-May-17 12:38:31
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: LightFantastic] [link to this post]
 
And is if by magic it is now working

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User deviousiphone
(newbie) Fri 19-May-17 12:59:14
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
If you want to deal with bufferbloat properly then you will need to put your virgin hub into modem mode and get yourself a decent router with QOS, this will protect you from buffer bloat by prioritising packets entering the buffer and prevent any lagging too far behind, in reality I don't think you need to be worrying about this at all by the sound of your usage, and if you have the Hub3 you will be stuck with a certain amount of lag from the Puma 6 CPU bug anyway and you won't get around that, however from what your saying that doesn't cause any noticeable problems for you, so my suggestion would be to just stick with what you have, bufferbloat shouldn't be a noticeable problem to you from the description you have provided.
Standard User LightFantastic
(newbie) Fri 19-May-17 13:11:30
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
And is if by magic it is now working
Yep, the magic fairies have been along and fixed it. wink
Standard User ian007jen
(experienced) Fri 19-May-17 20:22:29
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Working now (ChromeOS)
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to