View Full Version : NTL Speeds and Throttling
glenhill
09-03-2006, 19:52
Hi,
I have noticed since the weekend my internet experience is alot slower and any downloads aren't nearing anywhere what they use to.
I ahve the 2mb line and when I go to speakeasy to do a speed test it does register around 1.9mb.
Anyone else having similar problems?
Graham M
09-03-2006, 23:59
Nope. Click the Speed Test in the NavBar at the top of the forums and paste your results here
Mine seems about right.
1st 512K took 4407 ms = 116.2 KB/sec, approx 957 Kbps, 0.93 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6379 ms = 80.3 KB/sec, approx 662 Kbps, 0.65 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4286 ms = 119.5 KB/sec, approx 985 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
4th 512K took 6119 ms = 83.7 KB/sec, approx 690 Kbps, 0.67 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 824 Kbps, 0.8 Mbps
1 Mb/s connection.
Chrysalis
10-03-2006, 21:58
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:57:58 GMT
1st 512K took 2453 ms = 208.7 KB/sec, approx 1720 Kbps, 1.68 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1594 ms = 321.2 KB/sec, approx 2647 Kbps, 2.58 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1843 ms = 277.8 KB/sec, approx 2289 Kbps, 2.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 1829 ms = 279.9 KB/sec, approx 2306 Kbps, 2.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2241 Kbps, 2.19 Mbps
now you know why I kept my profile to 2meg.
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:55:26 UTC
1st 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
These results appear to be rather fast: maybe this page was in the browser cache.
Chrysalis
11-03-2006, 00:26
shaping diagnosis friday 10 march - all tests are single threaded conducted on a almost idle connection only irc and msn using traffic.
11.10 pm
ntlworld.com speedtest http 525kB/sec
100mbit .de ftp server telia hosted 290kB/sec
10mbit .nl ftp server layeredtech hosted non standard ftp port 170kB/sec
10mbit .uk ftp server leased line 1:1 non standard ftp port 443kB/sec
100mbit .us ftp server steadfast hosted non standard ftp port 163kB/sec
11.45pm
ntlworld.com speedtest http 456kB/sec
100mbit .de ftp server telia hosted 242kB/sec
10mbit .nl ftp server layeredtech hosted non standard ftp port 292kB/sec
10mbit .uk ftp server leased line 1:1 non standard ftp port 250kB/sec
100mbit .us ftp server steadfast hosted non standard ftp port 133kB/sec
12.15am
ntlworld.com speedtest http 436kB/sec
100mbit .de ftp server telia hosted 469kB/sec
10mbit .nl ftp server layeredtech hosted non standard ftp port 423kB/sec
10mbit .uk ftp server leased line 1:1 non standard ftp port 430kB/sec
100mbit .us ftp server steadfast hosted non standard ftp port 135kB/sec
notes the .nl 10mbit server is under load I only checked on the last test but was pushing 700kB out so when I got my 400 it would have been maxed.
the .uk server was only pushing 1mbit so max possible was 9mbit
both 100mbit servers were capable of a 10mbit xfer.
steadfast is over my much loved level3 and is nearly always poor to my connection.
the telia and .nl were both obviously faster at 12.15 and my shaping suspicions have been for .eu traffic to manage peering saturation.
shaping diagnosis Friday 10 march - all tests are single threaded conducted on a almost idle connection only irc and msn using traffic.
11.10 pm
ntlworld.com speed test http 525kB/sec
100mbit .de ftp server telia hosted 290kB/sec
10mbit .nl ftp server layertech hosted non standard ftp port 170kB/sec
10mbit .uk ftp server leased line 1:1 non standard ftp port 443kB/sec
100mbit .us ftp server steadfast hosted non standard ftp port 163kB/sec
11.45pm
ntlworld.com speed test http 456kB/sec
100mbit .de ftp server telia hosted 242kB/sec
10mbit .nl ftp server layertech hosted non standard ftp port 292kB/sec
10mbit .uk ftp server leased line 1:1 non standard ftp port 250kB/sec
100mbit .us ftp server steadfast hosted non standard ftp port 133kB/sec
12.15am
ntlworld.com speed test http 436kB/sec
100mbit .de ftp server telia hosted 469kB/sec
10mbit .nl ftp server layertech hosted non standard ftp port 423kB/sec
10mbit .uk ftp server leased line 1:1 non standard ftp port 430kB/sec
100mbit .us ftp server steadfast hosted non standard ftp port 135kB/sec
notes the .nl 10mbit server is under load I only checked on the last test but was pushing 700kB out so when I got my 400 it would have been maxed.
the .uk server was only pushing 1mbit so max possible was 9mbit
both 100mbit servers were capable of a 10mbit xfer.
steadfast is over my much loved level3 and is nearly always poor to my connection.
the telia and .nl were both obviously faster at 12.15 and my shaping suspicions have been for .eu traffic to manage peering saturation.
Interesting results.
Well thankfully i will not have to suffer this much longer, I am now waiting for my BT line to be activated and then i can see if BE are ready in my exchange. upto 24 meg unlimited at £24.99 beats upto 2 meg unlimited at £24.99. "i expect to get about 11 to 14 meg on the connection as i am 2.3 km from the exchange". 10 meg 75gig for £34.00 just does not cut the mustard.
etccarmageddon
11-03-2006, 10:27
do these speed results prove traffic shaping is happening?
Ignition
11-03-2006, 10:43
do these speed results prove traffic shaping is happening?
No.
Dunno about throttling, but here in south Manchester we've also been experiencing slow access for at least a week - vv slow on Tuesday night - sites taking long time to respond or giving timeout errors (including cable forum ..).
Speed tests are all showing either 1.9 Mb or >2Mb on a 2Mb line so presumably no real problems once a connection is made.
Is this a network problem or a contention issue?
Cheers,
Pete
DaggaDagga
11-03-2006, 10:59
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:57:56 UTC
1st 512K took 609 ms = 840.7 KB/sec, approx 6927 Kbps, 6.76 Mbps
2nd 512K took 609 ms = 840.7 KB/sec, approx 6927 Kbps, 6.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8052 Kbps, 7.86 Mbps
Looks pretty acceptable to me. As long as it's >5Mbps then it's probably worth the extra tenner a month. Not sure though...
etccarmageddon
11-03-2006, 11:27
tuesday night's problems were down to a denial of service attack on the NTL servers.
Ive had enough of south manchester ntl, someone wants throttling thats for sure.
do these speed results prove traffic shaping is happening?
No.
To be honest i dont care anymore i am changing provider. I myself find it unacceptable to see my speeds drop dramaticaly between 6pm and midnight. Even my 2 meg is slowing down now. :mad: If its not traffic shaping then its contention both are just as bad.
Maybe they should use some of the extra money they will now be extracting on there customer service phones lines to buy some more equiptment. Its ok those of you that jump stright in and say my connection is this good, Might it be there are not that many users on your UBR. Come to my area and see if you get the same speeds. I have just about had enough of paying for a service that is in my area going down the pan fast.
