Does speedtest.net post accurate results?

[mollda]

Checking my speed on speednet.test and am getting download speeds of around 12. I'm on broadband L 10Mb so am pleasantly surprised. Not sure if I'm getting faster speeds from virgin or if the results are accurate from speedtest.

www.speedtest.net/result/1363668913.png

[kwikbreaks]

Some AV products can give false results (Kaspersky is/was well known for this and I think the free VM AV is based on Kaspersky).

You won't be getting faster than your config file permits and if you are on L that will be 10Mbps.

[mollda]

Ok thanks, thought for a minute that VM were giving me extra speed for nothing.

[horseman]

Ok thanks, thought for a minute that VM were giving me extra speed for nothing.

What do you get if you try something like VisualWare (UDP) Capacity test (ie take TCP overheads out of the equation)?:
http://mcslhr.visualware.com/myspeed/mycapacity_10mb.html

eg:

[qasdfdsaq]

Ooh I like this. Definitely gotta add that to my toolbox, my server host giving me grief with my own UDP test.

Honestly, a UDP test is as far as I'm concerned the only accurate and correct way of doing a speed test, though I've never found a decent automated one before. This is superb. Simply The. Best. Speedtest. Ever.

On another note, VM seem to prioritize UDP traffic (I think) so it's a good measure of how your "last mile" DOCSIS link is performing too.

[Edit]

I cannot stress how amazing this tool is. As long as their capacity remains good, this could well be the best connection speed diagnostic tool in existence.

[TJS]

Ooh I like this. Definitely gotta add that to my toolbox, my server host giving me grief with my own UDP test.

Honestly, a UDP test is as far as I'm concerned the only accurate and correct way of doing a speed test, though I've never found a decent automated one before. This is superb. Simply The. Best. Speedtest. Ever.

On another note, VM seem to prioritize UDP traffic (I think) so it's a good measure of how your "last mile" DOCSIS link is performing too.

[Edit]

I cannot stress how amazing this tool is. As long as their capacity remains good, this could well be the best connection speed diagnostic tool in existence.

Agreed, seems very accurate :)

http://mcslhr.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1153309 (http://mcslhr.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1153309)

[Failswitch]

Some AV products can give false results (Kaspersky is/was well known for this and I think the free VM AV is based on Kaspersky)..

There is no need to scare monger. I've been using Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2011 since August 2010 and have yet to come across a speedtest I've done where Kaspersky has adversly affected it.

Kaspersky Internet Security and Kaspersky Anti-Virus are two completetly different products from the same vendor. The former applications' engine is licensed by Virgin Media so please do some research before taking knocks at a perfectly good AV solution.

[qasdfdsaq]

He wasn't taking knocks. It's well known Kaspersky (many versions) affect speedtest results, including making Speedtest.net jump to 200mbps or more on a 20mb line. Speedtest.net have a admitted this and introducted a workaround, many other sites are still affected.

Both the KIS and KAV engines have this effect. Please don't attack others when they post accurate information especially when you don't have a clue.

[horseman]

Ooh I like this. …..
On another note, VM seem to prioritize UDP traffic (I think) so it's a good measure of how your "last mile" DOCSIS link is performing too.
…..I cannot stress how amazing this tool is. As long as their capacity remains good, this could well be the best connection speed diagnostic tool in existence.

Hmmm - interested to see your evidence to support UDP "prioritisation"….. aside from relative effect of comparing it with protocol shaping on p2p/file sharing that is….. ;)

….and remember like any "test" it still relies on efficacy of VM's peering/transit link choices…..

You might want to experiment with VW's Maidenhead and Dallas servers just to see for yourself perhaps? Here's suitable XXL capacity test links:
Maidenhead >http://mcs.lushsoft.com/myspeed/mycapacity_50mb.html

Dallas > http://mcssjc.visualware.com/myspeed/mycapacity_50mb.html

See if you discover any correlation with Dallas & London? ….but then perhaps find that Maidenhead is a little tardy…… or not?

…anyway - have fun!…… ;)

EDIT:
Agreed, seems very accurate :)

http://mcslhr.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1153309 (http://mcslhr.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1153309)

Interesting upstream stats - just out of academic curiosity I don't suppose you're serviced via a Motorola BSR 64k CMTS are you?

[qasdfdsaq]

The only evidence I have is doing a HTTP, TLS or SFTP download test with 10-20 streams may only hit 20mbps while sending a single 50mbps UDP stream results in 50mbps data received with minimal loss.

i.e. TCP = ~2mbps per stream, UDP = 50mbps per stream.

[TJS]

Hmmm - interested to see your evidence to support UDP "prioritisation"….. aside from relative effect of comparing it with protocol shaping on p2p/file sharing that is….. ;)

….and remember like any "test" it still relies on efficacy of VM's peering/transit link choices…..

You might want to experiment with VW's Maidenhead and Dallas servers just to see for yourself perhaps? Here's suitable XXL capacity test links:
Maidenhead >http://mcs.lushsoft.com/myspeed/mycapacity_50mb.html

Dallas > http://mcssjc.visualware.com/myspeed/mycapacity_50mb.html

See if you discover any correlation with Dallas & London? ….but then perhaps find that Maidenhead is a little tardy…… or not?

