Hi,
Here's an interesting video that we didn't get to show on the Developer Summit.
This is me with my Nexus 5 (Android 6) on 2G in Spain loading en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1w0EcuiUjo
Write your own conclusions, hopefully this will make us think.
If you can set your device from your country to 2G and try it out on an incognito window (cold cache) and share the results, I would be very interested to see if your experience is the same as mine.
Cheers, Joaquin
Would you mind sharing your own conclusions?
I understand that it is a pain to say the least, but I can't think of any simple way to fix this without removing content from the page. Also, Nexus 5 has decent hardware, right? It can get much worse than that, which would likely slow it down even more or even make it impossible to see the page.
How does it perform with a high speed connection?
Without actually trying this, I dont think anyone should be surprised that loading an HD video on 2g mobile is going to suck and that a site that dynamically adapts the video to your bandwidth constraints is going to be much better. Even with a super fast internet, the youtube video will still be better if the size of the video is too much to handle.
While there is many interesting things happening in video right now, afaik they are not deployed/finished yet, and the current state of video on wikimedia as currently deployed, particularly video on the mobile site, is not even trying.
-- Bawolff
On Monday, January 11, 2016, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < jhernandez@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
Here's an interesting video that we didn't get to show on the Developer Summit.
This is me with my Nexus 5 (Android 6) on 2G in Spain loading en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1w0EcuiUjo
Write your own conclusions, hopefully this will make us think.
If you can set your device from your country to 2G and try it out on an incognito window (cold cache) and share the results, I would be very interested to see if your experience is the same as mine.
Cheers, Joaquin _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Brian, you seem off. Do you know that we are talking about loading the Obama page, right?
To be clear Joaquin is asking people to record their experiences on 2G connections of loading the Barack Obama article it is not about displaying video. It would also be interesting for people to try the experience on their desktop browser using 2g and record those experiences as many people around the world connect to our desktop site on 2g.
We can and should do better. On 12 Jan 2016 7:58 a.m., "Bernardo Sulzbach" mafagafogigante@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, you seem off. Do you know that we are talking about loading the Obama page, right?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
My apologies. I guess I read the original email too fast.
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach mafagafogigante@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, you seem off. Do you know that we are talking about loading the Obama page, right?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Sure Bernardo, happy to share.
This was the best take I got from around 4 runs. I have other video that I haven't uploaded that goes on for 4 minutes and tries to close chrome 3 times (it is painful and boring to watch).
With high speed connections I haven't experienced this behaviour, the worst I've experienced have been around 1s-2s of locked browser (not being able to interact at all) but it quickly recovers and it doesn't show the unresponsive app dialog.
I tried diagnosing using chrome developer tools connected to the device but the timeline profiles I recorded didn't show anything really evident (and it should, since it spent 20s blocked). It was pretty confusing, and my best guess is that the sheer size of the HTML (ungzipping, parsing, laying it out, etc) (+1mb of html for B. Obama), and the 100+ images that are being fetched (both the network requests, and the multiple (slow) streams of image data that need to be decoded by the phone) are somehow creating a huge bottleneck on the phone's CPU.
I'm thinking of repeating the experiment disabling images and see what difference it makes, to find out if it is the multiple images being decoded in parallel really slowly (because of network speed).
You're right Bernardo in that Nexus5 is supposed to be a good phone (not the best, but "modern" for sure), that's why I asked if more people could try doing the same thing and reporting back.
I'll also try to run the same experiment with different devices (got a few of old ones for testing), that should yield interesting results.
As far as my conclusions go, we need more data from real tests on real devices, and to really care more about this, given the industry numbers and predictions around 2G ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Paradigm.pdf&page=8)
I'll report back when I get around to testing more!
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies. I guess I read the original email too fast.
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com
wrote:
Brian, you seem off. Do you know that we are talking about loading the Obama page, right?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Thanks, Joaquin. I image how tiresome waiting 3 minutes of loading (for a web page!) must be.
I just hope that no one decides that this makes a good reason for "splitting" the Obama article. I would expect more improvements from the browser itself, more on-the-fly rendering of the page as you get data.
