Home News Forum Articles
  Welcome back Join CF
You are here You are here: Home | Forum | Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.


Welcome to Cable Forum
Go Back   Cable Forum > Virgin Media Services > Virgin Media Internet Service

Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20-02-2012, 11:02   #46
Andrewcrawford23
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scotland
Age: 42
Services: Virgin Media - XL Plus package with XXL broadband SKY HD Multiroom Freeview HD Freesat HD
Posts: 2,816
Andrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze age
Andrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze ageAndrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze ageAndrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze ageAndrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

majority of program if are opsitmised for dual core are opstimised for 3 core, 4 core, 6 core, 8 core, and even 128 core no you wont find that type of core form intel or amd retail arm, but if ther eopstimised for one they generally will take use of the other cores it also depends on what os your runnign if it xp then although xp has been great for years it not really be updated to fully use multi core in teh same way vista or 7 has not saying it doesnt use them just not as well, same with the age old argument over 32bit, 64bit and itanium for memory argument

at the end of the day veryone hasa opinion on it and ow they see it working no two opinion are right nor are they wrong

kymmy it is techincally on topic :p as what my original post was saying is speed test can be affect by the user comptuer as well :p but i see why you think it is off topic to as it arguing about the cores and opstimising of for using them
Andrewcrawford23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Old 20-02-2012, 11:50   #47
Kymmy
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,398
Kymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny stars
Kymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny starsKymmy has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

It's not on topic when it goes away from speed testing.. Yes resources can effect your network throughput but the fact that someone has dual/quad/hex cores is irrelevant (just like any other My PC is better than yours contests) when the simple fact is that if you want a decent speed test result you use a PC that isn't compromised by programs using resources that effect the result which in this instance should be just your web browser and java/flash capability.

Now back on topic please
Kymmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2012, 22:25   #48
roughbeast
cf.mega poster
 
roughbeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: Vodafone/City Fibre Gigafast 900
Posts: 1,781
roughbeast has reached the bronze age
roughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Why then do I get an invariable 104Mb from speedtest.net (London, NAMESCO) any time of day or night? (I always close any network device before running tests.)

I have just been asked, today, to run the tbb speedtester on my system. So far it has done 2 tests and averaged me at 27Mb!

Speedtest.net and the tbb software-based speed tests are completely different tests done a completely different way, but someone must be taking the Micky. If tbb are basing national research into the performance of ISPs against their advertised speeds then they need to get their methods right. I for one won't believe their research results!
__________________
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: FACTCO/CityFibre 1GB FTTP; Asus GT-AX11000 +3 iMesh nodes; Humax 2Tb TV boxes x2; Synology DS920+ used as Plex server
roughbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2012, 22:35   #49
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

I'm not sure why you think TBB's result is "wrong". For one, Speedtest.net tests run four downloads simultaneously, which is more likely to reflect four people using the connection at a time, doing different things but is useless for testing single-threaded speeds.

So if TBB tells you how fast your connection would run downloading one file and Speedtest.net tells you the total speed of downloading four files - why is one more "wrong" than the other? Judging by your numbers both are exactly spot on. Four times 27 is almost exactly equal to the Speedtest.net speed for four files.

I for one care far less about 4-threaded speeds when I want one file to download, being able to stream four videos at 1/4 quality simultaneously is useless to me when I want to watch one video at full quality...
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2012, 22:45   #50
roughbeast
cf.mega poster
 
roughbeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: Vodafone/City Fibre Gigafast 900
Posts: 1,781
roughbeast has reached the bronze age
roughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq View Post
So if TBB tells you how fast your connection would run downloading one file and Speedtest.net tells you the total speed of downloading four files - why is one more "wrong" than the other? Judging by your numbers both are exactly spot on. Four times 27 is almost exactly equal to the Speedtest.net speed for four files.
I am still confused in that case.

I take your point about user experience and that is all we should worry about.

