38 replies to this topic

[marsh_0x]

Up until a few days ago TMN was slower than my reference to Hughes speed test site.
Now showing 8Mbps as before was 2.9Mbps, is very wrong.

Hughes was about 3.4 but now again they increased our speed is a consistent 4Mbps.
I also have WB nothing changed with their service, a slow 1Mbps.

For what it's worth...

[CA3LE]

Just all of a sudden your speeds shot up to 8Mbps... and your line isn't 8Mbps?  Did you install any software that may be messing with your TCP/IP traffic or caching in some way?

[tommie gorman]

What speeds are you actually getting when you do a download?

[marsh_0x]

Hi, I don't how any software could be affecting the tests as Wild Blue remains the same.
Both laptops are showing the same, 1 with Win 7 64bit, the other Vista 64bit.

Here's my link...http://testmy.net/memberstats/
Please note WB for side by tests is quite sad. My plan is up to 1.7 Mbps then Hughes doubled our speed to 3.4 Mbps and now odd for 3 days for a consistent 4 Mbps, using Hughes speed test page for the reference, unsure if other users are seeing the 600 Kbps increase yet, no mention at the community.
They also doubled our FAP really a 2 day rollover so I bank to get up to 1050MB, lucky you without a FAP and insanely fast.

Yes I have downloaded from Filehippo with their dedicated servers and with size/time calculation was close using a 118MB file.
Now I'm not complaining only curious.

Nice programming job CA3LE, all the other test sites don't like satellite and always wrong.
Common knowledge that only Hughes and TMN are the standards to use, TMN gets a lot of referrals.

Marsh

[zeddlar]

Posting this here too in case you come here first. From the looks of your results, you are using the automatic test, try testing with the 12 MB test size and throw the first result out and run the test a second time and see if you get a more accurate result. The automatic test has long nad a habit of inflating test scores with Hughesnet for some reason and you can see this by going bacj through the old posts here in the Hughesnet forum. Also the first time you test after going to TMN seems to more times than not pick up a burst at the beginning of the download so it is always best to throw that test out and retest and then as long as you don't leave TMN every test thereafter should be accurate. I dunno why it does this, just know it does and it has never been a real problem for me so I havn't mentioned it here for several years.

[marsh_0x]

Hi Zeddlar
Thanks for the quick response as I had e-mail notification via Yahoo.
Took your advise skipping Smartest and went with 12MB and then repeated try of 25MB, results were the same,
haha 8-9 MB gives me a warm feeling anyways, past few months have been a Xmas gift with Hughes at no charge,  Wrigly gum said it best Doublemint double the fun with speed and FAP.

Besides Stat Bar I also use Win gadget called Network Meter to see my download speed in real time.
WB is now  at 1.3Mbps, and when logging into Hughes 1st and then switch over WB, to compare and see that 2-3 X speed slower.

Merry Xmas

[mudmanc4]

Glad you have your speeds where you want them , or at the least close to or at what you should be getting.

just curious , what is  " xmas " ?

[marsh_0x]

Hi mudmanc4
Sorry means Merry Christmas
In northern Wisconsin we might not have a white Christmas in my lifetime ever.
Happy New Year, ah the eve is my 64th birthday, just another day of the week.

[zeddlar]

Can't figure why it is doing that, I have run it several times today and every one has been between 4 and 5 MB.

[mudmanc4]

marsh_0x, on 20 December 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

Hi mudmanc4
Sorry means Merry Christmas
In northern Wisconsin we might not have a white Christmas in my lifetime ever.
Happy New Year, ah the eve is my 64th birthday, just another day of the week.

Bah , no worries , I just have this " thing " with the whole " Xing out " of Christmas.

@zeddlar , ca3le had a great comment about the differences between the smart test and others , although I cannot find it right now.

[marsh_0x]

Hi, I asked a local friend with the exact same equipment Hughes 9000 modem and he see's the same.
Hi CA3LE, I only wanted you to know Hughes newest changes affected your tests.
So here are his for what it's worth , suggests I'm not alone
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date & Time arrow down             Test Size        Connection Speed            
Wed Dec 21 2011 @ 12:50:02 pm    

Wed Dec 21 2011 @ 12:47:03 pm    

14.3 MB     8.87 Mbps 1.11 MB/s    

Wed Dec 21 2011 @ 12:43:17 pm    

7.4 MB     8.68 Mbps 1.08 MB/s    

Wed Dec 21 2011 @ 12:38:50 pm    

69 MB     9.94 Mbps 1.24 MB/s    

Wed Dec 21 2011 @ 12:06:59 pm    

69 MB     4.5 Mbps 576 kB/s    
  
Fri Dec 16 2011 @ 12:15:55 pm    

23.6 MB     11.72 Mbps 1.47 MB/s    
  
Thu Dec 15 2011 @ 5:37:44 pm    

6.8 MB     5.37 Mbps 687 kB/s

[zeddlar]

Yeah, between what I am seeing on the HN forum and the HN section of this one, it would seem the problem is widely spread. I check mine regularly against actual downloads and it is staying fairly stable for me so far but it is beginning to look to me like there isn't a dependable speedtest out there for HN atm. Speakeasy was just a hair inflted but pretty close the other day and all the rest including the HN test show I am getting speeds generall slower than what even my actual download speed runs, lol.

