Leaderboard

The most common question that people ask us is why their results here differ from speedtest.net. I want to explain something that may help you understand why this is. According to the Ookla Wiki [updated link] the following is true about your tests taken at speedtest.net... The fastest 10% and slowest 30% of your results are DISCARDED The remaining data is averaged together to determine the final result Throwing away the fastest 10% and slowest 30% of the results in my opinion does not make for an accurate test. Isn't THAT the data that you're here to see? Also note this isn't only true for speedtest.net. Ookla is huge, most of the speed tests online run their software. Source: wiki.ookla.com Multithreading makes your connection look better Ookla speed tests are also multithreaded. Meaning that they open more than one connection to the host and combine the speeds. This often can mask congestion issues. For instance, imagine that you have a pipe along your route that's limiting you to 10 Mbps. If you open more than one connection through that pipe you'll be able to achieve a faster speed... but testing that way will not clue you in that there is actually a problem along the route. Remember, you shouldn't have to multithread your connection to pull your full speed. Multithreaded speed tests, like the majority out there, are designed to benefit the Internet provider not the consumer. They often display your maximum throughput not your throughput over the course of an entire upload or download. Omitting the worst portion of your test resulting in inflated scores that may make you feel warm and fuzzy but aren't going to help you see and resolve connection issues. Multithreading can show that you're able to max out your connection by combining the speed of concurrent connections but a great connection can max out without having to multithread. So, if you have to multithread your connection to get your full speed, you should be asking why that is. With TestMy.net it's instantly apparent if there is a congested route. Your speed here reflects the actual loading time of data within your browser... not the combined efforts of multiple threads being altered (dropping the top 10% and bottom 30% of the results) and added together, all through a plugin that isn't suited for the task. :: EDIT :: If you'd like to multithread with TMN, I offer that as well. Try the multithread speed test. TMN's multithread test gives you the option to select from an array of servers. Allowing you to test across multiple routes, to more than one server at a time. TestMy.net is the only Internet speed test with this ability. So THAT'S why your results differ. -- TestMy.net is a harder test to ace and a lot less forgiving than other speed tests. But isn't that what a benchmark should be? :: EDIT :: Another thing to consider is if you're running windows, particularly if it's older than Windows 7 you may need to tune your TCP stack to see your full speeds. Windows doesn't always come out of the box optimized for fast connections. Flash based speed tests fail to detect this problem. To make this change for free I recommend TCP Optimizer. This makes changing those settings very easy and nearly fool proof. Just open it, slide the bar over to your speed that you're supposed to have, check "modify all adapters" ...apply the settings and reboot. You should have faster speeds after your re-test if that was the problem. Here's an outside source talking about exactly this issue, I'll hunt down more examples. >> Download Speed Test - Something fishy? A few related topics :: Accuracy.. Slow upload, drastically different from other speed tests Resuts Vs. Actual Download speeds? TestMy.net shows different results than other speed tests TestMy v Ookla Difference Between Speed Test Sites? Satellite Service Testing Locking at around 14Mbps Questioning speedtest.net resolved with TestMy.net Outside Sources :: Internet providers caught inflating speed test results [myce.com] Use Testmy.net or else!! NO MORE speedtest.net posts will be allowed!!! by the Admin on [xplornetsucks.com] Accurate Speeds Or Speed Test Error? on [wildblueworld.com]