Bill, I'm not sure if you're on Warrington or Stockton Heath but there's plenty of info over at SamKnows:
http://samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=LVWAR
http://samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=LVSTK
I'm getting fed up to... why should i pay for the 10mb when i cant even get over 3mb download?? heres the speed test.... speaks for its self... this is the quickest its been all week!:mad:
at, 11 Mar 2006 11:38:20 GMT
1st 512K took 16484 ms = 31.1 KB/sec, approx 256 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
2nd 512K took 19672 ms = 26 KB/sec, approx 214 Kbps, 0.21 Mbps
3rd 512K took 13375 ms = 38.3 KB/sec, approx 316 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
4th 512K took 8375 ms = 61.1 KB/sec, approx 503 Kbps, 0.49 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 322 Kbps, 0.32 Mbps
Bill, I'm not sure if you're on Warrington or Stockton Heath but there's plenty of info over at SamKnows:
http://samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=LVWAR
http://samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=LVSTK
I come under Warrington Not Stockton Heath
Dam
Local loop unbundling presence
Be: RFS date set: 31/08/2006
Bulldog: Enabled
Easynet: Enabled
HomeChoice: Not available
Node4: Not available
Edge Telecom: Not available
Wanadoo: Not available
Zen Internet: Not available
Will have to wait a while for BE. They are the only supplier of ADSL i will trust at the moment. Have seen there kit in the aston exchange :drool:
Well i've already changed isp, and the ntl staff did'nt try to push me into staying.
They offered to send out another engineer, but reading on here it seems to something more. :(
chrispuk2004
11-03-2006, 13:53
We should pay 'upto' £24.99 and 'upto' £34.99 depending on how we feel the speed has been throughout the month... that would get them quickly trying to find a resolution.
Chrysalis, if quadplay says there is no throttling I don't see why you should doubt him.
From your results, I'd like to know how you diagnose it from local congestion, congestion across to the destination and throttling.
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:21:24 UTC
1st 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
Second result ^ First had a 6xxx and 8xxx result so I discredited it ;)
---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:23:04 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9650 Kbps, 9.42 Mbps
Ignition
11-03-2006, 14:24
Chrysalis, if quadplay says there is no throttling I don't see why you should doubt him.
I discredited the part where he claimed there wasn't the capability, this is untrue.
Can you discredit whether they are throttling or not?
I'll have to eat my hat if you do :)
chrispuk2004
11-03-2006, 14:55
on the speed test im still getting 0.5mbps
Well maybe Quadplay can shed some light as to why this is happening?
I thought my connection was just bad because it is. NTL can fit modems till the end of time, and send out engineers to look at signal strength, and still its hopeless.
Either they dont know how to fix it, or they cant? Its a shame they never admit there's ever a real problem when its obvious on here, there is. :(
Well maybe Madplay can shed some light as to why this is happening?
I thought my connection was just bad because it is. NTL can fit modems till the end of time, and send out engineers to look at signal strength, and still its hopeless.
Either they dont know how to fix it, or they cant? Its a shame they never admit there's ever a real problem when its obvious on here, there is. :(
Funny, I think i have got someones back up
I have just received a phone call on my mobile from someone who knows me well and works for NTL. Seems the reason my area is so bad is that my UBR is due a reseg and move to a new UBR in the headend ?. He told me that they are NOT traffic shaping in my area or in any other area "the jury is out on that one for reasons i will keep to my self at the moment". He has told me my area will be sorted shortly. So i will give them till the end of March if no improvement by then that's it there will be fireworks :LOL:. I will still be activating the BT line just in case.
monkey2468
11-03-2006, 18:27
There is a lot of reseg work going on all the time at the moment and new UBR's been added to area's, but it does take time to do all area's. I think it just depends on how patient you are. (i'm not patient by the way!)
There is a lot of reseg work going on all the time at the moment and new UBR's been added to area's, but it does take time to do all area's. I think it just depends on how patient you are. (i'm not patient by the way!)
Just so you see what a 2 meg is like in my area at this moment in time.
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:36:36 GMT
1st 128K took 796 ms = 164663 Bytes/sec = approx 1370 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1094 ms = 119810 Bytes/sec = approx 997 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 922 ms = 142161 Bytes/sec = approx 1183 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
:(
Bill your getting speeds than me, but at least you got a reply, or at least an explanation from somebody.
Just coincidence my second contract with ntl finished on the 1st of march. ;)
Bill your getting speeds than me, but at least you got a reply, or at least an explanation from somebody.
Just coincidence my second contract with ntl finished on the 1st of march. ;)
I think it was because of a email i sent the other day to someone who would know if they are shaping ?.
BTW
Hows this now
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:28:38 GMT
1st 128K took 2797 ms = 46862 Bytes/sec = approx 390 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1656 ms = 79150 Bytes/sec = approx 659 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1985 ms = 66031 Bytes/sec = approx 549 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 7375 ms = 17772 Bytes/sec = approx 148 kbits/sec
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142105334375).
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:10:52 GMT
1st 128K took 969 ms = 135265 Bytes/sec = approx 1125 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 984 ms = 133203 Bytes/sec = approx 1108 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 922 ms = 142161 Bytes/sec = approx 1183 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 907 ms = 144512 Bytes/sec = approx 1202 kbits/sec
it will improve come midnight
Chrysalis
12-03-2006, 02:10
yeah they dont prove anything, too many factors involved. Also the fact my ubr is poor anyway makes it even harder to diagnose since general contention is causing slow speeds anyway.
---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 ----------
There is a lot of reseg work going on all the time at the moment and new UBR's been added to area's, but it does take time to do all area's. I think it just depends on how patient you are. (i'm not patient by the way!)
I would be patient if one was scheduled but when you get told the ubr isnt warranted an upgrade and its bursting at the seams it changes things.
---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 ----------
Can you discredit whether they are throttling or not?
I'll have to eat my hat if you do :)
some points to give to you.
they lied about the capability been in place, so this to me discredits anything else they say. If I worked for ntl and had to stick to a NDA to the company that puts food on my table I would do the same thing.
their is static routing in place over ntl's network for different area's and it is also clear different ubr's are seeing vastly different performance, so given this I would suggest it is possible on heavily utilised routes and ubr's shaping might be used whilst on clean routes traffic is been allowed to flow freely, it is also clever if they do this since if one guy proves his conenction is great all day long ntl cant be shaping at all right?
Of course its entirely possible there is no shaping.
Ah, more conspiracies, some people just love them. You seem to spend so much time doing tests and worrying about traffic shaping, routing, peering, ubr's etc, I often wonder if you ever have time to actually browse the net :erm: and yet still you are with ntl - I think it's all a conspiracy and that you are really an agent of a secret group of ADSL providers, sworn to cause ripples in the very fabric of space/time (and ntl's network). :disturbd:
Chrysalis
12-03-2006, 06:53
its me using the net or failing to that causes this. I didnt think to myself one day right I am going to start running tests its as a result of things simply not working as they should and I am not the only one paul with concerns. It is easy to criticise others when your service runs fine.
I should have moved house by now and I would have possibly left ntl but I haven't and I am stuck with them for the time been so I will push for a proper service.
The test I did for bill more then me since he downgraded he couldnt run it, my main concern is my ubr and getting that sorted out before worrying about shaping.
Ah, more conspiracies, some people just love them. You seem to spend so much time doing tests and worrying about traffic shaping, routing, peering, ubr's etc, I often wonder if you ever have time to actually browse the net :erm: and yet still you are with ntl - I think it's all a conspiracy and that you are really an agent of a secret group of ADSL providers, sworn to cause ripples in the very fabric of space/time (and ntl's network). :disturbd:
So is this a conspiracy and further more should i walk away with my tail between my legs and do nothing about it.
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:15:53 GMT
1st 128K took 797 ms = 164457 Bytes/sec = approx 1368 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 812 ms = 161419 Bytes/sec = approx 1343 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1891 ms = 69314 Bytes/sec = approx 577 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1703 ms = 76965 Bytes/sec = approx 640 kbits/sec
That is supposed to be 2 meg now look at the time on a Sunday morning.
