Sean

Sophist Member
  • Content count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results

Reputation Activity

  1. xs1 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Untraceable?   
    I get the impression that the IP address is the victim of a DDoS attack, where Verizon has decided to null route all incoming traffic sent to it on most or all its routers to minimise traffic on its network from the attack. 
    If this is the case, the next hop after your home router would be one of their routers (assuming your ISP is Verizon), hence no reply after your router.  For the Level3 site traceroute, the third hop shown in your screenshot is at Verizon, so the next hop inside their network would also be one of their routers probably configured to null route that IP address.
    A few more tests worth trying would be a TCP traceroute and a UDP traceroute.  If both give a similar result, then it's most likely that IP address is null routed rather than just ICMP filtering to block a trace route to it.
  2. Sean liked a post in a topic by tuscan in Manual download testing   
    Hi
     
    By means of an update, I am now obtaining approx. 30Mbps download using 4G from EE.
     
    I have a further question ....
     
    The TP-LINK MR200 router I am using is reporting a 50% signal strength - if I use an antenna to try to increase the signal strength, is it likely I would I obtain a further increase in download speeds and, if so, by approx. how much ?
     
    Thanks in advance.
     
     
  3. Sean liked a post in a topic by CA3LE in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
    Great analogy!
     
    For those who'd argue "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 
     
    Do you want to know how long it might take if everything were perfect... or would you rather know the true amount of time it will take?  Who cares about the time it would take if there were no variables, it's irrelevant if it can never be achieved in the real world.  I don't know about you but if I set off on a road trip and Google Maps said, "6 hours" and then it ends up taking 24 hours because of stop lights, construction and speed limits (all known before)... I'd be really pissed.  I'd rather be told the truth with all things considered so that I can plan accordingly.
     
     
  4. Pgoodwin1 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
    I have the same experience with 4G (cellular LTE) based broadband connections, such as when positioning a directional antenna.  When the network is quiet (e.g. early on a weekend morning), there can be a large variation between what SpeedTest and TestMy reports if the antenna is not aimed correctly.  Once the antenna is carefully aimed, the TestMy results climb up towards what Speedtest reports.  It's similar also if there are swaying branches in line of sight as Speedtest will again ignore the brief dips as if the bandwidth is sustained. 
     
    If Speedtest measured road trip speeds, their speed test methodology would eliminate traffic lights, construction zones, slow vehicles, busy junctions and everything else that accounted for the slowest 30% of the journey.
     
    If TestMy measured road trips, it would run a stopwatch from the moment of departure to the moment of arrival.
     
    Of course like the Speedtest fanatics, there would be those that would argue the same for road trip measurements - "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 
  5. Sean liked a post in a topic by tuscan in Manual download testing   
    Happy New Year to you too !
     
    Thanks for your reply.
     
    I tested both my standard and mobile broadband connections using the 3MB test URL you provided.
     
    The tests confirmed that the 4G connection is much faster than the standard broadband connection - we are in a rural location where the standard broadband links are not good !
     
    Time to purchase some pre-loaded SIM cards !!
     
    Thanks again for your help with this.
     
     
     
     
  6. Assassin5150 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Google Fiber Speed Test   
    From a quick check in TCPView, Google fiber's speed test is multi-threaded.  Based on a test my with my connection (which only peaks about 45Mbps), it made 20 simultaneous connections:
     

    Although TestMy has a multi-threaded test option (default test is a single connection), the 200MB maximum block size is not sufficient to properly test Gigabit connections as the test will complete in under 2 seconds (900Mbps = 112.5MB per second).  So for measuring your peak speed, the Google fibre test will likely be more accurate.
     
    On the other hand, the normal TestMy linear test will give an idea of what your connection is capable of with a single connection, similar to downloading a very large file with a web browser or FTP transfer.  If you are getting in the 800Mbps range, your connection is fine.  However, if it's much lower, e.g. below 500Mbps, then there is probably something limiting what you can achieve over a single connection, which the multi-threaded speed tests don't show, in which cause you would only be able to achieve the multi-threaded test result with a multi-threaded download manager, e.g. Firefox's DownThemAll plug-in which splits a large download into multiple segments and downloads these segments simultaneously. 
  7. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Down & Up Combined Score   
    Test run on the Irish Three 4G network in Donegal town, possibly LTE+ (OnePlus 2 phone):
     

     
    It's also my fastest TestMy download result to date, certainly did not expect to see my first >100Mbps result on a cellular network, let alone the Three network especially with the past experience of prioritising/throttling ports.  As far as I can tell, they treat port 80 and 8080 equally now and the above test was a normal linear HTTP test with the UK server.
  8. Sean liked a post in a topic by CA3LE in TID graphs are showing up blank   
    Hey Sean, I didn't see this topic, I got a PM with the same title and ended up responding over there and didn't see this thread.  It was a pretty odd issue that came from an  update of ipb. 
     