I will preface this post by saying that I am a Windows dummy, so I don't have a whole lot to offer to the Microsoft bunch out there. However, my quick little tips don't apply so much to a particular OS as to general system settings good for almost any OS, so here goes: 1. Minimize the amount of running services on your system. I cannot overstress the importance of this one -- the more services & applications you have running simultaneously on your box, the more overhead utilized. So many people have all kinds of virus scanners, supposed "speed up" apps, unnecessary running services/daemons/etc. which do not need to be running 24/7. For instance, say you have a virus scanning platform. **Please note, I am not advocating that you turn off your virus protection -- and only you can determine the level of protection you need, so in the end, use your own judgement and don't hold me responsible (please) ** Anyway, virus scanners are generally not needed constantly. You're not going to get a virus if you don't have one already and you are not downloading files, visiting malicious sites or running untrusted software. There are times the preceding statement if false, but rarely enough to cause concern. So, I suggest that you only have your virus software set to scan files on demand - e.g. when you download something or when you are reading emails. Use your browser security settings to help minimize the chance you wonder into an insecure site and always make sure the sites you are using for sensitive information (such as bill payment, purchases, sensitive data, etc) are encrypted with trusted encryption (check the pad lock icon and make sure it is a "https" connection). Using your browser to help with security is a performance sparing method to minimize the processor intensive constant scanning by a virus detection package. If you have a ton of system services running in the system tray of Windows, take a look at which ones you really need and eliminate the others. Same for system startup -- clear out everything that does NOT need to be started upon startup; this will save memory (RAM) and processor usage...which leads to quicker page response and transfer speeds. Advanced users should check actual "services" in Windows and turn off those you don't need. If you're running a linux flavor, I assume you're already pretty versed in modifying your configuration. If not, PM me. e.g. . chkconfig --list to see a list of services or service --status-all to see what's running currently (RH/CentOS/etc.) 2. Change your MTU (max transmission unit) to 9000 if you're on a high speed cable or ethernet link. This allows your network interface to send much larger frames than the standard 1500 value. Basically, this parameter sets how large a single transmission frame may be, minus overhead. So, if your system includes overhead in the setting, set it to less than 9000 so you don't get an error for exceeding 9000 (e.g. set it to 8900 to be safe). Just make sure you do this if you know what you're doing only and if you're sure it is appropriate for your set up. It shouldn't cause any problems, but make sure you know how to get back in there and change it to the previous value in case it breaks your connectivity (which I doubt!) 3. Try different browsers - not only are some browsers actually much better at speed natively, they save on system resource usage as well. My suggestion: firefox or opera. I was never a fan of opera until recently when they made a lot of improvements. Firefox is always a good choice. IE would be my last choice, but many people love it. Chrome is pretty good too but I have noticed some issues with it lately. 4. Stop background file transfer daemons such as online data backup utilities, cloud sync systems (iCloud, etc). If you have things like that running in the background, they obviously will take a lot of your bandwidth away (unless you specifically configure them not to, they will use as much bandwidth as they can get their hands on). So, shut down iCloud from syncing while the system is active and if you use something like Carbonite backup, let it work when you are not using your box (e.g. overnight). 5. If you are using wifi, make sure you have a good signal and make sure you are using the faster encryption settings. You should use 802.11g at a minimum and preferably 802.11n for best connectivity. Most network connections (note I said most) will not realize much (if any) performance gain by going direct ethernet unless the previous 3 suggestions (signal, encryption, protocol) are not followed. If you cannot adjust the first 3 settings, then you probably should connect directly to your router's ethernet connection or to your cable modem/DSL/etc. You can also change the "power" or "energy" saving settings on your wifi box by setting the transmission power to 100% all the time. Search your manufacturers KB or google for "increasing wifi transmission power" or, more generally, "tutorial to speed up wifi" Note that wifi is going to give you a theoretical maximum of 450Mbits per second in the best and hardly ever realized conditions. Generally 300Mbits is as fast as you'll see and if you're not using 802.11n, 54Mbits optimum. These optimal speeds are what the manufacturers tout, but it is nearly impossible to see them. Believe me, wifi can interfere (pardon the pun ) with even a moderate cable speed of 30-40 Mbits/second. Summary: wired is always better, but there are ways to maximize your wifi connection. I will put the last 5 of my first 10 tips online over the next few days ... but, please feel free to reply to this post or PM me if you need help doing these things. I hope some of this helped! SIETEC President & Lead Network Engineer SIETECserverNet :: sietecFASTcom :: sietecMATRIXcom Coming soon, I will be launching a hosting service unlike anything you have ever seen -- take a look at my test results here: My clients will be able to achieve similar, depending on the service chosen, and it is my goal to help them do so. Interested in pre-sales information? Drop me a line at [email protected] and let me know what you are looking for ... deep discounts to the first 25 people! My website is being re done right now, but I basically offer anything most hosting companines offer, just in a virtual box. (which, believe it or not, that is how I achieved most of these results, through one of my virtual machines). You still get to pick how many processors, RAM, type of HD and space on disk, NIC speeds, etc. You can even choose a free virtual appliance that suits what you are doing and launch it on my platform. Or, I can assist you in installing your OS and let you take it from there .. full root/administrator access! Again, if interested, email or PM me!