Chrysalis
12-03-2006, 07:43
bill damn thats bad, when I downgraded to 2meg it was poor but not at 7am
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:43:30 GMT
1st 512K took 891 ms = 574.6 KB/sec, approx 4735 Kbps, 4.62 Mbps
2nd 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 406 ms = 1261.1 KB/sec, approx 10391 Kbps, 10.15 Mbps
4th 512K took 484 ms = 1057.9 KB/sec, approx 8717 Kbps, 8.51 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7947 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
here at 7am my ubr can almost push 8mbit O_o
swoop101
12-03-2006, 08:07
Mine just a few mins ago
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:03:39 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9650 Kbps, 9.42 Mbps
It is obviously local to you Bill, apart from the probs on Tuesday my results very rarely differ from this.
Just checked on ADSLguide:
Downstream 8752 Kbps (1,094.0 KB/sec) 9452 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 491 Kbps (61.4 KB/sec) 530 Kbps (inc. overheads)
exactly the same result.
Mine just a few mins ago
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:03:39 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9650 Kbps, 9.42 Mbps
It is obviously local to you Bill, apart from the probs on Tuesday my results very rarely differ from this.
Will have to get on the phone tomorrow me thinks.
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:54:00 GMT
1st 128K took 968 ms = 135405 Bytes/sec = approx 1127 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1250 ms = 104858 Bytes/sec = approx 872 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1250 ms = 104858 Bytes/sec = approx 872 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 860 ms = 152409 Bytes/sec = approx 1268 kbits/sec
Just checked on ADSLguide:
Downstream 8752 Kbps (1,094.0 KB/sec) 9452 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 491 Kbps (61.4 KB/sec) 530 Kbps (inc. overheads)
exactly the same result.
:(
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:54:00 GMT
1st 128K took 968 ms = 135405 Bytes/sec = approx 1127 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1250 ms = 104858 Bytes/sec = approx 872 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1250 ms = 104858 Bytes/sec = approx 872 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 860 ms = 152409 Bytes/sec = approx 1268 kbits/sec
Oh well will have to let the Network guys know tomorrow its got worse.
---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------
here at 7am my ubr can almost push 8mbit O_o
Now that i would except if it was at any time of the day.
I know they say upto but less than 1 meg on a Sunday morning on what is a 2 meg connection sucks. This has got to be a contention issue, There is no way shaping would do this.
Ah, more conspiracies, some people just love them. You seem to spend so much time doing tests and worrying about traffic shaping, routing, peering, ubr's etc, I often wonder if you ever have time to actually browse the net :erm: and yet still you are with ntl - I think it's all a conspiracy and that you are really an agent of a secret group of ADSL providers, sworn to cause ripples in the very fabric of space/time (and ntl's network). :disturbd:
Well i am "with" [if you ever really want to be associated with an incompetent badly structured firm in any sense] until the cancellation takes place in april.
Browsing is not great, and i think theres enough rips and tears in ntl's fabric to keep them busy for a while to come. I now have engineers ringing me to see if they can come out to do anything. Shame they didnt ring within the 48hrs they said, not 4 days later. Apart from that i dont think there's anything they could do from here. :mad:
etccarmageddon
12-03-2006, 10:37
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:36:26 UTC
1st 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
I'm on 1meg and whenever I do a speed test get roughly 1meg as the result so if they're traffic shapping it must be selective arears or you're confusing over loaded ubrs etc with shaping?
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:36:26 UTC
1st 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
I'm on 1meg and whenever I do a speed test get roughly 1meg as the result so if they're traffic shapping it must be selective arears or you're confusing over loaded ubrs etc with shaping?
Yep thats what i said in my last post above
I know they say upto but less than 1 meg on a Sunday morning on what is a 2 meg connection sucks. This has got to be a contention issue, There is no way shaping would do this.
:) I will be making some phone calls tomorrow
However its better at the moment
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:58:02 GMT
1st 512K took 2250 ms = 227.6 KB/sec, approx 1875 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2296 ms = 223 KB/sec, approx 1838 Kbps, 1.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2219 ms = 230.7 KB/sec, approx 1901 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
4th 512K took 2438 ms = 210 KB/sec, approx 1730 Kbps, 1.69 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1836 Kbps, 1.79 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1142161092328).
1MBPS is not so hot:
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:46:57 GMT
1st 512K took 12680 ms = 40.4 KB/sec, approx 333 Kbps, 0.33 Mbps
2nd 512K took 11920 ms = 43 KB/sec, approx 354 Kbps, 0.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 9120 ms = 56.1 KB/sec, approx 462 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
4th 512K took 8900 ms = 57.5 KB/sec, approx 474 Kbps, 0.46 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 406 Kbps, 0.4 Mbps
1MBPS is not so hot:
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:46:57 GMT
1st 512K took 12680 ms = 40.4 KB/sec, approx 333 Kbps, 0.33 Mbps
2nd 512K took 11920 ms = 43 KB/sec, approx 354 Kbps, 0.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 9120 ms = 56.1 KB/sec, approx 462 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
4th 512K took 8900 ms = 57.5 KB/sec, approx 474 Kbps, 0.46 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 406 Kbps, 0.4 Mbps
I am off the same UBR as you
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:13:06 GMT
1st 128K took 1156 ms = 113384 Bytes/sec = approx 943 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 703 ms = 186447 Bytes/sec = approx 1551 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 625 ms = 209715 Bytes/sec = approx 1745 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 2141 ms = 61220 Bytes/sec = approx 509 kbits/sec
etccarmageddon
12-03-2006, 14:31
looks like it's your UBR then mate as you're both on the same one and getting crap speeds. when you say you're making calls tomorrow - good luck with the Indian call centre! best get those calls in now before it's 10p a min to tell them your connection is nowhere near what you're paying for!
---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------
1MBPS is not so hot:
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:46:57 GMT
1st 512K took 12680 ms = 40.4 KB/sec, approx 333 Kbps, 0.33 Mbps
2nd 512K took 11920 ms = 43 KB/sec, approx 354 Kbps, 0.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 9120 ms = 56.1 KB/sec, approx 462 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
4th 512K took 8900 ms = 57.5 KB/sec, approx 474 Kbps, 0.46 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 406 Kbps, 0.4 Mbpsthat in my opinion is a **** take performance wise.
looks like it's your UBR then mate as you're both on the same one and getting crap speeds. when you say you're making calls tomorrow - good luck with the Indian call centre! best get those calls in now before it's 10p a min to tell them your connection is nowhere near what you're paying for!
---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------
1MBPS is not so hot:
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:46:57 GMT
1st 512K took 12680 ms = 40.4 KB/sec, approx 333 Kbps, 0.33 Mbps
2nd 512K took 11920 ms = 43 KB/sec, approx 354 Kbps, 0.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 9120 ms = 56.1 KB/sec, approx 462 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
4th 512K took 8900 ms = 57.5 KB/sec, approx 474 Kbps, 0.46 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 406 Kbps, 0.4 Mbpsthat in my opinion is a **** take performance wise.
:LOL:
I have other numbers i can ring ;).
looks like it's your UBR then mate as you're both on the same one and getting crap speeds. when you say you're making calls tomorrow - good luck with the Indian call centre! best get those calls in now before it's 10p a min to tell them your connection is nowhere near what you're paying for!
---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------
that in my opinion is a **** take performance wise.