I've seen forum threads (think about GitHub issues) reach gargantuan sizes (way more than a mebibyte). I think it is the browser's job to handle these scenarios.
Can you clarify what you consider "splitting"? I'm interested in knowing more.
I'm of the opinion that there's only so much that browsers can do, there's ways of serving the content like lazy loading that still get you the full content but help the browser do less work.
I also think that it's responsible to use those techniques where required (low end network conditions on underpowered devices like phones, for example) as long as the experience is not broken (which needs careful implementation and consideration!).
Whatever we need to reach as much people as we can! (and make google not redirect wikipedia to googleweblight on certain countries)
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bernardo Sulzbach < mafagafogigante@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Joaquin. I image how tiresome waiting 3 minutes of loading (for a web page!) must be.
I just hope that no one decides that this makes a good reason for "splitting" the Obama article. I would expect more improvements from the browser itself, more on-the-fly rendering of the page as you get data.
I've seen forum threads (think about GitHub issues) reach gargantuan sizes (way more than a mebibyte). I think it is the browser's job to handle these scenarios.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
A section that looks only loosely related to the article could get an article of its own to make the article shorter. Literally, splitting it into multiple articles. However, I think that does not make sense in this case.
I understand, thanks for the response!
I don't think in any case any implementation would mean splitting article content in the sense you mentioned here. As you said, it doesn't make sense.
Cheers!
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Bernardo Sulzbach < mafagafogigante@gmail.com> wrote:
A section that looks only loosely related to the article could get an article of its own to make the article shorter. Literally, splitting it into multiple articles. However, I think that does not make sense in this case.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I'm allergic to videos as replacement of data, but does your video substantially differ from what tests give us, e.g. http://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=160118_YK_HKT.1.0 ?
It's easy to test multiple speeds (some tests still pending): http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=160118_AZ_JH3,160118_VB_J...
Some of the tests show significant CPU usage after the "everything and a kitchen sink" ResourceLoader phase in which some stuff for CentralNotice, Gather etc. etc. is loaded.
Mainly, the issue is to pick representative connections. There is some official data, some of which based on actual tests by probes, although it's limited: * https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality-broadband-services-eu (no mobile) * https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/use-commercial-mobile-networks-a... (needs some parsing!)
Nemo
I like videos because it's so easy for non technical people to understand the value of performance. For me it has been a really good way to show and explain performance changes and what it looks like for the user.
Picking a representative connection is hard and the good thing is I think we don't need to. Connections in the real world vary so much: You could have 3G but a really bad connection to the nearest station because there's a lot of other phones connected etc. We have tests running with real connections 2G/3G from Bangalore and LTE in San Francisco, you can check it out how it looks here: https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=30&... I really like that graph because it shows how much variances you can have on the same connection type from the same location. Check out how it looks like in Bangalore.
When we throttle the connection for WebPageTest (or other tools) we don't get that type of variations, we just use hard coded values for a specific connection. And that's good, because it makes it possible for us to measure improvements so that when we do fixes, we can easily see if it makes it better or worse. Picking a slow connection like 2G is good because then it is easier to spot what impact we get from our changes.
I like automated testing with real devices, we have automatic tests up and running with a Iphone 6, Ipad Mini and Motorola G (using the ones provided in WebPageTest) and it looks like this: https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&...
You can click on the each row in the table to only show one graph, that makes it easier to see what numbers we have. Click on Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.render and you can see that the start rendering time (when something is first showed on the screen) is pretty stable for the Iphone 6 but if you choose Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.SpeedIndex (SpeedIndex is a way of calculate when content within the viewport is visible for the end user) vary a lot. The thing is that we only have limited access to automated tests with real phones (we don't have anything setup for ourselves). So we use it now to just get a feeling of what it looks like on real devices.
Most IMPORTANT: When we measure performance it is important that we always do it exactly the same way, so we try to limit the changes to as few as possible (=our code change). Using WebPageTest I think it's ok to use Mobile 2G Fast, emulating mobile using Chrome. When we run the automated tests in Jenkins we test each URL 5 times, it seems to be pretty stable. Our tests will not give us the same numbers as the users gets, but it will give us constant numbers so that we can see that the changes we do impact the site. When we push these changes to production we can hopefully pick them up with our RUM metrics.