It seems the servers being used are from SL(SoftLayer). My ISP's upstream provider is L3(Level3). SL has 80Gb/s of peering with L3 in Dallas, but I am in the Midwest. It seems SL only has 10Gb of peering with L3 in Chicago. What happening is that my tracert goes from my ISP, to L3 Chicago, to SL Chicago, to SL Dallas. Now, SoftLayer only has a total of 20Gb of their own private bandwidth inter-connecting their datacenters. When I tracert SL Dallas, the jump from SL Chic to SL Dal is a 24ms hop, while L3 Chic to L3 Dal is only 19ms. Since they take nearly the same path and the speed of light is quite fast, my conclusion is that SL's Chic to Dal link is a bit congested. It seems to me that my speedtest issues are that L3 seems to be hot-handoff routing. This is the best conclusion I can come to with my limit Google-Foo abilities.

looks like you get better speeds with larger sizes.. are you using the SmarTest when you do the download test by itself? The links for the combined test default to express. Meaning that they are sized based on your previous 5 tests. This isn't always ideal. You can run a combined test without express from the extras menu. That will size the test based on how your connection is performing at the moment of the test vs your previous tests. Express is faster, it saves bandwidth... but under certain circumstances you need to draw more bandwidth you ramp up the speed. The score you get from either is accurate... your connection just doesn't perform as well with less data. The test will usually resize itself in that situation but not always... really depends on what it sees during the initial test. If you test with 3MB for instance and it calculates that 4MB would be better... it won't. If it calculates that 8MB would be better for the situation it will forward to that size because it's a certain percentage higher than the previous test. I have some new information that I'll be working into the algorythm that will increase the odds that you'll be served the right size the first time. It's a delicate balance with bandwidth. I don't want to waste my users time and bandwidth, some people are on limited data plans too. At the same time it needs to serve you enough to properly test your connection speed. I have a trick that will be implemented by the end of the year that will make sizes a null point. I can't speak publicly about it yet however... obviously since your my Son I'll tell you about it personally but I can talk about it here... yet. For anyone curious I can tell you this much... you've never see anything like it.

Hi all, I just wanted to put my two cents in here for what it's worth. First of all, I have no interest in any online speed test. I host mirrors for the two most popular speed test sites, one of which you are on right now. My only interest is in helping people get accurate and informed information when it comes to measuring their internet speed. I will probably upset some people with this post, but what I am saying comes from my 12+ years of experience in tweaking web servers and meticulously measuring the details of different transports. For http (e.g. "internet" or web-browser compatible) speed testing, I can say with 100% certainty that you will not find a testing methodology more accurate than testmy.net. The attention to detail and every little tidbit of information involved in http/tcp transport is second to none. I can say that since I host a mirror on here and can measure the results from both ends. For example, if you make a request on my box, apache keeps a log of the transfer information and precisely how long the socket was open and how much information (exactly) was transferred. The timing is accurate to less than 1/10000 of a second. Therefore, I can measure the precise time it took to transfer, say 100MB from my box to your computer and determine from that the speed in which the transfer took place. TMN goes a bit further than most, in that you can see the actual speeds during the xfer as it fluctuates. The other speed test engines take an average of your speed over the duration of xfer and throw away a significant amount of the data as "erroneous." My question is, if it is erroneous yet contributes to the overall time it takes to transfer a file, it is NOT erroneous and should NOT be discarded as such. This is where you will see significant differences on the "other" sites. Sometimes it is disappointing to see the real numbers your machine is capable of. Believe me, I know. I get upset when I think a measurement is wrong. But, it gives me valuable insight into how to increase the throughput and achieve better results. Take a look at my max and averages These come from my VNC (e.g. linux remote desktop) connections to one of my boxes using Firefox or other browsers to test the box. The average has been skewed by testing all kinds of different settings (e.g. jumbo frames, different MTUs, browsers, servers, etc) and so could be much higher if I dedicated an account singly to testing with my best settings...but that would kind of defeat the purpose, in my opinion! If you consider the overhead on the processor and network interface just to support my 1920x1080 VNC connection, then factor in that I am remoting into a server to test it's connection; furthermore that it is just a TCP link with limited threads that can be opened (due to the nature of the protocol), my box is capable of much more. But when it comes to true INTERNET ability, I have never measured anything faster than I can through testmy.net. Consider that the "other" sites use Flash and other visual enhancements, a limited amount of data and basically, nondiscriminatly discards data assumed to be erroneous, which site do you think will be more accurate? I will soon be starting a blog regarding how to improve you internet connection speed and will post the link when I publish it. I would like people to try before and after modifying system settings as well as the other speed test sites. I say everyone should try the other sites as well and see where the discrepancy lies. But if you are truly looking to improve your performance, in my opinion, you have found the spot (that is, unless you want to write your own code and try to start from scratch what has taken a decade to get where it is...good luck by the way). Anyone with questions, please feel free to ask. Understand, please, that I am often distracted and cannot immediately reply -- but I will reply. Probably your best source of information is in the threads on this site, or directly from Damon. He is very active on his site and generally answers anyones questions or posts fairly rapidly. Thanks for reading and forgive my spelling and/or rambling! Good luck! SIETEC

