Leaderboard

First, if you don't plan on adding value to conversation... leave. Simple posts saying "hi" that contain no true value to the forum may be seen as spam and removed. Tell us something worth typing... share your speed, share your experience or tell me what you think of what I've built. As long as you're a real person posting real content you have nothing to worry about. Bots on the other hand don't last long here. We'd love to have you introduce yourself as a new member, so please click here to make a post to the New Members board that you're currently in. That way we can all give you a warm welcome and answer any questions you may have. But please, if you have a question about your system, connection or any computer related question please make those posts in the board that suits the topic best. If you don't know where your topic should go just post it to General Discussion and one of us will point the topic in the right direction for ya. To see a list of the boards you should make your posts to all you need to do is go to the Forum Default Page. Make sure you take note of the sub-forums that are with-in some of the forums. These sub-forums can sometimes give you more specific help. HAVE FUN DAMN IT! Most importantly... enjoy yourself here, this community is full of not only helpful self proclaimed (and proud of it) computer nerds it's also full of people having a great time! Many people become addicted to our forums so I'd just like to warn you... you may be with us till the day you die, but at least you'll make a ton of really kick ass friends along the way. - Damon

I have A LOT of upcoming releases, many of which are going to be built around a new concept. Because there is so much core programming being changed I'm going to do something I've never done. I normally work on the site live and things are released as I write them... if your in the right place at the right time and you pay enough attention you can see me building sometimes. Well, I really feel that the version I have out right now is INCREDIBLY stable... I don't want to disturb any testing or use of the site. So I'm going to offer a beta program for those who wish to join. To join, vote Yes on the poll above. I'll add you to a special member group and you'll be emailed with updates. You'll also have an option in your menu that will allow you to switch between beta and release. Smaller updates will be globally available but the major ones will be held back for the beta testers to play with first. This will help find bugs before public release. When I'm satisfied with the code I'll offer an option for a while to the general public to turn on the beta... after general public beta testing I'll then release it to the final. We'll then start the whole process again for another round. This is going to be really hard for me to do, I really hate to hold new stuff back. But maybe doing it this way will help me spend less time on bug checking and more time of actually building. I'm one person. Your help with this is appreciated. Everyone who has ever submitted a comment... you've already helped build this site. I started with a vison but you guys expanded it. If I'm going to keep bringing those ideas to paper I really need your help. I have at least a couple thousand hours of programming planned just for the next 3-6 months. I need to use my time effectively, spending hundreds of hours searching for bugs is not using my time wisely. Register (If you haven't already), vote yes above and I'll email you later when I have more information. Then, you can tell your friends that you helped build this site. Thanks -D

Connection is:: 5801 Kbps about 5.8 Mbps (tested with 12160 KB) Download Speed is:: 708 KB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Bottom Line:: 104 times faster than 56K you can download 1MB in 1.45 second(s) https://testmy.net/cgi-bin/get.cgi?Test_ID=HA7PXKR5N I have Roadrunner Premium rated at 6mb down and 512kb up , I pay $60 a month , Anyone that has faster and pays cheaper????????

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 was supposed to have ping included in the last version but I didn't get to it. I'm hoping to put that up front and center in the next release. Keep visiting to watch it develop before your eyes. --- I'm far from finished.

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

Awesome! Thank you Ken Colburn from Data Doctors. https://www.abc15.com/news/let-joe-know/paying-for-fast-speeds-why-is-your-computer-so-slow Another great article at KTAR - http://ktar.com/story/2530346/why-is-my-internet-slow-even-though-the-speed-test-says-it-is-fast/

Your problem might not be your local ISP. Since they have to connect across the country you are at the mercy of every connection made and every node you pass through. They have control over everything until they hand it off to the Internet backbone and then all bets are off, It can go anywhere. I live 70 miles south of Portland, but to get to the Portland Netfix server, I go though Seattle and sometimes San Jose. Also you have time of day that affects speed. Imagine as everyone comes home, has supper and kicks back to stream their favorite show. It starts first on the East Coast and the load picks up as you move West. 7PM is the worst, the whole country is streaming and unless the server is in your back yard you are in trouble. Try your test against multiple test sites and time of day. You will see a wide variance the further away you are from "home" and the time of day.