However, if tbb are trying to measure my down speed with a single file and this averages 27Mb on an advertised 100Mb connection, how do they conclude what my speed actually is and how do they propose to produce authoritative research from this? Do they use some form of the maths described above?
__________________
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: FACTCO/CityFibre 1GB FTTP; Asus GT-AX11000 +3 iMesh nodes; Humax 2Tb TV boxes x2; Synology DS920+ used as Plex server
roughbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2012, 23:04   #51
Sephiroth
Simples
 
Sephiroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: RG41
Services: 1 Gbps; Hub 4 MM; ASUS RT-AX88U; Ultimate VOLT. BT Infinity2; Devolo 1200AV
Posts: 11,955
Sephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny star
Sephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny starSephiroth has a nice shiny star
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Because my good friend Qasi has been a pixie. Four times 27 would be aggregated on speedtest.net (if that is indeed the speed of each of 4 simultaneous downloads). I'm sure you know this.

Your single TBB 27 meg is how your line is performing at that/those moment(s). I've done extensive comparisons between TBB, Namesco and Speedtest.net and they all behave variably within the same few minute spread but also behaved the same a couple of minutes later.
__________________
Seph.

My advice is at your risk.
Sephiroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2012, 23:57   #52
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Let's take a more detailed look at the two speedtests mentioned, Speedtest.net and ThinkBroadband.com, just for fun. Both comparing speedtest results, and actual real-world speed in use.

According to these Speedtest.net results, these two connections should be roughly the same speed.


Yet on Thinkbroadband's tests, one is over three times faster than the other:


Let's take a look at what happens when the connections are put to practical use. For the record, all the following examples are real-world examples of actual things I've used my broadband connection(s) for in the past few hours.

Example 1: Doing an SVN checkout of the source code of OpenWRT, as I need to patch and compile new firmware for one of my routers:

On VM:
Code:
qasdfdsaq@ubuntu:~$ time svn co svn://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/trunk/ ./trunk/
Checked out revision 30664.

real    0m30.816s
user    0m4.964s
sys    0m5.652s
On BT:
Code:
qasdfdsaq@ubuntu:~$ time svn co svn://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/trunk/ ./trunk/
Checked out revision 30664.

real    0m22.096s
user    0m4.784s
sys    0m5.484s
And to get an idea of what the downloaded files actually comprise of:

Code:
qasdfdsaq@ubuntu:~$ du -sh --exclude '.svn' ./trunk/
92M    ./trunk/
qasdfdsaq@ubuntu:~$ find ./trunk/* | grep -v '.svn' | wc -l
8263
So, to download a lot of small files where the top speed isn't the limiting factor, the BT connection is 25% faster despite Speedtest.net putting the two connections less than 3% apart.

Example 2: Downloading the latest Ubuntu ISO. Again, something I actually did a few hours ago as I needed a *nix platform to compile on.


Both downloads were started at the same time. Reminder: Speedtest.net thinks the two connections are just about equal, while ThinkBroadband.com thinks one is 3.5x as fast as the other. Which one do you think more accurately reflects the actual performance of my connection, for something I actually did on it in practice - for a purpose other than testing my connection speed?

Example 3: Watching a YouTube video. In the following test I loaded up a YouTube video simultaneously in two browsers, at full quality (1080p) and started them at the same time.



As you can see, one connection has buffered almost 100% of the video, while the other connection is barely keeping up with playback speed. In fact, the latter is already 10 seconds behind despite only being 23 seconds into the video as it had to pause to buffer. In approx. 35 seconds, the "Up to 40mbps" BT line has buffered 220 seconds of the video, while the "Up to 50mbps" VM line has buffered 24 seconds. If you take the Speedtest.net numbers to heart, these connections should only be 3% apart!