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention quickly so I could fix it quickly.
     
    Happy New Year!!
  9. psyber liked a post in a topic by Sean in Unusual start to Downloads   
    The spike at the start can sometimes be caused by the Internet Security (virus checker) or the browser itself.
     
    For example, many Internet Security products start analysing the data of each connection before passing the data stream to the browser.  In the split second this happens, the data coming in is queued.  Once the Internet security product is satisfied this is not a threat, it passes this chunk along with any queued data to the browser.  To the speed test, this burst of data appears as the spike at the start of the graph.
     
    I often see this happen with the Firefox web browser, which also seems to hold up the data stream near the start of the test.  For example, occasionally when I start a speed test, Firefox stutters and then seems to skip ahead 10% where the speed test script sees this chunk as a speed spike.  The following shows an example of the spike where I did a test on Firefox for Android, in this case over the Meteor LTE (4G) network.
     

  10. jb847 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Does checking internet speed online, in anyway affects bandwidth?   
    If this advice was given for a mobile Internet connection, what they likely mean is that running speed tests gobbles up the available data allowance.
     
    For example, many of the popular mobile phone packages in Ireland and the UK have a 1GB data allowance, such as the following example I picked from the UK O2 website:
     

    Running a speed test on 4G typically uses up to 100MB per direction per test depending on the 4G speed.  For example, if one is getting around 50Mbps, TestMy will usually download about 60MB in total.  This is double for the uplink direction as TestMy first downloads each block size to run the upload test.  So for a typical 20Mbps uplink, it will use around 40MB in total.  For faster 4G areas such as 20MHz areas or LTE Advanced (or 4G+), these figures double or triple.  Speedtest.net uses a similar amount of data, around 100MB total for a 4G connection delivering about 50Mbps down and 20Mbps up and I'm sure it's much the same with other speed test providers. 
     
    So assuming a speed test uses about 100MB per test (combined up & down) and the user has a 1GB monthly allowance like the above tariff, that person just needs to run the test 10 times to use up their data allowance without doing anything else online. 
     
    Basically, for anyone with a 2GB or lower monthly data allowance on their mobile handset, run the speed tests sparingly on 3G and avoid running speed tests if at all possible on 4G, apart from on the last day of the billing cycle and you have at least 200MB left (500MB for an LTE Advanced / 4G+ area).
  11. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in 192.168.2.400   
    192.168.2.400 is not a valid IP address. The individual octets can only go up to 255.
  12. Sean liked a post in a topic by mudmanc4 in 192.168.2.400   
    And that is exactly why chickens nor monkeys can be timed in how long it takes them to kick the seeds from a dill pickle
     
  13. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in 192.168.2.400   
    192.168.2.400 is not a valid IP address. The individual octets can only go up to 255.
  14. iceb liked a post in a topic by Sean in Port 8080 speed test   
    As I noticed some ISPs return considerably quicker speed tests with Ookla's speed than what's possible with regular web access including TestMy, I decided to snoop at how Speed test establishes its connection using Sysinternals' TCPView utility.  I sorted the traffic by 'Received Bytes' and then started a speed test.
     
    While the multiple connections doesn't surprise me (Ookla's tests are all multi-threaded), what I was surprised with was what port it used - 8080:
     

     
    It seemed like no matter what test server I tried, it ran its test over port 8080, which is a seldom used port for web traffic.  For example, HTTP and HTTPS traffic are carried over ports 80 and 443, respectively, while FTP traffic is carried over ports 20 and 21.   Port 8080 is typically used for an internal web proxy within corporate networks and for an ISP cache proxy in the early days of Internet for faster access to popular websites.
     
    On the other hand, by running the speed tests over port 8080, this makes it easy for ISPs to prioritise traffic for anyone using Ookla's speed test as all they have to do is give elevated QoS for traffic running over port 8080.
     
    I then thought - Is port 8080 necessary for Ookla's Speedtest?  To find out, I blocked port 8080 on my PC.
     
    The speed test took a little longer to start, but once it did, it switched over to port 80, in this case with two threads:
     

     
    Once I open up port 8080 and click 'Test Again', the next test runs on port 8080 again.
     