A couple of hours on the phone at least then, make sure you can still see the tv, and have coffee and sandwiches ready. Even if you get one of the better guys, you know the drill, get ready to remove any web protection you have, and then be ready to doubt the builder of your pc, along with your ability to switch it on and use it. :(
On 512 KBPS ADSL from Eclipse/BT at 'work':
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:38:14 UTC
1st 512K took 9280 ms = 55.2 KB/sec, approx 455 Kbps, 0.44 Mbps
2nd 512K took 7300 ms = 70.1 KB/sec, approx 578 Kbps, 0.56 Mbps
3rd 512K took 8460 ms = 60.5 KB/sec, approx 499 Kbps, 0.49 Mbps
4th 512K took 6480 ms = 79 KB/sec, approx 651 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 546 Kbps, 0.53 Mbps
http://www.eclipse.net.uk/index.cfm?id=flexbusiness500
Ignition
12-03-2006, 15:47
Ah, more conspiracies, some people just love them. You seem to spend so much time doing tests and worrying about traffic shaping, routing, peering, ubr's etc, I often wonder if you ever have time to actually browse the net :erm: and yet still you are with ntl - I think it's all a conspiracy and that you are really an agent of a secret group of ADSL providers, sworn to cause ripples in the very fabric of space/time (and ntl's network). :disturbd:
I think you might want to take a short break Paul the last couple of posts of yours I've read have been giving members grief.
etccarmageddon
12-03-2006, 21:37
speed test results here dont suggest any problems:-
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:36:31 UTC
1st 512K took 4366 ms = 117.3 KB/sec, approx 967 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4406 ms = 116.2 KB/sec, approx 957 Kbps, 0.93 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4477 ms = 114.4 KB/sec, approx 943 Kbps, 0.92 Mbps
4th 512K took 4216 ms = 121.4 KB/sec, approx 1000 Kbps, 0.98 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 967 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
1 Mbps gis going from bad to worse here:
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:07:59 GMT
1st 512K took 12960 ms = 39.5 KB/sec, approx 325 Kbps, 0.32 Mbps
2nd 512K took 18020 ms = 28.4 KB/sec, approx 234 Kbps, 0.23 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11530 ms = 44.4 KB/sec, approx 366 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps
4th 512K took 9180 ms = 55.8 KB/sec, approx 460 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 346 Kbps, 0.34 Mbps
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:06:31 GMT
1st 512K took 16040 ms = 31.9 KB/sec, approx 263 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
2nd 512K took 10990 ms = 46.6 KB/sec, approx 384 Kbps, 0.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 14940 ms = 34.3 KB/sec, approx 283 Kbps, 0.28 Mbps
4th 512K took 13340 ms = 38.4 KB/sec, approx 316 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 312 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
1 Mbps gis going from bad to worse here:
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:07:59 GMT
1st 512K took 12960 ms = 39.5 KB/sec, approx 325 Kbps, 0.32 Mbps
2nd 512K took 18020 ms = 28.4 KB/sec, approx 234 Kbps, 0.23 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11530 ms = 44.4 KB/sec, approx 366 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps
4th 512K took 9180 ms = 55.8 KB/sec, approx 460 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 346 Kbps, 0.34 Mbps
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:06:31 GMT
1st 512K took 16040 ms = 31.9 KB/sec, approx 263 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
2nd 512K took 10990 ms = 46.6 KB/sec, approx 384 Kbps, 0.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 14940 ms = 34.3 KB/sec, approx 283 Kbps, 0.28 Mbps
4th 512K took 13340 ms = 38.4 KB/sec, approx 316 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 312 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
Altis
Will kick up a stink in the morning.
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:46:05 GMT
1st 128K took 1157 ms = 113286 Bytes/sec = approx 943 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1937 ms = 67668 Bytes/sec = approx 563 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 2578 ms = 50843 Bytes/sec = approx 423 kbits/sec
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142203573719).
This is 2 meg at the moment m8
etccarmageddon
12-03-2006, 23:10
perhaps there's a high level of people in your area running on 10meg and running their connections at 100% using peer to peer and the like.
1st 128K took 62 ms = 2114065 Bytes/sec = approx 17589 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 188 ms = 697191 Bytes/sec = approx 5801 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 312 ms = 420103 Bytes/sec = approx 3495 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 766 ms = 171112 Bytes/sec = approx 1424 kbits/sec
w00t
Chrysalis
13-03-2006, 02:14
its contention alright that we know for sure, the shaping thing is a side issue I think and may not even be happening.
My 8meg was good compared to what you guys were pasting but bear in mind 3am to 8am is the pinnacle of performance here so if 8meg is the pinnacle it doesnt bode well and yes as you may guess if only I got 8meg all day but I dont.
perhaps there's a high level of people in your area running on 10meg and running their connections at 100% using peer to peer and the like.
One of the area's close to me used to be one of the heaviest usage area's for the North West :LOL:.
Monday morning at 06.42
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:41:34 GMT
1st 128K took 922 ms = 142161 Bytes/sec = approx 1183 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1391 ms = 94229 Bytes/sec = approx 784 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 953 ms = 137536 Bytes/sec = approx 1144 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 3140 ms = 41743 Bytes/sec = approx 347 kbits/sec
The guy i spent all night talking to from tech support told me there was almost no traffic at the time he tested my connection.
Funny thing is, if you start a demo download of Halo from the microsoft site, [the techs idea] it starts off great, then starts dwindling down to nothing, and no matter what you try from anywhere it does the same thing, or its just slow from the start. :(
The guy i spent all night talking to from tech support told me there was almost no traffic at the time he tested my connection.
Funny thing is, if you start a demo download of Halo from the Microsoft site, [the techs idea] it starts off great, then starts dwindling down to nothing, and no matter what you try from anywhere it does the same thing, or its just slow from the start. :(
Having just spent time on the phone to Tech support "India" this is the shortened version of the conversation.
TS. Its your router sir.
ME. I have no router connected at the moment.
TS. Its spyware on your pc.
ME. I am running a fresh install of Linux.
TS. Sorry sir we do not support Linux, thank you for phoning technical support goodbye.
"he did not give me the chance to change to my windows machine."
Reason i phoned tech support is i need the info on my account if i have to go forward with this.
:mad: and to think you now have to pay for that.
Thankfully a good friend of mine is checking this out for me at the moment.
etccarmageddon
13-03-2006, 09:15
The guy i spent all night talking to from tech support told me there was almost no traffic at the time he tested my connection...Indian tech support - perhaps their version of traffic is different to ours! next time he tells you there's almost no traffic ask to clarify if he's refering to your NTL connection or your local roads!
Its a shame they have to come out with this made up mumbo jumbo, "its your router\spyware\firewall\ etc etc", who teaches them to fob off paying customers in this way?
If it was'nt £35pm it would almost be funny, but my sense of humour has expired.
etccarmageddon
13-03-2006, 10:59
it should be interesting to see how Bill gets on today re what his contacts have to say. hopefully he will get a date as to when his local ubr is going to get sorted.
it should be interesting to see how Bill gets on today re what his contacts have to say. hopefully he will get a date as to when his local ubr is going to get sorted.
I cannot go into detail at this time and might not be able to anyway, but the figures i have just been given for my UBR have shocked me :LOL:.
monkey2468
13-03-2006, 11:38
I cannot go into detail at this time and might not be able to anyway, but the figures i have just been given for my UBR have shocked me :LOL:.
In a good or bad way??
etccarmageddon
13-03-2006, 11:40
so what's the problem? over population of your UBR in terms of users to the amount of bandwidth etc or a high number of users taking the pee by maxing out their connections?
so what's the problem? over population of your UBR in terms of users to the amount of bandwidth etc or a high number of users taking the pee by maxing out their connections?
Both :(
---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ----------
I cannot go into detail at this time and might not be able to anyway, but the figures i have just been given for my UBR have shocked me :LOL:.
In a good or bad way??
Bad :(
I was told that was not my problem by tech support. [i asume they can tell]
and mines still sucks. At least the ntl phone calls have stopped, theres no point in engineers trying to visit me anymore. ;)
Ignition
13-03-2006, 13:57
Both :(
---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ----------
Bad :(
Do tell ;)
Both :(
---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ----------
Bad :(
Do tell ;)
Ok
I have to wait till the end of the month. That is when my UBR is scheduled for upgrade. :(.