So on another attempt, I managed to get the video to play in real time and stay in sync, but barely. Again, the BT line manages to buffer several times more in the same time as the supposedly faster (or same speed) VM connection:



(Click image for full size, multi-screen screenshot showing they were in fact both running simultaneously, side by side)

This is one of the few videos that actually managed to playback in real-time on the VM 50mb connection - though admittedly only on the third attempt. I suspect that that the only reason this worked is because it is such a popular video (as you can tell from the ratings) that YouTube deliberately hosted it on its higher-priority server(s).

You might ask, why does it matter how far ahead it buffers, if it manages to play in real-time? Well the sooner it finishes buffering the whole video the sooner I can seek through it properly and skip all the boring parts. Duh!

So, in all three tests, replicating actual things I've done with my connection this evening, one service comes out miles ahead of the other. Yet Speedtest.net thinks they're about the same, while ThinkBroadband.com thinks one is several times faster.

The only difference? Everything I've done is single-user. And while Speedtest.net might give you a nice, high number, it isn't even remotely close to reflecting actual single-user experience, whereas TBB is a hell of a lot closer to the mark even if you think it's "rubbish" because the numbers are lower.
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 00:27   #53
Maggy
The Invisible Woman
Cable Forum Team
 
Maggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: between Portsmouth and Southampton.
Age: 71
Services: VM XL TV,50 MB VM BB,VM landline, Tivo
Posts: 40,160
Maggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden aura
Maggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden aura
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

There has already been one moderator warning to keep on topic so two postings have been removed.Any more and infractions will be issued.
__________________
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Shakespeare..
Maggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 07:03   #54
roughbeast
cf.mega poster
 
roughbeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: Vodafone/City Fibre Gigafast 900
Posts: 1,781
roughbeast has reached the bronze age
roughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq View Post
I'm not sure why you think TBB's result is "wrong".
Isn't it obvious? I am not a technician. I am a lay person with an interest in things technical. My understanding of how speed tests work is limited by the fact that I don't spend all my waking hours on such matters. The comparative descriptions above have helped my understanding considerably. Thank you qasdfdsaq and Sephiroth.

You need to appreciate that without your deeper understanding Joe Public will take speed tests at face value. e.g. 27Mbps means just that, not in fact 27Mbps X4. Is this not the point of this thread, implied in the title, to educate each other regardless of our technical backgrounds?

Edit.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........................

Now I am really confused! I currently have access to a Virgin Media only tester. I have been assured that this is a single thread-based test.

Last Result:
Download Speed: 104434 kbps (13054.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 8142 kbps (1017.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Latency: 17 ms
21 February 2012 06:33:11

Why isn't it showing me 104Mbs roughly divided by 4 = 26Mbps? Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood Sephiroth's comparative analysis of speedtest.net and the tbb monitor.
__________________
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: FACTCO/CityFibre 1GB FTTP; Asus GT-AX11000 +3 iMesh nodes; Humax 2Tb TV boxes x2; Synology DS920+ used as Plex server
roughbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 08:39   #55
Chrysalis
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Services: Gig1, Hub 5
Posts: 12,039
Chrysalis is cast in bronzeChrysalis is cast in bronzeChrysalis is cast in bronzeChrysalis is cast in bronze
Chrysalis is cast in bronze
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

the TBB tester does only use 1 thread however I think that isnt the reason it performs so badly, eg. its results vary a lot which would suggest congestion is somewhere between TBB and VM. the founder of TBB works for the isp TBB uses and has stated their link isnt congested.

I think another possible culprit is the congestion algorithm TBB uses. on one of my servers I installed a speedtest mini app, and craig and a few others tested it for me on VM 100mbit. On the OS's default congestion provider setting they barely got 30mbit/sec. After I adjusted they got over 90mbit/sec. There is no set standard for congestion control tcp settings which is one reason a lot of variance is seen on the internet with speeds as congestion algorithms can have a huge affect on performance. Some algorthims are designed to be resistant to packet loss and optimised for wireless connectivity, others optimised for high latency, other for burst speed (typically the ones that give best speedtest results), and others for ability to handle many connections fairly. the oldest algorithms are less agressive and tend to perform much worse when there is any congestion at all.
Chrysalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 14:36   #56
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Quote:
Originally Posted by roughbeast View Post
Now I am really confused! I currently have access to a Virgin Media only tester. I have been assured that this is a single thread-based test.