One last thing: We will not pickup things as CPU usage faking real devices but to do that, I think we need to look at another tool than WebPageTest to do that correctly. Do we have one already?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm allergic to videos as replacement of data, but does your video substantially differ from what tests give us, e.g. http://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=160118_YK_HKT.1.0 ?
It's easy to test multiple speeds (some tests still pending): http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=160118_AZ_JH3,160118_VB_J...
Some of the tests show significant CPU usage after the "everything and a kitchen sink" ResourceLoader phase in which some stuff for CentralNotice, Gather etc. etc. is loaded.
Mainly, the issue is to pick representative connections. There is some official data, some of which based on actual tests by probes, although it's limited:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality-broadband-services-eu (no mobile)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/use-commercial-mobile-networks-a... (needs some parsing!)
Nemo
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Thanks for the responses Federico & Peter.
Federico, I fully agree that a video is not a replacement for data, but they serve different purposes. Peter expanded on it better than I what I could do, but basically data driven tests serve a great deal for development purposes to assessing impact of changes since they give us a controlled environment to see the impact of changes trying to improve performance.
The reality is a lot messier and hard to measure, and I find it greatly useful to see real experiences on real devices, where the network conditions vary a lot, and there are multiple applications/services competing for CPU and bandwidth on the device, making the experience completely different to what it is on the numbers that the performance tests provide.
Surely it is anecdotal data, but it is an anecdotal experience that a lot of people probably experience, so I end up caring about it.
---
Thanks Peter for the links and the thoughtful response. Great points and advice. I didn't know about that dashboard, it is great!
What are the units on the Y axis here for example? https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&... I'm guessing they can be milliseconds?
One last thing: We will not pickup things as CPU usage faking real devices
but to do that, I think we need to look at another tool than WebPageTest to do that correctly. Do we have one already?
Not that I know of, we were thinking about doing some searching to see what we could find. It would be a great addition to have.
Joaquin
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Peter Hedenskog peter@wikimedia.org wrote:
I like videos because it's so easy for non technical people to understand the value of performance. For me it has been a really good way to show and explain performance changes and what it looks like for the user.
Picking a representative connection is hard and the good thing is I think we don't need to. Connections in the real world vary so much: You could have 3G but a really bad connection to the nearest station because there's a lot of other phones connected etc. We have tests running with real connections 2G/3G from Bangalore and LTE in San Francisco, you can check it out how it looks here:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=30&... I really like that graph because it shows how much variances you can have on the same connection type from the same location. Check out how it looks like in Bangalore.
When we throttle the connection for WebPageTest (or other tools) we don't get that type of variations, we just use hard coded values for a specific connection. And that's good, because it makes it possible for us to measure improvements so that when we do fixes, we can easily see if it makes it better or worse. Picking a slow connection like 2G is good because then it is easier to spot what impact we get from our changes.
I like automated testing with real devices, we have automatic tests up and running with a Iphone 6, Ipad Mini and Motorola G (using the ones provided in WebPageTest) and it looks like this:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&...
You can click on the each row in the table to only show one graph, that makes it easier to see what numbers we have. Click on Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.render and you can see that the start rendering time (when something is first showed on the screen) is pretty stable for the Iphone 6 but if you choose Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.SpeedIndex (SpeedIndex is a way of calculate when content within the viewport is visible for the end user) vary a lot. The thing is that we only have limited access to automated tests with real phones (we don't have anything setup for ourselves). So we use it now to just get a feeling of what it looks like on real devices.
Most IMPORTANT: When we measure performance it is important that we always do it exactly the same way, so we try to limit the changes to as few as possible (=our code change). Using WebPageTest I think it's ok to use Mobile 2G Fast, emulating mobile using Chrome. When we run the automated tests in Jenkins we test each URL 5 times, it seems to be pretty stable. Our tests will not give us the same numbers as the users gets, but it will give us constant numbers so that we can see that the changes we do impact the site. When we push these changes to production we can hopefully pick them up with our RUM metrics.