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:33:29 GMT
1st 128K took 1171 ms = 111932 Bytes/sec = approx 931 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1907 ms = 68732 Bytes/sec = approx 572 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1906 ms = 68768 Bytes/sec = approx 572 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1625 ms = 80660 Bytes/sec = approx 671 kbits/sec
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142267617578).
So will have to bite my lip and wait. My BT line goes active tomorrow so i can then move to BE in August when they go live here. That's unless NTL get there act together.
Can i just say that if it was not for the great staff that NTL have working for them who go out of there way to help and fix things i would have disconnected today. The help i got from certain Engineers and a Manager today is fantastic, If only the same could be said for the so called help i got from tech support in India this morning. I can only say that if that's the standard of help given out to people then i am saddened and shocked.
etccarmageddon
13-03-2006, 17:16
I think waiting a couple of weeks is a good result. Shame they want to **** customers off by having a call centre which is clearly not upto the job. If I have problems and need to ring this 10p service then I will be considering cancelling and going to ADSL over paying for them to tell me to reinstall windows etc. I've dealt with off shore call centres and they're all bloody useless. Cant tell a word they're saying and they are reading from scripts.
Can i just say that if it was not for the great staff that NTL have working for them who go out of there way to help and fix things i would have disconnected today. The help i got from certain Engineers and a Manager today is fantastic, If only the same could be said for the so called help i got from tech support in India this morning. I can only say that if that's the standard of help given out to people then i am saddened and shocked.
That mirrors my experience exactly, once you get higher in the chain things move along, but normal (Indian) tech support is useless for real problems, in fact its worse than useless because they make you do things that you already know are a waste of time.
I'm also currently investigating a BE account on our BT line, the plan is to run the 2 connections for a month or so and and see which one is best.
From the help I've recieved from some 'beings' today regarding routes and comparing speeds to the USA it seems that BE are way out in front.
Time will tell I guess.
Chrysalis
13-03-2006, 19:44
Bill at least you have an upgrade scheduled, they are telling me my ubr doesnt warrant an upgrade which is absolute bull****.
here is a peak time test.
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:42:38 GMT
1st 512K took 2078 ms = 246.4 KB/sec, approx 2030 Kbps, 1.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2859 ms = 179.1 KB/sec, approx 1476 Kbps, 1.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2250 ms = 227.6 KB/sec, approx 1875 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
4th 512K took 1750 ms = 292.6 KB/sec, approx 2411 Kbps, 2.35 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1948 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
this is on 10meg, if I downgrade to 2meg it will be slower I wouldnt get 1.9meg on 2meg.
Bill at least you have an upgrade scheduled, they are telling me my ubr doesnt warrant an upgrade which is absolute bull****.
here is a peak time test.
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:42:38 GMT
1st 512K took 2078 ms = 246.4 KB/sec, approx 2030 Kbps, 1.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2859 ms = 179.1 KB/sec, approx 1476 Kbps, 1.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2250 ms = 227.6 KB/sec, approx 1875 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
4th 512K took 1750 ms = 292.6 KB/sec, approx 2411 Kbps, 2.35 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1948 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
this is on 10meg, if I downgrade to 2meg it will be slower I wouldnt get 1.9meg on 2meg.
:LOL:
They have to do it first :) I have fingers and toes crossed
5quirrel
13-03-2006, 20:18
Bill at least you have an upgrade scheduled, they are telling me my ubr doesnt warrant an upgrade which is absolute bull****.
here is a peak time test.
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:42:38 GMT
1st 512K took 2078 ms = 246.4 KB/sec, approx 2030 Kbps, 1.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2859 ms = 179.1 KB/sec, approx 1476 Kbps, 1.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2250 ms = 227.6 KB/sec, approx 1875 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
4th 512K took 1750 ms = 292.6 KB/sec, approx 2411 Kbps, 2.35 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1948 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
this is on 10meg, if I downgrade to 2meg it will be slower I wouldnt get 1.9meg on 2meg.
Ah ha! Someone else with a nice SLOW 10MB connection - I get about the same on my 10MB which I think is via Stockport but the strange thing is after 11pm ish it jumps to around 7MB DL - Do NTL need to do something to correct this and if so can we check schedules? All the engineers I've spoken to toe the company line of "up to 10MB - **** happens".
Squirrel
Bill at least you have an upgrade scheduled, they are telling me my ubr doesnt warrant an upgrade which is absolute bull****.
here is a peak time test.
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:42:38 GMT
1st 512K took 2078 ms = 246.4 KB/sec, approx 2030 Kbps, 1.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2859 ms = 179.1 KB/sec, approx 1476 Kbps, 1.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2250 ms = 227.6 KB/sec, approx 1875 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
4th 512K took 1750 ms = 292.6 KB/sec, approx 2411 Kbps, 2.35 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1948 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
this is on 10meg, if I downgrade to 2meg it will be slower I wouldnt get 1.9meg on 2meg.
Ah ha! Someone else with a nice SLOW 10MB connection - I get about the same on my 10MB which I think is via Stockport but the strange thing is after 11pm ish it jumps to around 7MB DL - Do NTL need to do something to correct this and if so can we check schedules? All the engineers I've spoken to toe the company line of "up to 10MB - **** happens".
Squirrel
Indeed i gave up on NTL's 10 meg and went back to 2 meg as that was very stable untill last week, Now i am lucky to get 1 meg never mind 2. Hopefully that will be fixed at the end of the month.
Chrysalis
14-03-2006, 22:10
yeah I think 10 to 11pm is busier then 8pm here.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:09:42 UTC
1st 512K took 3593 ms = 142.5 KB/sec, approx 1174 Kbps, 1.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3000 ms = 170.7 KB/sec, approx 1407 Kbps, 1.37 Mbps
3rd 512K took 6032 ms = 84.9 KB/sec, approx 700 Kbps, 0.68 Mbps
4th 512K took 2609 ms = 196.2 KB/sec, approx 1617 Kbps, 1.58 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1225 Kbps, 1.2 Mbps
on 10meg
yeah I think 10 to 11pm is busier then 8pm here.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:09:42 UTC
1st 512K took 3593 ms = 142.5 KB/sec, approx 1174 Kbps, 1.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3000 ms = 170.7 KB/sec, approx 1407 Kbps, 1.37 Mbps
3rd 512K took 6032 ms = 84.9 KB/sec, approx 700 Kbps, 0.68 Mbps
4th 512K took 2609 ms = 196.2 KB/sec, approx 1617 Kbps, 1.58 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1225 Kbps, 1.2 Mbps
on 10meg
Something has been done today. My son told me the modem went off line for a sort while and i have just done a speed test and got this.
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:02:58 GMT
1st 128K took 546 ms = 240059 Bytes/sec = approx 1997 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 532 ms = 246376 Bytes/sec = approx 2050 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
This is the fastest it has been in 2 weeks. :tu: to who ever was working on this area today.
etccarmageddon
15-03-2006, 17:05
time to upgrade back to 10meg Bill?
time to upgrade back to 10meg Bill?
Lets see how it is after 6 first :LOL:
Chrysalis
15-03-2006, 18:08
bill I will pm you with some more info, it isnt good news but I am sick of posting it all here.
for info purposes here is my latest speedtest.
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:07:45 UTC
1st 512K took 6078 ms = 84.2 KB/sec, approx 694 Kbps, 0.68 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1766 ms = 289.9 KB/sec, approx 2389 Kbps, 2.33 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2703 ms = 189.4 KB/sec, approx 1561 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
4th 512K took 2484 ms = 206.1 KB/sec, approx 1698 Kbps, 1.66 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1586 Kbps, 1.55 Mbps
time to upgrade back to 10meg Bill?