Last Result:
Download Speed: 104434 kbps (13054.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 8142 kbps (1017.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Latency: 17 ms
21 February 2012 06:33:11

Why isn't it showing me 104Mbs roughly divided by 4 = 26Mbps? Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood Sephiroth's comparative analysis of speedtest.net and the tbb monitor.
Thing is, if you're getting 27mbps on a 100mb line, it's not intentional, it's because of congestion that your line can't manage more than that. As with everything else congestion, effects will vary by time of day and path to server. A VM only server would probably be sat on the VM network, and therefore not be affected by VM's inability to provide sufficient outside capacity, and the fact that 6am is hardly peak time.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis View Post
the TBB tester does only use 1 thread however I think that isnt the reason it performs so badly, eg. its results vary a lot which would suggest congestion is somewhere between TBB and VM. the founder of TBB works for the isp TBB uses and has stated their link isnt congested.

I think another possible culprit is the congestion algorithm TBB uses. on one of my servers I installed a speedtest mini app, and craig and a few others tested it for me on VM 100mbit. On the OS's default congestion provider setting they barely got 30mbit/sec. After I adjusted they got over 90mbit/sec. There is no set standard for congestion control tcp settings which is one reason a lot of variance is seen on the internet with speeds as congestion algorithms can have a huge affect on performance. Some algorthims are designed to be resistant to packet loss and optimised for wireless connectivity, others optimised for high latency, other for burst speed (typically the ones that give best speedtest results), and others for ability to handle many connections fairly. the oldest algorithms are less agressive and tend to perform much worse when there is any congestion at all.
I'd agree partly. You'll see from another thread of mine that congestion to/from TBB's network on VM is actually a lot lower than to/from other locations (I only tested BBC and Multiplay) - TBB not only has a significantly lower ping but also much lower average ping and standard deviation. It looks to me VM have deliberately prioritized or expanded the path to TBB.

On the other hand congestion control, or in general TCP rate control algorithms, as you say aren't the same everywhere. While there are standards (and 4-5 "standard" algorithms) not everyone uses the same standard. Indeed, different browsers on the same system can yield vastly different results because of how they set their buffers differently.
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 15:20   #57
Andrewcrawford23
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scotland
Age: 42
Services: Virgin Media - XL Plus package with XXL broadband SKY HD Multiroom Freeview HD Freesat HD
Posts: 2,816
Andrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze age
Andrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze ageAndrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze ageAndrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze ageAndrewcrawford23 has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq View Post
Thing is, if you're getting 27mbps on a 100mb line, it's not intentional, it's because of congestion that your line can't manage more than that. As with everything else congestion, effects will vary by time of day and path to server. A VM only server would probably be sat on the VM network, and therefore not be affected by VM's inability to provide sufficient outside capacity, and the fact that 6am is hardly peak time.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------


I'd agree partly. You'll see from another thread of mine that congestion to/from TBB's network on VM is actually a lot lower than to/from other locations (I only tested BBC and Multiplay) - TBB not only has a significantly lower ping but also much lower average ping and standard deviation. It looks to me VM have deliberately prioritized or expanded the path to TBB.