    So an interesting idea would be if TestMy could add support for port 8080.  I don't think it will require much configuration other than configuring the various test servers to also accept traffic on port 8080.  Then it would just be a matter of typing http://testmy.net:8080/ to perform the test on port 8080 with suspect ISPs, such as those that seem to throttle ports 80 (HTTP) and 443 (HTTPS).
  15. Pgoodwin1 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
    I have the same experience with 4G (cellular LTE) based broadband connections, such as when positioning a directional antenna.  When the network is quiet (e.g. early on a weekend morning), there can be a large variation between what SpeedTest and TestMy reports if the antenna is not aimed correctly.  Once the antenna is carefully aimed, the TestMy results climb up towards what Speedtest reports.  It's similar also if there are swaying branches in line of sight as Speedtest will again ignore the brief dips as if the bandwidth is sustained. 
     
    If Speedtest measured road trip speeds, their speed test methodology would eliminate traffic lights, construction zones, slow vehicles, busy junctions and everything else that accounted for the slowest 30% of the journey.
     
    If TestMy measured road trips, it would run a stopwatch from the moment of departure to the moment of arrival.
     
    Of course like the Speedtest fanatics, there would be those that would argue the same for road trip measurements - "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 
  16. j7n liked a post in a topic by Sean in Firefox Send Buffer   
    Although my LTE connection is limited to about 16Mbps up, it did make a noticeable difference here also:
     
    Default (131072) and after (524288):

     
    The Android Firefox does not seem to have this setting, however, I have noticed it has been producing faster upload results than Firefox on my PC, so it probably uses a larger send buffer by default.  It consistently produces faster upload results than the Chrome App, which seems to cap out about 12Mbps. 
  17. Sean liked a post in a topic by j7n in Firefox Send Buffer   
    I noticed that on my computer Firefox by default sets the TCP send buffer equal to 128 KB (about:config -> network.tcp.sendbuffer), which limits the result of a single thread upload test. System default receive buffer is used, so download speed isn't affected. This value is adequate for normal web browsing and uploading to geographically close servers, but cannot be used to measure the best possible performance of bulk file transfers across different applications. Usually software don't set custom buffer sizes, or if they do, they use extreme values (FileZilla uses 4 MB).
    I observed the following throughput with FireFox - 128 KB:

    384 KB:

    512 KB:


     
  18. Sean liked a post in a topic by Gabe1972 in Not bad for Hughesnet..   
    Getting better over the last month and a half or so. 
     
    Right now, with the Gen4 plan, you can still buy the equipment, though I'm not sure how much it is.  $200 maybe?  The Gen4 plans have no free download time.  They have the Anytime Data, which is really the biggest difference between plans, and the Bonus Bytes, which is 50GB with all of the plans.  Anytime Data is 8:00AM to 2:00AM, and Bonus Bytes is 2:00AM to 8:00AM.  If you run out of Bonus Bytes, though, the Anytime Data will be used during Bonus Bytes time, hence the name. 
     
    With that said, I prefer to lease the equipment, because if anything goes wrong with it, it's covered.  If you purchase it and later something goes wrong with it, you have to pay to have it fixed, not only for the parts, but the labor, as well.  Sure, in the long leasing costs more, but it's worth the peace of mind. 
     
    I have the 15GB/50GB plan.  I don't stream, so it's plenty for me, and for three Windows 10 PCs, too.  I pay about $85 for mine, but I have a 12 month discount.  Normally it would be $79.99 for the plan and $9.99 for the equipment lease, plus tax.  
     
    My plan has Smart Browsing, as well.  If I use up all of my data, I can still browse with no noticeable drop in speed.  That's browsing, though.  If you try to download large files while in Smart Browsing, it will throttle you to around 150Kbps.   
  19. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in IP address diversity in the hundreds   
    At home, my main Internet connection is a DSL connection that gives a fairly consistent 3.9Mbps down and about 400Kbps up.  I tried a fixed wireless service about a year ago that was a complete disaster.  Lately I'm using a makeshift LTE based connection that fluctuates between 4Mbps and 45Mbps down and 10Mbps to 12Mbps up, going by TestMy.  As with phone cellular data connections, the IP address changes quite regularly, likely once or twice a day. 
     
    In addition, while out and about, I run tests with my phone's data and similar also in places that offer free Wi-Fi.  I didn't realise just how many different IP addresses I clocked up until I was browsing through the Top 10 list for Ireland. 
     

    I'm actually surprised to be in this list also as I certainly don't have the 10,000th fastest connection in Ireland, let alone the 10th.  Just a pity that most people in Ireland don't create an account to log their readings as that #7 rank indeed shows that the majority of tests here are not with a signed in user. 
  20. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Good speeds on speedtest.net but subpar here   
    I sure would love to have that speed...
     