Would you with these speeds :(
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:42:19 GMT
1st 128K took 2093 ms = 62624 Bytes/sec = approx 521 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1391 ms = 94229 Bytes/sec = approx 784 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1234 ms = 106217 Bytes/sec = approx 884 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 610 ms = 214872 Bytes/sec = approx 1788 kbits/sec
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142448145078).
To repeat this test from a web proxy cache (if present):
They still have till the end of the month :)
etccarmageddon
15-03-2006, 18:56
another happy NTL customer!
another happy NTL customer!
Indeed :)
I said i would give them till the end of the month and that i will do :)
There's a little breath of fresh air about today.
This is on 1Mbps...
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:00:38 GMT
1st 512K took 8080 ms = 63.4 KB/sec, approx 522 Kbps, 0.51 Mbps
2nd 512K took 7080 ms = 72.3 KB/sec, approx 596 Kbps, 0.58 Mbps
3rd 512K took 7030 ms = 72.8 KB/sec, approx 600 Kbps, 0.59 Mbps
4th 512K took 6650 ms = 77 KB/sec, approx 634 Kbps, 0.62 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 588 Kbps, 0.57 Mbps
thenewsman
16-03-2006, 15:38
This is from 10mb.............in N.Ireland
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:32:16 UTC
1st 512K took 406 ms = 1261.1 KB/sec, approx 10391 Kbps, 10.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 719 ms = 712.1 KB/sec, approx 5868 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
3rd 512K took 547 ms = 936 KB/sec, approx 7713 Kbps, 7.53 Mbps
4th 512K took 656 ms = 780.5 KB/sec, approx 6431 Kbps, 6.28 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7601 Kbps, 7.42 Mbps
Chrysalis
16-03-2006, 15:39
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:38:55 GMT
1st 512K took 5968 ms = 85.8 KB/sec, approx 707 Kbps, 0.69 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1735 ms = 295.1 KB/sec, approx 2432 Kbps, 2.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2140 ms = 239.3 KB/sec, approx 1972 Kbps, 1.93 Mbps
4th 512K took 1266 ms = 404.4 KB/sec, approx 3332 Kbps, 3.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2111 Kbps, 2.06 Mbps
interesting it kept stalling dragging the speeds down, tonight looks like gonna be bad already down to 2meg and before 4pm.
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:42:28 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9735 Kbps, 9.51 Mbps
Still rubbish from most US sites though
Chrysalis
17-03-2006, 02:15
hopefully paul can get the proxyless test up soon I noticed my really slow results in the evenings arent accurate, although it gives me 0.5 meg to 1mbit mirror.ac.uk ftp mirror was giving me 2-3 meg indicating either ntl's server was maxed or more likely the proxy was maxed.
Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:15:11 GMT
1st 512K took 1109 ms = 461.7 KB/sec, approx 3804 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
2nd 512K took 516 ms = 992.2 KB/sec, approx 8176 Kbps, 7.98 Mbps
3rd 512K took 625 ms = 819.2 KB/sec, approx 6750 Kbps, 6.59 Mbps
4th 512K took 656 ms = 780.5 KB/sec, approx 6431 Kbps, 6.28 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 6290 Kbps, 6.14 Mbps
No wonder things are so slow - all my bandwidth is being used up be people on 10Mbps running speed test.
;)
No wonder things are so slow - all my bandwidth is being used up be people on 10Mbps running speed test.
;)
Well i think someone has got of there backside and fixed something last night.:)
Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:54:08 GMT
1st 128K took 532 ms = 246376 Bytes/sec = approx 2050 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 546 ms = 240059 Bytes/sec = approx 1997 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 516 ms = 254016 Bytes/sec = approx 2113 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
These results appear to be rather fast: maybe this page was in the browser cache.
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142924051109).
Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:57:14 GMT
1st 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 532 ms = 246376 Bytes/sec = approx 2050 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
These results appear to be rather fast: maybe this page was in the browser cache.
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142924237109).
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedchart.asp?id=af50d68110a1b9941edce191fdf
Lets see what its like at 6.00pm tonight.
Well it looks like it fixed. Its not going to stop me moving to BE when they are up and running in Warrington.
Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:32:58 GMT
1st 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 625 ms = 209715 Bytes/sec = approx 1745 kbits/sec
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1142962381531).
etccarmageddon
21-03-2006, 17:59
but I thought you said you'd give NTL till end of march to sort it?
Indeed :)
I said i would give them till the end of the month and that i will do :)
Well mines back to normal too, what a shame they left it too late. :(
but I thought you said you'd give NTL till end of march to sort it?
Indeed :)
I said i would give them till the end of the month and that i will do :)
I have given them till the end of the month and they fixed it. Where did i say i would be staying with them. If they had not fixed it at the end of the month i would just have dumped them quicker than i intend to. Unfortunately i have had information passed to me of things to come. It does not fit with my idea of what broadband is and so i will dump NTL as soon as Be Unlimited are active in the Warrington BT exchange.
Please do not pm me for information i will not be divulging it as it was given in confidence.
etccarmageddon
21-03-2006, 18:20
fair enough.
Chrysalis
22-03-2006, 06:50
I am guessing plusnet style shaping then.
etccarmageddon
22-03-2006, 08:16
I cant think what else it could be other than traffic shaping.
---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 ----------
...so i will dump NTL as soon as Be Unlimited are active in the Warrington BT exchange.I thought you weren't a fan of Indian call centres? https://www.bethere.co.uk/generalFAQ.do
"...our call centre and technical support are based in India."
my eyes rolled when I found that. :td:
I'd done a search and I'm right you're not a fan!
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=43478&highlight=indian
Chrysalis
22-03-2006, 14:10
Well if he had a choice of ISP A indian call centre ISP B indian call centre ISP C uk call centre but crappy bt wholesale adsl, I would think he go for ISP A or B.
---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------
I cant think what else it could be other than traffic shaping.
No doubt it will be over done so anything not http is like a 256kbit service. Isp's that shape tend to think they have a choice of no shaping or shaping to the moon and back.
I think shaping should be used to maybe save 10% or so traffic but not used as an excuse to not upgrade infrastructure and wipe out 80% of your traffic like plusnet did.
At a guess, Bill's local network could have just been resegmented or the hermits dling teh isoz 24/7 have gone on holiday or something.
etccarmageddon
22-03-2006, 16:03
most likely a reseg which will last a while until they upgrade the 2meg users to 10meg and then it'll be back to square one.
Chrysalis
23-03-2006, 13:04
My net went down at 1am. Rebooted my modem this morning and was on new ip, checked ubr ip to confirm what I suspected and its different.
So I have either had a reseg or been moved to new ubr it seems. A big shock considering one wasnt scheduled.
Performance is the same tho.
Chrysalis
23-03-2006, 21:44
Its not a reseg been confirmed to me was for a different reason. :(
They are trying to rule everything else out first.
Yes still the same.