I know this is causing alot of complaints on the HN forums but with no test running accuratly then it is hard to make people understand that they can't depend on those tests. I cant figure out how to do attachments but at 66% through a 107 MB video driver download from Nvidea I am downloading at 542 KB/s which adds up to a line speed of 4.3 Mb/s, when I tested here just before this download I got a result of 4.9 Mb/s so figuring possible server congestion at Nvideas end then that result is close. Just seconds before I started this download I tested with the HN official speed test and it showed a download speed of 320 KB/s which would be an actual download speed of 40 KB/s, LOL. I don't know what is causing these problems but there is something somewhere causing havoc with these tests. I will do another download test and comare it to these tests later this evening and see what happens, but the ones having these problems are going to have to do the same to show the conflicts because like I said, I am not having much if any problems with this sites test yet.

I should add that the reason the speeds went up for some is rumored to be because in order for them to do the FAP upgrades, they uncapped the modem speed restrictions so the modem can run at the top availible speed if this helps any.

[marsh_0x]

Hi zeddlar
I believe Hughes speed test is the only accurate one,  besides using a dedicated server to download and time the download, one needs to be sure of the connection to be accurate.

Logging in with Hughes 1st, now 3501kb/s and then immediately testing with WB 1166kb/s.
I have to believe and use as the standard, as WB is always twice as slow and at times 4x which is sad.

TMN shows WB at 1330kb/s which has been rock solid at true speeds.
Hughes 8430kbps is definitely wrong.
Only takes seconds to switch WiFi routers from my easy chair.

I can live with that, only wanted CA3LE to know.
All that matters to me is Hughes giving us an early Xmas present proven to me, speed and FAP.

Marsh

[zeddlar]

It ,ight be accurate for you but it is way off for me.

[marsh_0x]

Hi zeddlar
I see a lot of electronics technician in you to find a better answer of "why".
Still in my blood after 10  years retirement, a lifetime's worth of experience.
A motto of mine ~whatever works for you stay with it~

haha someday I will find the way to post a picture (avatar) here and there...

Marsh

[zeddlar]

Okies, just tested with the HN test, results are 247 KB/s down and 42 KB/s up, the test here shows 5.2 Mb/s down and 269 KB/s up. Now a dedicated server will give you a full speed download as fast as you can download as long as the server has an upload speed faster than your download speed. Either way for max speed you can never get an inflated result but you can get a slow result., You just have to know the quality of the service at the server you are downloading from and the amount of average congestion to make an educated guess at how much those things are slowing you down on a public server.
Ok on an 85 MB file I averaged an actual download speed of 480 KB/s which adds up to 3.8 Mb/s so my test result here was a bit inflated and the HN test again was way to slow. Just to be clear, to get that average download speed I wait untill the burst speed is past and the download speed levels out and then I record the slowest speed and the fastest speed there after and split the differance and then lean that number toward the faster or slower side depending on whether the speed spent more time on the faster or slower side of that average.

I got the avatar but  I can't figure out how to do attachments here to save my life, lol. This all has to be something HN is doing with thier software trying to get decent speeds and higher allowances but for the life of me I can't figure out why it is causing the tests to malfunction.

[mawgdrum]

This morning's results from Hughes give 2131kbps down and 121kbps up.  TMN gives 16.3 Mbps (followed with 138, one hundred and thirty-eight Mbps)  down and 99 up.  Original TMN numbers were 2 to 3 Mbps down before extensive tweaking.  The biggest increase in scores after the tweaking was a discwash of my 466 GB hard disc.  Setting aside RAM for the use of the network card seems to have helped.   No actions of any kind have any statistically significant effect on upload speed.   It looks like very effective throttling software.

[zeddlar]

It seems to be showing slightly inflated scores for me now as well. From the best I can tell it is consistantly showing about 1 or 2 Mb/s faster than I am running from the looks of things.

[mawgdrum]

This morning's results:  Hughes 2205 kbps down and 126 kbps up     TMN  15.3 mbps down and 118 kbps up.   Neither test measures the sit-and-wait of satellite latency or the RNSE (Raw Network Speed  Envy).  Another wireless ISP is coming into the mountainous county I live in but may do me no good because of a certain 3,400 foot tall ridge between their  transmitter and my house.   The "white space" technology coming on to the market looks interesting but is still not anything like fiberoptic cable.

[mawgdrum]

Afternoon tests brought another wild-and-crazy download result with 112.3 mbps.  The blue bar blurred across the screen.  Follow-on test was 16.98 mbps.  Uploads were 115 and 111 kbps.  Changing TOS disable to enable and setting TOS to 136 seems to have made a small change in upload speed.  There seem to be fewer excursions down to lower numbers.  I have a 2Gb 82566DC network connection to my HN9000 modem.  It runs at 100Mbps.  What do other people have?