One last thing: We will not pickup things as CPU usage faking real devices but to do that, I think we need to look at another tool than WebPageTest to do that correctly. Do we have one already?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm allergic to videos as replacement of data, but does your video substantially differ from what tests give us, e.g. http://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=160118_YK_HKT.1.0 ?
It's easy to test multiple speeds (some tests still pending):
http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=160118_AZ_JH3,160118_VB_J...
Some of the tests show significant CPU usage after the "everything and a kitchen sink" ResourceLoader phase in which some stuff for CentralNotice, Gather etc. etc. is loaded.
Mainly, the issue is to pick representative connections. There is some official data, some of which based on actual tests by probes, although
it's
limited:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality-broadband-services-eu
(no mobile)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/use-commercial-mobile-networks-a...
(needs some parsing!)
Nemo
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&...
I'm guessing they can be milliseconds?
yes sorry I forgot to change that, now it is easier to understand.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < jhernandez@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Thanks for the responses Federico & Peter.
Federico, I fully agree that a video is not a replacement for data, but they serve different purposes. Peter expanded on it better than I what I could do, but basically data driven tests serve a great deal for development purposes to assessing impact of changes since they give us a controlled environment to see the impact of changes trying to improve performance.
The reality is a lot messier and hard to measure, and I find it greatly useful to see real experiences on real devices, where the network conditions vary a lot, and there are multiple applications/services competing for CPU and bandwidth on the device, making the experience completely different to what it is on the numbers that the performance tests provide.
Surely it is anecdotal data, but it is an anecdotal experience that a lot of people probably experience, so I end up caring about it.
Thanks Peter for the links and the thoughtful response. Great points and advice. I didn't know about that dashboard, it is great!
What are the units on the Y axis here for example?
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&... I'm guessing they can be milliseconds?
One last thing: We will not pickup things as CPU usage faking real devices
but to do that, I think we need to look at another tool than WebPageTest
to
do that correctly. Do we have one already?
Not that I know of, we were thinking about doing some searching to see what we could find. It would be a great addition to have.
Joaquin
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Peter Hedenskog peter@wikimedia.org wrote:
I like videos because it's so easy for non technical people to understand the value of performance. For me it has been a really good way to show
and
explain performance changes and what it looks like for the user.
Picking a representative connection is hard and the good thing is I think we don't need to. Connections in the real world vary so much: You could have 3G but a really bad connection to the nearest station because
there's
a lot of other phones connected etc. We have tests running with real connections 2G/3G from Bangalore and LTE in San Francisco, you can check
it
out how it looks here:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=30&...
I really like that graph because it shows how much variances you can have on the same connection type from the same location. Check out how it
looks
like in Bangalore.
When we throttle the connection for WebPageTest (or other tools) we don't get that type of variations, we just use hard coded values for a specific connection. And that's good, because it makes it possible for us to
measure
improvements so that when we do fixes, we can easily see if it makes it better or worse. Picking a slow connection like 2G is good because then
it
is easier to spot what impact we get from our changes.
I like automated testing with real devices, we have automatic tests up
and
running with a Iphone 6, Ipad Mini and Motorola G (using the ones
provided
in WebPageTest) and it looks like this:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&...
You can click on the each row in the table to only show one graph, that makes it easier to see what numbers we have. Click on Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.render and you can see that the start rendering time (when something is first showed on the screen) is pretty stable for the Iphone 6 but if you choose Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.SpeedIndex (SpeedIndex is a way of calculate when content within the viewport is visible for the end user) vary a lot. The thing is that we only have limited access to automated tests with real phones (we don't have anything setup for ourselves). So
we
use it now to just get a feeling of what it looks like on real devices.
Most IMPORTANT: When we measure performance it is important that we
always
do it exactly the same way, so we try to limit the changes to as few as possible (=our code change). Using WebPageTest I think it's ok to use Mobile 2G Fast, emulating mobile using Chrome. When we run the automated tests in Jenkins we test each URL 5 times, it seems to be pretty stable. Our tests will not give us the same numbers as the users gets, but it
will
give us constant numbers so that we can see that the changes we do impact the site. When we push these changes to production we can hopefully pick them up with our RUM metrics.