1Mbps:
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:05:27 GMT
1st 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
4th 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
Ooh, that's better :)
JackJones-ÃÂÂÂÃÂÂÂ-Ã
29-03-2006, 19:32
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:26:58 UTC
1st 512K took 3547 ms = 144.3 KB/sec, approx 1189 Kbps, 1.16 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 1485 ms = 344.8 KB/sec, approx 2841 Kbps, 2.77 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1986 Kbps, 1.94 Mbps
slow
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:30:09 UTC
1st 512K took 1797 ms = 284.9 KB/sec, approx 2348 Kbps, 2.29 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1562 ms = 327.8 KB/sec, approx 2701 Kbps, 2.64 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3625 ms = 141.2 KB/sec, approx 1163 Kbps, 1.14 Mbps
4th 512K took 1875 ms = 273.1 KB/sec, approx 2250 Kbps, 2.2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2116 Kbps, 2.07 Mbps
furkin great this 10meg ****e init
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:30:50 UTC
1st 512K took 3250 ms = 157.5 KB/sec, approx 1298 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1657 ms = 309 KB/sec, approx 2546 Kbps, 2.49 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2281 ms = 224.5 KB/sec, approx 1850 Kbps, 1.81 Mbps
4th 512K took 1984 ms = 258.1 KB/sec, approx 2127 Kbps, 2.08 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1955 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
:mad:
one more
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:32:22 UTC
1st 512K took 2297 ms = 222.9 KB/sec, approx 1837 Kbps, 1.79 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2766 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3328 ms = 153.8 KB/sec, approx 1267 Kbps, 1.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 2672 ms = 191.6 KB/sec, approx 1579 Kbps, 1.54 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1552 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
Chrysalis
29-03-2006, 21:03
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:04:34 GMT
1st 512K took 2719 ms = 188.3 KB/sec, approx 1552 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2547 ms = 201 KB/sec, approx 1656 Kbps, 1.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2812 ms = 182.1 KB/sec, approx 1501 Kbps, 1.47 Mbps
4th 512K took 3266 ms = 156.8 KB/sec, approx 1292 Kbps, 1.26 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1500 Kbps, 1.47 Mbps
Paul your server hasnt changed for BST :)
Also could locations be logged so speedtest stats published for diff regions?
I am also gettting these connection issues but only from one site which is www.easynews.com (http://www.easynews.com) all downloads from that site were fine for about 1 week then they have drastically dropped of i am on a 10 mbit connection and i can only download from that site at between 10-15 kbs a second i have contacted NTL support and they have said that it is not there problem
Anyone have any ideas or experiencing the same issues
See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=45727 for some things to try for Easynews connections.
I can get 500k from a single thread today using Level 3 on NTL.
Just got 10MB NTL today and during peak hours my speed seemed ok. Tried some newsgroups as well and it was flying at max speed, so far so good for me lets hope it stays this way (touch wood!)
Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:14:34 GMT
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9740 Kbps, 9.51 Mbps
Chrysalis
20-04-2006, 00:28
thats very good, lets hope yours stays that way.
give it 5 days mate then all hell will break loose thats what happend with mine fine for about 5 days then boooooom :(
My speeds on 2MB for the past couple of days:
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:07:25 GMT
1st 512K took 5860 ms = 87.4 KB/sec, approx 720 Kbps, 0.7 Mbps
2nd 512K took 5734 ms = 89.3 KB/sec, approx 736 Kbps, 0.72 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5500 ms = 93.1 KB/sec, approx 767 Kbps, 0.75 Mbps
4th 512K took 5484 ms = 93.4 KB/sec, approx 770 Kbps, 0.75 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 748 Kbps, 0.73 Mbps
This is the 1st time in 3 years that the speed test has not been right with my ntl connection.
I have noticed then when a speed test (or large download) is running, the US & DS lights that go out, the SYNC & RDY lights are always on.
It's like it's receiving in bursts.
ntl 120 modem connected via eathernet. Power levels look fine according to Robin Walkers page.
---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:19 ----------
Okay, so this may not be ntl's fault in my case.
Just been doing some more testing, and it appears to be my firewall causing the problem, Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall 4.
If I disable or exit Kerio, the speed test is back to a more normal looking:
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:48:51 GMT
1st 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2187 ms = 234.1 KB/sec, approx 1929 Kbps, 1.88 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2875 ms = 178.1 KB/sec, approx 1468 Kbps, 1.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 2141 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1821 Kbps, 1.78 Mbps
Chrysalis
20-04-2006, 21:41
interesting, I did notice in kerio 4 if you disable the tcp inspection (NIPS) that cpu usage drops dramaticly so I have that turned off, I have like you tried turning the firewall off completely but in my case it made no difference to speeds.
thats very good, lets hope yours stays that way. So far so good so I hope it stays the same!
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:06:08 GMT
1st 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9821 Kbps, 9.59 Mbps
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:06:53 GMT
1st 512K took 436 ms = 1174.3 KB/sec, approx 9676 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
2nd 512K took 436 ms = 1174.3 KB/sec, approx 9676 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 436 ms = 1174.3 KB/sec, approx 9676 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9671 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
give it 5 days mate then all hell will break loose thats what happend with mine fine for about 5 days then boooooom :(
This post worries me! Hope I'm one of the lucky ones but going by my luck I doubt it :(
neoapple
21-04-2006, 10:53
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:52:05 UTC
1st 512K took 4359 ms = 117.5 KB/sec, approx 968 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4375 ms = 117 KB/sec, approx 964 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4375 ms = 117 KB/sec, approx 964 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
4th 512K took 4375 ms = 117 KB/sec, approx 964 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 965 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
Bromley Area
interesting, I did notice in kerio 4 if you disable the tcp inspection (NIPS) that cpu usage drops dramaticly so I have that turned off, I have like you tried turning the firewall off completely but in my case it made no difference to speeds.
I did notice that Kerio was high cpu usage.
I tried turning off various options (NIPS being one of them), but it made no difference to the speed, only thing that did was turning it off completely, so I've now un-installed Kerio.
My line has gone live today. Its only on 2 meg at the moment but will be moved to the llu mux on Monday and then onto opto 22 meg . :)
So dam big :tu: to Ukonline and BT for getting my dsl up and running 4 days before the date they set for it.
And are you looking NTL
I have this speed at 21.04
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:03:41 GMT
1st 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html?1145649824359).
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedchart.asp?id=114565022390457628910
I have never got that speed after 6.00pm for 2 months on my cable connection.
Now that is what High speed Broadband is all about :) Not the dial up speed NTL subjected me to.
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:40:19 GMT
1st 512K took 4578 ms = 111.8 KB/sec, approx 921 Kbps, 0.9 Mbps
2nd 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 609 ms = 840.7 KB/sec, approx 6927 Kbps, 6.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 6400 Kbps, 6.25 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:41:27 GMT
1st 512K took 968 ms = 528.9 KB/sec, approx 4358 Kbps, 4.26 Mbps
2nd 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8086 Kbps, 7.9 Mbps
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:41:48 GMT
1st 512K took 1234 ms = 414.9 KB/sec, approx 3419 Kbps, 3.34 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1234 ms = 414.9 KB/sec, approx 3419 Kbps, 3.34 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1047 ms = 489 KB/sec, approx 4029 Kbps, 3.93 Mbps
4th 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3681 Kbps, 3.6 Mbps
A bit up and down :dozey:
James Henry
21-04-2006, 21:50
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:30:46 GMT
1st 512K took 491 ms = 1042.8 KB/sec, approx 8593 Kbps, 8.39 Mbps
2nd 512K took 510 ms = 1003.9 KB/sec, approx 8272 Kbps, 8.08 Mbps
3rd 512K took 521 ms = 982.7 KB/sec, approx 8097 Kbps, 7.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 561 ms = 912.7 KB/sec, approx 7521 Kbps, 7.34 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8121 Kbps, 7.93 Mbps
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:50:14 GMT
1st 512K took 551 ms = 929.2 KB/sec, approx 7657 Kbps, 7.48 Mbps
2nd 512K took 551 ms = 929.2 KB/sec, approx 7657 Kbps, 7.48 Mbps
3rd 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 530 ms = 966 KB/sec, approx 7960 Kbps, 7.77 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7805 Kbps, 7.62 Mbps
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:50:28 GMT
1st 512K took 541 ms = 946.4 KB/sec, approx 7798 Kbps, 7.62 Mbps
2nd 512K took 521 ms = 982.7 KB/sec, approx 8097 Kbps, 7.91 Mbps
3rd 512K took 591 ms = 866.3 KB/sec, approx 7138 Kbps, 6.97 Mbps
4th 512K took 511 ms = 1002 KB/sec, approx 8256 Kbps, 8.06 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7822 Kbps, 7.64 Mbps
The test isn't the greatest for people not on ntl's network.