No problem, glad to help. Thank you too. I sell advertising but try to not over do it. Huge segments of TMN's traffic never even see an ad. ISPs and other entities have offered to pay for analytics, many times. Instead of just giving them what they want I'm building TMN to do it for me. Instead of sharing the information with only those who pay for it TMN aims to share all of its collected information with everyone, for free. (within the privacy policy guidelines of course) -- with help from those requests the information presented here will become more and more detailed in future versions.

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!

@CA3LE --Thanks for the great speed test site. I was genuinely surprised at the results I got here compared to speakeasy/ookla. My ISP does host an ookla site and does recommend using the java based speed tests. I was having trouble after upgrading my internet package. My old one was 10Mb/768k and I upgraded to 30Mb/3Mb. I had asked the sales/accounts lady if I needed a new cable modem and she said no and I believed her. Well after doing multiple tests on various sites i stumbled upon testmy.net and actually got an accurate result for what my connection really felt like compared to what my ISP said it should be. I contacted tech support and they said that I did need a new cable modem that the upgraded plan required a DOCSIS 3 cable modem and I had a DOCSIS 2 modem and that could/would account for variances in speed vs internet package. I went in and swapped out cable modems free of charge and tests were about the same on ookla/speakeasy but improved by a decent amount on testmy.net. Most importantly it felt quicker and more responsive as my family and I were using it for various things. Thanks again and keep up the good work! Oh and for all you older techies in the crowd that might remember how we used to do speed tests before there were websites for it *grin* ftp blah.soandso.edu get 5mbfile.tar.gz send <1mbfile.tar.gz --paroxysmal

That would not solve the issue, and would essentially give you a single average number that is better left as a set of numbers for more information regarding routing. There are two speed graphs that I think are most important for an internet connection: a graph of speed tests to an internal server (within the ISPs network) to determine the average and variance during the day/week/year/millennium of your connection to your ISP; and a graph of speed tests to a server outside the ISPs network, to find out how good your ISP is at handling that. Latency tests can also be very useful. You are right in that a single server can be hampered by a single bad network, but it does point to a problem that is not supposed to exist, and will affect many more servers which you want to interact with.

Hi Guys I thought I'd post a solution to a problem I had recently - it might help someone else. Last year I was getting 30+ Mbps down with Comcast using their "Boost" option (costs a bit more than regular). Then this year, it dropped to 10Mbps. Of course I complained to Comcast, ran all types of scans, checked my PC with HighjackThis, etc. Nothing. I have a Dell XPS with a mother board capable of handling 24GB of RAM. I had 15GB in it but then took out a 1GB stick to put in a 4GB stick giving me 18GB of RAM. I also have a bootable second hard drive "F" with Win 7 Ultimate but my primary "C" dive has Win 7 Home Premium. The puzzler is the secondary "F" drive was still getting more than 30Mbps down but the primary "C" drive was only getting 10 Mbps. What's up with that? I tried everything until I discovered that Windows 7 Home Premium can only "handle" a maximum 16GB of RAM - Win 7 Ultimate can "handle" 192GB of RAM. When I dropped my RAM back to 16GB my speeds returned to above 30Mbps on the primary C drive. The lesson for me is that if you put more RAM in your machine than your Operating System can handle, you might down grade your speed when you think you're helping.

Hello @DESAND I am going to try to make this as less of a work as possible for you. (I think?) I assume you are running windows 7 or above... Open any folder anyway you like... or just directly file explorer... 1. On the address bar copy and paste this: Control Panel\Network and Internet\Network and Sharing Center Hit enter, and when you are the page I hope you are at. You should see what you are connected with. 2. Beside connection. you would see Ethernet or Wireless in blue. Click on it. 3. The window that pops up shows your hardware capabilities. This is the maximum your network card can go up to theoretically. (No way you'll hit this, even PC to PC direct transfer. As your other components w/ bottleneck the transfer of file transfers) Screenshot below for an example: As you can see my network card is 1000Mbps/Gbps capable. I don't get these speeds, but here we are :P Hope this is what you are asking for? Please clarify if it isn't. Cheers!