One last thing: We will not pickup things as CPU usage faking real
devices
but to do that, I think we need to look at another tool than WebPageTest
to
do that correctly. Do we have one already?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm allergic to videos as replacement of data, but does your video substantially differ from what tests give us, e.g. http://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=160118_YK_HKT.1.0 ?
It's easy to test multiple speeds (some tests still pending):
http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=160118_AZ_JH3,160118_VB_J...
Some of the tests show significant CPU usage after the "everything and
a
kitchen sink" ResourceLoader phase in which some stuff for
CentralNotice,
Gather etc. etc. is loaded.
Mainly, the issue is to pick representative connections. There is some official data, some of which based on actual tests by probes, although
it's
limited:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality-broadband-services-eu
(no mobile)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/use-commercial-mobile-networks-a...
(needs some parsing!)
Nemo
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Peter Hedenskog peter@wikimedia.org wrote:
I like videos because it's so easy for non technical people to understand the value of performance. For me it has been a really good way to show and explain performance changes and what it looks like for the user.
Linked to this, for those who might question or not understand performance work, people may want to compare the existing mobile experience on http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama with http://future-wikipedia.wmflabs.org/wiki/Barack_Obama and http://reading-web-research.wmflabs.org/wiki/Wikipedia on a real 2G connection.
I'd be interested if anyone hasn't got time to record their experience to document it as our load times vary around the world depending on how far you are from a data centre among other reasons.
Picking a representative connection is hard and the good thing is I think we don't need to. Connections in the real world vary so much: You could have 3G but a really bad connection to the nearest station because there's a lot of other phones connected etc. We have tests running with real connections 2G/3G from Bangalore and LTE in San Francisco, you can check it out how it looks here:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=30&... I really like that graph because it shows how much variances you can have on the same connection type from the same location. Check out how it looks like in Bangalore.
When we throttle the connection for WebPageTest (or other tools) we don't get that type of variations, we just use hard coded values for a specific connection. And that's good, because it makes it possible for us to measure improvements so that when we do fixes, we can easily see if it makes it better or worse. Picking a slow connection like 2G is good because then it is easier to spot what impact we get from our changes.
I like automated testing with real devices, we have automatic tests up and running with a Iphone 6, Ipad Mini and Motorola G (using the ones provided in WebPageTest) and it looks like this:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/mobile-webpagetest?panelId=28&...
You can click on the each row in the table to only show one graph, that makes it easier to see what numbers we have. Click on Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.render and you can see that the start rendering time (when something is first showed on the screen) is pretty stable for the Iphone 6 but if you choose Dulles_iPhone6_iPhone_6_iOS_9.SpeedIndex (SpeedIndex is a way of calculate when content within the viewport is visible for the end user) vary a lot. The thing is that we only have limited access to automated tests with real phones (we don't have anything setup for ourselves). So we use it now to just get a feeling of what it looks like on real devices.
Most IMPORTANT: When we measure performance it is important that we always do it exactly the same way, so we try to limit the changes to as few as possible (=our code change). Using WebPageTest I think it's ok to use Mobile 2G Fast, emulating mobile using Chrome. When we run the automated tests in Jenkins we test each URL 5 times, it seems to be pretty stable. Our tests will not give us the same numbers as the users gets, but it will give us constant numbers so that we can see that the changes we do impact the site. When we push these changes to production we can hopefully pick them up with our RUM metrics.
One last thing: We will not pickup things as CPU usage faking real devices but to do that, I think we need to look at another tool than WebPageTest to do that correctly. Do we have one already?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm allergic to videos as replacement of data, but does your video substantially differ from what tests give us, e.g. http://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=160118_YK_HKT.1.0 ?
It's easy to test multiple speeds (some tests still pending):
http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=160118_AZ_JH3,160118_VB_J...
Some of the tests show significant CPU usage after the "everything and a kitchen sink" ResourceLoader phase in which some stuff for CentralNotice, Gather etc. etc. is loaded.
Mainly, the issue is to pick representative connections. There is some official data, some of which based on actual tests by probes, although
it's
limited:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality-broadband-services-eu
(no mobile)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/use-commercial-mobile-networks-a...
(needs some parsing!)
Nemo
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org