…anyway - have fun!…… ;)

EDIT:


Interesting upstream stats - just out of academic curiosity I don't suppose you're serviced via a Motorola BSR 64k CMTS are you?

Interesting good or interesting bad? LOL

How do i find out about this? :) If its any help here are the modem stats.

http://imgur.com/a/OTe94

[qasdfdsaq]

3 DS channels. Bingo.

[TJS]

3 DS channels. Bingo.

Which is the better cmts motorola or cisco? :)

[SMG]

I have just tried the "Line capacity test", the results are spot on with speedtest.net & a few others.

[Failswitch]

He wasn't taking knocks. It's well known Kaspersky (many versions) affect speedtest results, including making Speedtest.net jump to 200mbps or more on a 20mb line. Speedtest.net have a admitted this and introducted a workaround, many other sites are still affected.

Both the KIS and KAV engines have this effect. Please don't attack others when they post accurate information especially when you don't have a clue.

You should cite your sources or provide proof rather than make sweeping statements. I regularly run speedtests with KAV running and have done so for years without Kaspersky affecting the results so I think it's you who obviously doesn't have a clue between the two products.

[qasdfdsaq]

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Kaspersky+Speedtest

http://blog.ookla.com/2011/05/02/the-kaspersky-effect/

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=151143&st=0&p=1216815 (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=151143&st=0&p=1216815&#entry1216815)

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=159895&st=0&p=1283685

So, confirmed by Google, Speedtest.net's makers, and Kaspersky's own moderators. Proof is all over the place if your lazy ass could only be bothered to look for it. I'd quote my own tests too but you seem like the kind of guy who's too ignorant to listen either way.

[horseman]

Which is the better cmts motorola or cisco? :)

With VM's current configuration :
3 d/s bonded channels = Cisco 10012
4 d/s bonded channels = Motorola BSR 64000

Which is better for what?

BSR 64k is newer kit and can utilise TX32 decoupled downstream modules and RX48 decoupled upstream modules which can gives better flexibility for scalable expansion, smaller physical,power consumption and improved cost/bandwidth profiles.

However it depends on when and how much VM are deploying - you need someone like Igni to give a more authoritative and comprehensive outline of what is out there and how VM are likely to utilise it…..

I only asked whether you might be on Moto kit because of the flat delay line on your u/s capacity that seemed (in my very limited experience) uncharacteristic of Cisco, but obviously the u/s load on your port must presumably be (very) low….. ;)

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------

The only evidence I have is doing a HTTP, TLS or SFTP download test with 10-20 streams may only hit 20mbps while sending a single 50mbps UDP stream results in 50mbps data received with minimal loss.

i.e. TCP = ~2mbps per stream, UDP = 50mbps per stream.

….and just to "muddy-the-waters" further a significant difference between single and multistreamed test could also be indicative of congestion! ;)

[TJS]

With VM's current configuration :
3 d/s bonded channels = Cisco 10012
4 d/s bonded channels = Motorola BSR 64000

Which is better for what?

BSR 64k is newer kit and can utilise TX32 decoupled downstream modules and RX48 decoupled upstream modules which can gives better flexibility for scalable expansion, smaller physical,power consumption and improved cost/bandwidth profiles.

However it depends on when and how much VM are deploying - you need someone like Igni to give a more authoritative and comprehensive outline of what is out there and how VM are likely to utilise it…..

I only asked whether you might be on Moto kit because of the flat delay line on your u/s capacity that seemed (in my very limited experience) uncharacteristic of Cisco, but obviously the u/s load on your port must presumably be (very) low….. ;)

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------



….and just to "muddy-the-waters" further a significant difference between single and multistreamed test could also be indicative of congestion! ;)

thats quite interesting, I presume my area will be moved to motorola when the 100 mb comes here?

Also what was interesting about my upload stats earlier on in the thread; I'm curious!

[Failswitch]

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Kaspersky+Speedtest

http://blog.ookla.com/2011/05/02/the-kaspersky-effect/

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=151143&st=0&p=1216815 (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=151143&st=0&p=1216815&#entry1216815)

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=159895&st=0&p=1283685

So, confirmed by Google, Speedtest.net's makers, and Kaspersky's own moderators. Proof is all over the place if your lazy ass could only be bothered to look for it. I'd quote my own tests too but you seem like the kind of guy who's too ignorant to listen either way.

Once again if you actually bothered to read what you linked to the issue is down to Kaspersky Internet Security and it's network traffic scanning module and has nothing to do with Kaspersky Anti-Virus.

Admin edit (Chris) - Do not discuss the reputation system in threads.

[qasdfdsaq]

Once again if you actually bothered to read what you linked to the issue is down to Kaspersky Internet Security and it's network traffic scanning module and has nothing to do with Kaspersky Anti-Virus.

What I linked to:

If I try a internet speedtest (any speedtest) e.g. http://speedtest.fullrate.dk/ I optain a very odd results if I don't disable KAV 9.0.0.736? I use Windows 7 Pro.hello
yes, because of the buffering process through kav's proxy.http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/tkav.png (http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/kav.png)
You fail. But then again, Fail is half your name, so I should have seen it coming.

[Chris]

Thread closed while I deal with members who can't abide by the forum rules.

Flee before my mighty frack hammer.