Sean, Called Mediacom and got a tech in NY. Looked at my account and took less than a minute to see that it was a hardware issue on their side. Cable guy came and tested the outdoor tap, checked my equipment and confirmed it was outside issue. Now to see if they can locate and repair. Thanks

don't post much these days I have regressed back into historic cars , and letting computer tech past me by in the fast lane , indeed going back to my roots inn my old age but logged in to say Happy Peaceful NEW YEAR in 2017 it's already arrived in the UK ,

The same logic where more people are likely to post negative reviews than positive ones. You're probably right, to a degree. I think there are also plenty of people who test here on sunny days. If that is true, it's true across the board with all providers. They're all being judged using the same method. In my experience, the better providers always perform better and rank higher here. Is any of this perfect, no. Will it ever be perfect, no. Will I try, definitely. After TMN's recent full switch to https (SSL) settles in with the search engines I have an upgrade to the host stats pages you mention. It aggregates a much broader range and I think it better represents the highlighted ISP, city or country's speed because it won't just be showing you the logs like it does today. It will unlock a huge amount of information that TMN has been calculating and storing in private databases for a very long time now. So look for that tool to become higher resolution in the near future.

$89.99 Cable and TV. Xfinity Massachusetts

Testmy.net is not detecting IPv6 address correctly. Disabling IPv6 fixes this issue. If your using the MaxMind DB there are different databases for IPv4 and IPv6 depending on how you have them stored on your end.

Hi everyone!! I´m ed_1960 and I´m a newcomer. I wanted to join this community because in the past I´ve had quite a few problems with different ISPs. Many of them claim internet speed connections that are not true. By joining this community I hope to learn how internet connections are measured and how to track them, so I´ll have a tool I can use and trust next time I feel I´m not getting the INTERNET speed I´m paying for. Also, I´d like to get to know some other people who I can share information with in order to enrich my little knowledge of INTERNET connections as a whole.

CenturyLink fiber. Trial offer ended, so I'm at $160/month.

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, ..."

Go to TestMy.net (homepage) and look under the database menu. This option was disabled, I just enabled it for you. Once you enter a name you'll get an invite link that you can use to add members to the group. Your group stats are then saved to an entirely separate database used for results comparisons.

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 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).

Haven't been on here in years! Life has kept me busy. Glad the site is still up and running great! Figure Ill post up my results from my t mobile phone haha

TWC is famous for overloading their nodes. I'll bet your speed loss is in peak times 7pm to 12 midnight. Caused by overloaded nodes with people streaming netflix's and other stuff like that. Like Pgoodwin1 said keep chipping at them and keep asking for you $20 discount like I did. They got tired of giving me discounts and finally moved me to another node, now all is good until they overload this one. Then back to the discounts until they move me again or put in a new node. Just my 2 cents.

Samsung Electronics announced Wednesday that it is now shipping the industry's highest-capacity solid-state drive (SSD), the 15.36TB PM1633a. Samsung revealed it was working on the drive last August, saying it would use the same form factor as for a laptop computer: 2.5-in, but the drive is 15mm in height. Laptop SSDs are typically 9mm, 7mm or 5mm in height (for ultrathin notbooks). The 2.5-in SSD is based on a 12Gbps Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) interface for use in enterprise storage systems. The PM1633a has blazing fast performance, with random read and write speeds of up to 200,000 and 32,000 I/Os per second (IOPS), respectively. It delivers sequential read and write speeds of up to 1200MBps, the company said. A typical SATA SSD can peak at about 550MBps. Because the PM1633a comes in a 2.5-in. form factor, IT managers can fit twice as many of the drives in a standard 19-in. 2U (3.5-in.) rack, compared to an equivalent 3.5-in. storage drive. The SSD also sets a new bar for sustainability, Samsung said. The 15.36TB PM1633a drive supports one full drive write per day, which means 15.36TB of data can be written every day on a single drive without failure over its five-year warranty. The SSD can write from two to 10 times as much data as typical SATA SSDs based on planar MLC and TLC NAND flash technologies. Samsung said it is betting on the PM1633a SSD line-up to "rapidly become" the overwhelming favorite over hard disks for enterprise storage systems. "To satisfy an increasing market need for ultra-high-capacity SAS SSDs from leading enterprise storage system manufacturers, we are directing our best efforts toward meeting our customers' SSD requests," Jung-bae Lee, senior vice president of Samsung Electronic's Application Engineering Team, said in a statement. The performance of the PM1633a SSD is based on four factors: the 3D NAND (vertical NAND or V-NAND) chips; 16GB of DRAM; Samsung's proprietary controller chip; and the 12Gbps SAS interface. The random read IOPS performance is about 1,000 times that of SAS-type hard disk drives and the sequential read and write speeds are more than twice the speed of a typical SATA SSD, the company said. Combining 512 of Samsung's 256Gbit V-NAND memory chips enables the SSD's unprecedented 15.36TB of data storage capacity in a single drive. V-NAND, or 3D NAND, is a way of stacking NAND cells one atop another like a microscopic skyscraper. Not only does it double the density of standard planar NAND chips, from 128Gbits to 256Gbits, it also increases performance. Samsung originally announced the 48-layer V-NAND last August, saying it also sports 3-bits per cell or multi-level cell (MLC) NAND technology. Source

Yes, an email and/or SMS text alert when a user-defined minimum threshold is crossed would be EXTREMELY useful, IMHO.

