6 replies to this topic

[CA3LE]

No more Unknown hosts.  I've taken care of it.

...  Because the data is being stored a little differently in the database for this upgrade it will take me some time to gather some data and flip over the FULL conversion of this upgrade.  For now, if you were being detected as "Unknown" the data is being stored in the old table a little differently..



The hosts with underscores in the name most likely would have returned 'unknown' before.  After I turn on all the features of this upgrade (as I said, after I gather sufficient data) the hosts will be displayed by their correct name, minus underscores, cut offs and other things I had to do to make the data compatible with the old format.

nJoy!
- CA3LE

[houkouonchi]

So are you using some sort of whois/IP owned by lookup method now instead of just rDNS? I know my connection is still listed as houkouonchi.jp even though that is just what my rDNS is due to PTR records but my IP is owned by Verizon Communications.

[CA3LE]

houkouonchi, on 19 October 2011 - 06:24 AM, said:

So are you using some sort of whois/IP owned by lookup method now instead of just rDNS? I know my connection is still listed as houkouonchi.jp even though that is just what my rDNS is due to PTR records but my IP is owned by Verizon Communications.

This will change for you as soon as i really turn this on.  Right now, only people who were previously detected as unknown are going off the new system.  I want to gather a good amount of data before I turn it on for everyone.  

Thanks for catching that though...

-Damon

[houkouonchi]

I also posted in another thread that was super old but you also recently responded in about whether or not you were still interested in having multiple speed test servers?

[mudmanc4]

houkouonchi, on 20 October 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

I also posted in another thread that was super old but you also recently responded in about whether or not you were still interested in having multiple speed test servers?

Interestingly enough , if you look on the home testing page , and have a peek down a little , you'll see there is now a server in Washington D.C. , afaik there's more to come as well.

[CA3LE]

mudmanc4, on 20 October 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

Interestingly enough , if you look on the home testing page , and have a peek down a little , you'll see there is now a server in Washington D.C. , afaik there's more to come as well.

' timestamp=, on 20 October 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

I also posted in another thread that was super old but you also recently responded in about whether or not you were still interested in having multiple speed test servers?

I wonder what you get to D.C.  -- I'll be setting up more servers but I'm not trying to set too many up.  I still believe that to truly test your connection you have to hop through some of your providers peers.  I'll be setting one up in Europe and Asia in the near-term... that should provide some really nice testing points across the globe.  Let's face it, even if you're somewhere else in the world... chances are, the sites you visit are in one of those locations.  Obviously testing off servers close to where your getting the rest of your information is a better benchmark than testing 50 miles away.  

In any case, the extra servers I order will maintain the bandwidth quality that the home server has.

[houkouonchi]

CA3LE, on 20 October 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

I wonder what you get to D.C.  -- I'll be setting up more servers but I'm not trying to set too many up.  I still believe that to truly test your connection you have to hop through some of your providers peers.  I'll be setting one up in Europe and Asia in the near-term... that should provide some really nice testing points across the globe.  Let's face it, even if you're somewhere else in the world... chances are, the sites you visit are in one of those locations.  Obviously testing off servers close to where your getting the rest of your information is a better benchmark than testing 50 miles away.  

In any case, the extra servers I order will maintain the bandwidth quality that the home server has.

If you are interested I have a server in L.A. on 1000/1000. It actually also runs speedtest.net's LA server (well half of the time as they seem to balance the load between mine and another). It averages about 35 megabits now (load split) and before was around 70 mbits (day average).

L.A. is usually a good option for faster speeds to Asia (until you get something in asia).

I tried selecting the DC server but got:


:::.. Download Test Results ..:::
Download Connection:: 140478 Kbps or 137.2 Mbps
Download Test Size:: 200 MB or 204800 kB or 209715200 bytes
Download Speed:: 17560 kB/s or 17.1 MB/s
Tested At:: http://TestMy.net version:12
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/db/mnFrcZ3
Test Time:: 2011-10-20 11:32:13 Local Time
1MB Download in 0.06 Seconds - 1GB Download in ~1 Minutes - 2509X faster than 56K
This test of exactly 204800 kB took 11.663 seconds to complete
Running at 107% of hosts average (houkouonchi.jp)
User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.7 (KHTML, like Gecko

:::.. Upload Test Results ..:::
Upload Connection:: 48271 Kbps or 47.1 Mbps
Upload Test Size:: 29.2 MB or 29916 kB or 30634200 bytes
Upload Speed:: 6034 kB/s or 5.9 MB/s
Tested At:: http://TestMy.net version:12
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/db/CHJ2grL
Test Time:: 2011-10-20 11:33:00 Local Time
1MB Upload in 0.17 Seconds - 1GB Upload in ~3 Minutes - 862X faster than 56K
This test of exactly 29916 kB took 4.958 seconds to complete
Running at 111% of hosts average (houkouonchi.jp)
User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chr

Almost the exact same results I got to texas. According to iftop my traffic was coming from/going to 174.120.187.140 which is the same IP as this site so I am guessing it did not use the server for some reason.