[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think their test is reliable as I can get consistent results and manipulate them in certain ways, remember VM are known for buffer bloat.

I get anywhere from A to F repeating the test several times on the same symmetric gigabit line. My transmit buffer is set to 20ms yet the the test simultaneously measures upload buffer to be 150ms +/-75ms (very inaccurate in itself) and 540ms +/- 250ms, aka all over the place. I wouldn't trust anything that thinks my latency is 75m and 750ms at the same time.

On another note VM may be known for bufferbloat but I have never seen downstream buffers of anywhere near 1800ms on VM. The highest I've seen is 150-600ms, and the latter only in extreme conditions.

The latency test also swings pretty wildly, probably just very inaccurate timing used in some browsers.

Whilst qasi may have those speeds which are probably only useful for warez, I wouldnt be too happy with latency measuring in the seconds whilst uploading.

Also usually downstream has minimal effect on latency providing the downloading isnt too agressive. Thats why I mentioned the VM test as it unusually had very high latency during the test. Poor bufferbloat on a upload test is not unusual without any QoS.

His latency is 1.8 seconds while downloading and 0.2 seconds while uploading.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

or VM having a large buffer their side.

Absolutely not.

---------- Post added at 17:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

[Edit]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think their test is reliable as I can get consistent results

Yeah, definitely not what I would call consistent results.

IE ---

Test 1: FAIL - Upload too fast


Test 2: ERROR - Log too long



Test 3: FAIL - Upload too fast


Test 4:



Chrome ---

Test 1:



Test 2: ERROR - Your connection appears to be faster than 1 gig (with 830Mbps shown on the test status?!)


Test 3:


And yesterday:

I mean come on, 1020Mbps? Yeah, right...