    It does bug me also that most people I've encountered that sees a much lower speed on TestMy automatically puts the fault at TestMy instead of their ISP not being able to measure their connection as I've lost count of the number of times I've tried explaining why the two sites give such different results.  Here, I'm talking about speeds in the 50Mbps to 100Mbps region where TestMy may throw up 6 to 8Mbps while Speedtest.net throws up 40 to 50Mbps, such as what I see on my 4G connection from time to time.
     
    The primarily reason is that Speedtest.net always runs its test multi-threaded and discards the 30% lowest readings during its test, while TestMy makes a linear connection to the Test server and factors in the entire test including dips in its test result.  So when my 4G connection is showing a test result of 6Mbps, I know that ~750KB/s is what to expect from individual downloads and generally that's the case, even when Speedtest.net claims I'm getting 40+Mbps.  This is especially important with streaming services as a Speedtest.net result of let's say 20Mbps does not necessarily mean that YouTube can stream video at 6Mbps for 1080p video. 
     
    Another way to double-check your connection is with a download from Leaseweb's test file set.  Start the download of a large file (e.g. 1000MB sample) and wait a few seconds for the transfer rate figure settles.  Multiply this figure by 8 to convert to Mbps and you should get what your ISP is sustaining in this transfer.  For me, this generally matches up with what I get with the TestMy UK and Germany servers nearest to me and it's very unlikely that the bottleneck along the route is at Leaseweb's end. 
  21. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in Fast mobile 3G speed test   
    Despite all the hype over 4G these days, I recently decided to go back to 3G with my mobile provider.  What's really surprising is just how much bandwidth they can squeeze even over 3G as I remember when 4G first launched, the maximum speed I've seen with any 3G provider was about 8Mbps, with speeds of 3Mbps or less being more common.
     
    The following is a speed test I conducted just a short while ago with my mobile operator Meteor in Ireland.  This is HSPA+ (3G), which I'm paying €10/month for and has a 7.5GB cap.  Sure I could pay €10 more for 4G and double the cap, but I wasn't even getting 1/10th this with my previous mobile provider Three on their 4G network!:
     

     
    I would be curious to to see if anyone else is getting anything better with 3G.  Even the Vodafone 4G network here which is hyped for delivering 100Mbps results on Ookla was only delivering about 20mbps at times with TestMy when I tried their network for a month back in January. 
     
    While many areas still give about 10Mbps with Meteor, for me it's still fast enough for pretty much everything I do with my smartphone, including YouTube in HD. 
  22. Sean liked a post in a topic by mudmanc4 in Terminal Fun / Data   
    Ha, was just posting a SS you beat me to it lol
     
    Now check this out.
     
    Weather in a shell w/ a couple keystrokes? No problem.
     
    curl wttr.in/Denver?u  

     
    Yea. I like running root for such things, why not? XD
  23. mudmanc4 liked a post in a topic by Sean in And you laugh at my tin foil hat XD   
    I went ahead and checked the examples as I was curious to see also whether a webpage could get direct access to the webcam without asking.
     
    Edge, Chrome and Firefox all asked whether to provide webcam access and sure enough my webcam picture appeared once granted.  Internet explorer 11 did not provide webcam access or ask either, which could be a compatibility issue with my laptop or that it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
     
    This reminds me of the "Live avatar" webcam effects I had something like 10 years ago back in the good old days of MSN Messenger, i.e. the avatar would mimic the eye and mouth movements, which the other end would see.  Like the live avatars, this JavaScript doesn't seem to work very well with my glasses as the flickering dots were completely erratic even after following its mouse calibration steps. 
  24. Sean liked a post in a topic by mudmanc4 in And you laugh at my tin foil hat XD   
    Democratizing Webcam Eye Tracking on the Browser:
     
    WebGazer.js is an eye tracking library that uses common webcams to infer the eye-gaze locations of web visitors on a page in real time. The eye tracking model it contains self-calibrates by watching web visitors interact with the web page and trains a mapping between the features of the eye and positions on the screen. WebGazer.js was built It is written entirely in JavaScript and with only a few lines of code can be integrated in any website that wishes to better understand their visitors and transform their user experience. WebGazer.js runs entirely in the client browser, so no video data needs to be sent to a server.
    Source
     
    Now you understand why that sticky note hangs over my cam on the laptop. Though, this is not new technology, just getting a bit more ingrained in daily life.
     
  25. Sean liked a post in a topic by CA3LE in Wrong Time Zone   
    Should be resolved site wide, thanks for the heads up.