I want to share something with you that some of you may not know. Knowing this might save you from being defrauded or having your identity stolen. Obviously your password should be secure but even with the most secure password imaginable it does little if you're going out every day telling people the password. You might do this often and not even realize it! Let me ask you this. When you find a new website that you like and you sign up, do you use the same password that you use for your primary email? If you do, you're asking for trouble. Malicious webmasters (and hackers who hack legit sites) can log that information and attempt to login to your email account that you supplied them with during registration. If you use the same password to signup as you use for your email and they're able to get in... the fun for them has just begun. Do you bank, get receipts from online retailers or associate that same email address with anything financial or personal? They will search and scour your inbox and outbox for anything of value. If your inbox has nothing of value, they'll use it to spam people. The password you use for your primary email needs to be secure. You don't necessarily need to get crazy on it but keep this stuff in mind when you set important passwords. Here are some suggestions and best practices for strong passwords. Password should contain characters from at least three of these categories: uppercase (A - Z); lowercase (a - z); base 10 digits (0 - 9); non - alphanumeric (e.g. !, $, #, or %); Unicode characters (if allowed). Password should not contain more than 3 characters from your account name For extra protection don't use any dictionary words. Even if you modify them slightly, it's build into many brute force algorithms to check for dictionary words and common modifications on dictionary words (use my nick as an example, CA3LE = CABLE... or 1337 = LEET ...CA3LE = 1337 too - simple math, lol). That will make it nearly impossible to hack, each addition makes it exponentially harder to figure out the password. Let me give you some examples with math. Well use a length of 8 characters in our password and see the difference in the number of combinations. If you use only a-z in your passwords 26^8 = 208,827,064,576 combinations A-Z and a-z (26+26)^8 = 53,459,728,531,456 combinations A-Z, a-z, 0-9 (26+26+10)^8 = 218,340,105,584,896 combinations A-Z, a-z, 0-9 & special characters (26+26+10+32)^8 = 6,095,689,385,410,820 combinations A-Z, a-z, 0-9, special characters & unicode characters (currently 1,114,112 characters and growing - Unicode Lookup is a cool website to check on that) (26+26+10+32+1114112)^8 = 2.37532993765908E48 ... so 237,532,993,765,908,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations See how much harder the password becomes. Although, like I said, if you're using it elsewhere it might be sifted making it's complexity null. Personally, I have a little list of stupid passwords that I use to sign up for stupid things... sites that I'm not buying stuff from. Then a list of difficult passwords I use for everything else. If I think a site looks a little shady I'll register with a junk address on top of using the junk password. I'm not suggesting you make your password Uf∞8&iE¶ª2^;k¡∞¢•. But for god sake you can't use password123 anymore and you can't use the same email and password to signup on other sites. Trust me, it's dumb. Always has been but even more today.

There is now an option to enable multithreading. This will be expanded to mirrors very soon. -- you still need to question why you aren't able to pull more speed without multiple threads... but this gives you a tool for testing with more than one thread.

Very good discussion here, thanks to all. Further, thanks CA3LE for fixing the "Details" button so that the copy to clipboard works correctly once again; kudos to you for all your hard work! I've been missing for a while, had a HD drive crash on Saturday during Memorial Day weekend. Finally back up & running as of this past Friday afternoon. Glad I'd done a recent full drive backup just 2 days prior to the crash! Replaced the dead drive w/a solid state, what a difference in boot & application load times. OK, my 2 cents for a while, thanks again for providing us this great (and most accurate on the net to my knowledge) speed test website. Very best regards, jerry aka "The Old Marine in Texas".