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:06:46 UTC
1st 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
Chrysalis
22-04-2006, 12:27
I did notice that Kerio was high cpu usage.
I tried turning off various options (NIPS being one of them), but it made no difference to the speed, only thing that did was turning it off completely, so I've now un-installed Kerio.
What are you using in its place? or you have no firewall now?
I have tried a few firewalls on 10meg and I found they all seem to use around the same amount of cpu with base functions, and the ones that do packet inspection when turned on will use much more cpu.
---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 ----------
alternative test not on ntl's network.
http://www.chrysalisnet.org/ntl/hfspeedtest2.html
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:26:27 UTC
1st 512K took 359 ms = 1426.2 KB/sec, approx 11752 Kbps, 11.48 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 484 ms = 1057.9 KB/sec, approx 8717 Kbps, 8.51 Mbps
4th 512K took 1063 ms = 481.7 KB/sec, approx 3969 Kbps, 3.88 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8518 Kbps, 8.32 Mbps
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:28:09 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 406 ms = 1261.1 KB/sec, approx 10391 Kbps, 10.15 Mbps
3rd 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9412 Kbps, 9.19 Mbps
http://www.chrysalisnet.org/ntl/hfspeedtest2.html
NTL 2mbit.
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:01 GMT
1st 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2141 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
4th 512K took 2140 ms = 239.3 KB/sec, approx 1972 Kbps, 1.93 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1964 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Not bad thought it would be worse than that actally
(brothers playing planetside reserves atm.)
Chrysalis
23-04-2006, 07:16
1st 512K took 391 ms = 1309.5 KB/sec, approx 10790 Kbps, 10.54 Mbps
2nd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 1719 ms = 297.8 KB/sec, approx 2454 Kbps, 2.4 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8139 Kbps, 7.95 Mbps
my speed has improved recently considerably. The last one on my test site seems to always report low speed I think the browser is slow generating the page and skews the result.
What are you using in its place? or you have no firewall now?
I have tried a few firewalls on 10meg and I found they all seem to use around the same amount of cpu with base functions, and the ones that do packet inspection when turned on will use much more cpu.
I've gone back to using FilSecLab firewall for the time being which I was testing before I put Kerio on, the speed difference is noticable even when load web pages, the pages here on CF load much quicker now without Kerio.
fatlip180
25-04-2006, 14:53
Just how accurate is the speed test at the top nav bar????
I am on a supposedly 10 meg line
I ask because on adslguide i get 1.5 mbps
Ive run spyware check etc etc, reset my modem and that the best i get. On bandwidth place i get 3 meg max.
However on the test above on the nav bar i get:
Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:52:31 GMT
1st 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9735 Kbps, 9.51 Mbps
My upload speed is always around 500k btw on any test i do.
Florence
25-04-2006, 20:18
you are quite close to your 10mb witht ose try my 2mb speed.
Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:14:17 GMT
1st 512K took 2844 ms = 180 KB/sec, approx 1483 Kbps, 1.45 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3249 ms = 157.6 KB/sec, approx 1299 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4547 ms = 112.6 KB/sec, approx 928 Kbps, 0.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 4891 ms = 104.7 KB/sec, approx 863 Kbps, 0.84 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1143 Kbps, 1.12 Mbps
It can go lower before the night is out.
James Henry
25-04-2006, 20:30
ADSLGuide's tester is a bit congested at the moment, as is ntl's external connectivity.
Florence
25-04-2006, 20:43
Try the Telewest one than. http://tenmeg.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Thats a good link, some solid tips on there, nice :tu:
Chrysalis
28-04-2006, 03:27
An update here.
I have noticed some weird goigns on over the past week or so, peak time performance up etc.
What seems to be going on is it slows down as normal late afternoon and between 5pm and 6pm its very bad, lag spikes in ssh, slow speeds etc. Then at 6pm speeds shoot up (download on ftp went from 70kB/sec to 820kB/sec) and the lag in ssh dissapears, browsing is also more responsive.
So I have a theory shaping is on here it fits in with the 6-12pm times been mentioned as well. If it is shaping ntl appear to have made a good job of it, what I use my connection for benefits from it.
turbulentone
28-04-2006, 12:56
any evidence to back this up
James Henry
28-04-2006, 15:19
any evidence to back this up
Odd thing to say. The guy gave the observations that lead to his speculation in the above post, which I thought was quite clear. His post states what he saw, then he offers a potential explanation.
He is giving his opinion, as is his right, nothing more.
So I have a theory
You seem a bit touchy about the prospect of traffic shaping being active and customers knowing about it. Let's face it had to happen sooner or later, those Allot NetEnforcer AC-1000 series boxes had to get exercise eventually.
any evidence to back this up
Odd thing to say. The guy gave the observations that lead to his speculation in the above post, which I thought was quite clear. His post states what he saw, then he offers a potential explanation.
He is giving his opinion, as is his right, nothing more.
So I have a theory
You seem a bit touchy about the prospect of traffic shaping being active and customers knowing about it. Let's face it had to happen sooner or later, those Allot NetEnforcer AC-1000 series boxes had to get exercise eventually.
Indeed
The fact is they are there, Turned on, And warming up. NTL will not have spent all that money on buying them, then having them installed, Without the intention of using them. My feeling now are if they are only used between 6.00pm and 11.00pm then no harm done. I am also under the impression that its only p2p upload that is affected.
Chrysalis
28-04-2006, 18:55
if its only upload and they are on here then that would indicate it was upload saturation which confuses me since I can always max my upstream any time of the day and ntl are increasing upstream allowance on the middle tier, I was also told by a few different people upstream utilisation was normal and not overutilised. But it happened again tonight, 6pm big speed boost latency dropped.
---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------
any evidence to back this up
evidence from within ntl? to say its on now no, and if yes I wouldnt be able to disclose anyway.
But like the other 2 guys have said the hardware is in place.
I only have evidence of my own experiences and the pattern doesnt fit in with what I would expect to happen on a unshaped connection.
The speed test here is giving mixed results today, between 5MB - 8MB however when I download from a newsgroup I'm getting full speed
Chrysalis
30-04-2006, 16:21
its stopped now speed remaining slow in the evening again.
NTL 2MB
Mon, 1 May 2006 19:38:13 UTC
1st 512K took 13250 ms = 38.6 KB/sec, approx 318 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
2nd 512K took 14297 ms = 35.8 KB/sec, approx 295 Kbps, 0.29 Mbps
3rd 512K took 22297 ms = 23 KB/sec, approx 190 Kbps, 0.19 Mbps
4th 512K took 13218 ms = 38.7 KB/sec, approx 319 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 281 Kbps, 0.28 Mbps
Mon, 1 May 2006 19:42:29 UTC
1st 128K took 2047 ms = 64031 Bytes/sec = approx 533 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 2547 ms = 51461 Bytes/sec = approx 428 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 2703 ms = 48491 Bytes/sec = approx 403 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec
It's no surprise I'm in my 30 day cancellation period; the service in terms of speed, amongst other things, has been poor in the evenings for well over a month now.
Alta Ego
16-05-2006, 23:25
:angel: Bump :angel:
* Cough * Cardiff Headend * Cough * * trial * Cough * Next Week *
sorry sore throat ;)
Better call the plumber, seems to be some leaks somewhere ;) :erm:
Thanks for the info, shame you couldn't be more vague though :p:
:angel: Bump :angel:
* Cough * Cardiff Headend * Cough * * trial * Cough * Next Week *
sorry sore throat ;)
:LOL:
:LOL:
I think this has come back with a vengeance. :(
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.