Leaderboard

Pgoodwin1 Hi CA3LE. Got an odd bug you can maybe fix. I go to DB/Fastest ISPs/Full Listing, I searched on Cincinnati Bell and Spectrum. I pulled up the Speed Test Logs for both - separate windows to compare It defaults to All Identifiers in the Results tables. I set it to 1000 / page. OK. I select the “Speed” column heading so that it shows the fastest. OK. Everything’s fine. The issue: In the Results Table, I can’t choose to display the fastest Speeds first in the Speed column when selecting an Identifier (other than All Identifiers) If I select an Identifier (like Dallas, TX), the Speed column automatically reverts to the slowest Speed of the 1000. When I select the Speed column heading to make it show fastest first, the Identifier automatically reverts to “All Identifiers”. When I reselect Dallas TX, it automatically displays the slowest Speed first again. haha - an endless cycle of despair Pgoodwin1 BTW: My personal test results “My Results” table doesn’t behave that way. You can select an Identifier then sort on the fastest speed without it reverting to All Identifiers Pgoodwin1 @CA3LE just wondered if you had a chance to look into this. If you don’t plan to, that’s OK too. CA3LE I'll fix this for you and hit you back. Pgoodwin1 😁 Great CA3LE Did some updates to the database query. It should now work the way you were expecting. Let me know if it's querying correctly now. Pgoodwin1 It’s working perfect now. Thanks. That’s a very cool tool. maybe in the future you could add the date range field like our personal results page has. That way you could look at the ISPs performance over a specific period. one suggestion on our date range in our personal results: make it so you don’t have to scroll through the Calendar. When you want the start date to be 3 years prior to today’s date, it takes a long time to get there. Maybe use two boxes, one for start date, one for end date, and let the user be able to type in the date as an option. More error prone that way though, but if it showed the date format, us idiots should be able to get it right. i don’t want much. HAHA🤗 CA3LE 14 hours ago, Pgoodwin1 said: maybe in the future The future is now. You can now search hosts and locations by date range. Currently this pulls data from a table where the old results are purged. So will be limited to about the last 45K results per host. Within those results you can now perform more fine grained searches. I'm working on a super server upgrade that will cut down query times on my larger tables. This should enable us to run queries like never before on the larger datasets. I have what I think is going to be a very interesting topic on the subject. Where I'm going to detail my build process. All of my servers are custom built but this new server is going to be my most custom build ever. Basically, found that enterprise grade hardware (that I've been using) isn't the way for TestMy.net moving forward. I was able to beat TestMy.net's current Dual Xeon E5-2667 v4 w/ Optane setup using a single Optane and an old i7 10700K. Not by a little either. It seems core performance is the bottleneck. The 13th and 14th gen Intel chips have oxidation and voltage issues so I think I'm going to end up going with AMD. Also Ryzen supports ECC memory. I'm basically building a Ryzen gaming PC inside of a 2U rack mount chassis. Also building a piKVM v2 into it to basically give the machine IPMI. Be able to remotely see the display, control input, mount ISOs... control it like I'm there. I've got the build coming in right now at less than $1K. That's about what I paid for just the CPU's and Optane drive in the master server. And I got them used, 1/6 the original price. After testing I'm convinced, my dream server is a gaming PC. Enterprise hardware, even the most recent CPUs... right there with basic consumer CPUs. They support more memory, have more cache but the performance per core where it counts most is far, far lower. My concern with hosting TestMy.net is usually focused on single thread performance. Similar to how I focus on single thread performance in my tests but this is talking about CPU threads. More threads is definitely helpful and nessesary but the speed of each thread is the most important variable. The single thread performance I'll get out of any AM5 Ryzen will absolutely crush any of the Xeon CPUs in my price range. The ones I'm looking at out perform or are at par with even the latest enterprise CPUs. At the end of the day I can build servers cheaper with the latest chips. All working together in my proxmox cluster so hardware failure is tolerable... but I imagine they'll be just as stable, under volting the CPUs and run them through extra stability testing before production. There's so much competition in the gaming PC performance arena which leads to less expensive consumer chips being faster. And yes, better database structure solves problems. But so does adding more power. It's far easier for me to give my cluster more power than to restructure databases. Things I've built recently and going forward are better planned but there's all the databases and tables prior. If you don't mind, I'd like to share this thread as a topic. Pgoodwin1 Wow. That sounds really good. It does totally amaze me what you can get in processing power these days. Consumer grade machines can be so fast and not that expensive. “If you don't mind, I'd like to share this thread as a topic.” Certainly go ahead and share it as a topic thanks for the upgrade with the date range. That tool is awesome now for comparing ISPs. I’ve been looking at maybe changing from Spectrum to AltaFiber (which is Cincinnati Bell). That change you made just adding the date range makes it very easy to compare apples to apples - different test servers, No problem, thank you for the suggestion. CA3LE No problem, thank you for the suggestion. The limitation on the host and location queries has needed that correction for a long time. Once I know someone is trying to query in a broken way, it's motivation to make it work the way you expect.