On the other hand congestion control, or in general TCP rate control algorithms, as you say aren't the same everywhere. While there are standards (and 4-5 "standard" algorithms) not everyone uses the same standard. Indeed, different browsers on the same system can yield vastly different results because of how they set their buffers differently.
i think you might be right that vigi might have done something to TBB because i only average about 20mb on there before last year, but now i am averageing 45mb the hgihes ti have ever got on it
Andrewcrawford23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 17:45   #58
roughbeast
cf.mega poster
 
roughbeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: Vodafone/City Fibre Gigafast 900
Posts: 1,781
roughbeast has reached the bronze age
roughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq View Post
Thing is, if you're getting 27mbps on a 100mb line, it's not intentional, it's because of congestion that your line can't manage more than that. As with everything else congestion, effects will vary by time of day and path to server. A VM only server would probably be sat on the VM network, and therefore not be affected by VM's inability to provide sufficient outside capacity, and the fact that 6am is hardly peak time.[COLOR="Silver"]
So you are telling me 27Mb is probably accurate even though I get a better result than that on some flash driven server in Los Angeles? 27Mb is the lowest I have ever got anywhere any time since I have been on 100Mb. My PC is well up to spec when it comes to handling single threads, 4 threads or 8 threads. The fact that I got a 2 files from ACRONIS at a combined speed of 16MB the other day is not significant then?

Are we trying to defend the indefensible here?
__________________
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: FACTCO/CityFibre 1GB FTTP; Asus GT-AX11000 +3 iMesh nodes; Humax 2Tb TV boxes x2; Synology DS920+ used as Plex server
roughbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 19:07   #59
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

27 was at the time an instantaneous measure of your ability to fetch a certain type of data over the whole internet from a certain location. As been said several times, your local connection is one factor, the location you're connecting to is another, and the time of day also affects congestion.

The threads used by a speedtest site has nothing to do with threads as you think of them on a PC.

Since getting 16MB/sec is impossible on a 100mb connection (and the fact that we've already argued the fallacy of adding interdependant moving averages together) is a completely useless measure, and you can't base anything off it.

I'm really getting the feeling you don't fully understand how speed or speedtests work, so instead of presuming stuff as fact it'd be easier to explain to you if you just said what you don't understand.

From what I can tell, you got 27mb on a single-threaded London test at peak time, and a higher number that you don't specify on a flash based (probably multithreaded) test from Los Angeles. I don't get your point. All that says is your connection was faster off peak than it was at peak time... Why does that make either test wrong?

In fact, you seem to be claiming that because you did a flawed test and incorrectly calculated your 100mb connection could do 130mbps, a speedtest that says 27mbps is indefensible? I don't quite get your logic... Or are you saying that since you downloaded two files and got 16MB/sec combined, if you downloaded one file and got 8MB/sec, then that must be wrong? Cause I don't quite understand that either.
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2012, 20:40   #60
roughbeast
cf.mega poster
 
roughbeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: Vodafone/City Fibre Gigafast 900
Posts: 1,781
roughbeast has reached the bronze age
roughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze ageroughbeast has reached the bronze age
Re: Speed test sites and why you shouldnt take them for granted

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq View Post
I'm really getting the feeling you don't fully understand how speed or speedtests work, so instead of presuming stuff as fact it'd be easier to explain to you if you just said what you don't understand.
BINGO! You got it. This is why non-experts like me come to this forum and try to get explained what seems inexplicable, hopefully without being patronised.

So far the explanations I have received haven't answered the key question:

How can TBB base a national survey of comparative ISP speeds on a monitoring tool that limits its devices to a single thread speed test that seems incapable of dealing with congested times of the day?

Indeed with a maximum test speed of 42Mb at one point in a 24 hour period it hasn't managed to deal with low congestion.

Do they take my average TBB result of 27Mb and multiply it up, as has been suggested, by a factor of 4 or do they just conclude that my 100Mb can only manage an average of 27Mb? ( Between 18Mb and 42Mb over 5 tests ) After all, the point of the survey, as I understand, it is to see if ISPs give customers the speed they advertise.

BTW. Sorry about the 16MB. That was a typo. I meant 12MB. I must have been dreaming about the 'Proof of Concept' trial.
__________________
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Coventry
Services: FACTCO/CityFibre 1GB FTTP; Asus GT-AX11000 +3 iMesh nodes; Humax 2Tb TV boxes x2; Synology DS920+ used as Plex server
roughbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:49.


Server: osmium.zmnt.uk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.