Read it for yourself in the TOS https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/

I wanted to share this in case it can help someone in the future. For the past few weeks we've noticed a lot of digital artifacts and audio cutting out on some channels. I was thinking that it may be an issue with Comcast, they just fixed a major issue in my area so I hadn't made a big deal about it yet. I was about to call about it and today I noticed something that I'd never seen before. Downloading something... affecting the picture on the TV. Over and over I slowed down and sped up the transfer speed on an intensive usenet download. When I'd ramp it up to full speed the picture started to block out heavily, I'd then slow the speed way down and immediately the picture returned to normal. When it was pixelated it was so bad that the show became completely unwatchable. My actions on the Internet were 100% without a doubt affecting the TV picture. After witnessing this I grabbed a fresh 2 way splitter out of my tool bag, ran down to the basement and swapped out the splitter. Ever since... perfect picture. Not even a single instance where before you couldn't make it 60 seconds without something. By the way, there was no issue with the Internet speed in this case. Just looking at the Internet performance I would have thought everything was fine. Cracked open the splitter and there's definite signs of degradation. Hot spot on a solder point leading to that wrapped coil shows signs of internal resistance. This was a brand new splitter used in untouched conditions indoors for only 1.5 years before it failed this way. A wide array of symptoms can be caused by the same thing. Remember, any points where two or more cables meet are always weak points. When you're having issues, always look in these areas first. The fix may be easier than you can imagine.

With TestMy.net you are testing to Dallas TX, other test locations are available around the world but none in South America. I'm still looking for a fast and decently priced server in South America. There are many reasons why speedtest.net results differ from TestMy.net. Here's a couple of topics that will shed light. Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests? Internet providers caught inflating speed test results You said it yourself, you're getting crappy quality from netflix while speedtest.net says you have 20 Mbps. Sounds like TestMy.net is more representative of what you're really seeing. You're not alone, topics like yours are by far the most common question we get here. You already have your answer and know which test is right. Why would you trust that test when you can feel that it's much higher than it should be? I have an option that you can use to make your own multithread download tests against pretty much any server you want. I created one for you using netflix servers. assets.nflxext.com :::.. Download Speed Test Result Details ..::: Download Connection Speed:: 98183 Kbps or 98.2 Mbps Download Speed Test Size:: 96 MB or 98328 kB or 100688125 bytes Download Binary File Transfer Speed:: 12273 kB/s or 12.3 MB/s Tested At:: http://TestMy.net Version 15 Validation:: https://testmy.net/db/i98fNGPJr Client Stats:: https://testmy.net/quickstats/CA3LE https://testmy.net/compID/4602014672148 Test Time:: 2016-02-02 07:27:42 Local Time Client Location:: Monument, CO US https://testmy.net/city/monument_co Target:: assets.nflxext.com https://testmy.net/mX/KsSMa Client Host:: Comcast Cable https://testmy.net/hoststats/comcast_cable Compare:: 29% slower than client avg, 137% faster than host avg, 69% faster than city avg, 217% faster than country avg, 531% faster than world index 1MB Download in 0.08 Seconds - 1GB Download in ~82 Seconds - 1753X faster than 56K This test of exactly 98328 kB took 8.208 seconds to complete User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_2) AppleWebKit/601.3.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/9.0.2 Safari/601.3.9 [!] Comparing to multithread on TMN Dallas where I got 135 Mbps using the same test size immediately after. And then a linear result... https://testmy.net/db/WHjK6uJZl This, by the way, is on wifi that I know to be under performing. On a computer directly wired to the router with cat-5 moments later... https://testmy.net/db/~JnyL6cNz The best thing you can do to understand your connection and where it's weak is to test it more with TMN. By altering the variables, testing against different servers, using the different test types you can spot weak points in your route. Hell, you can even use TMN to test against speedtest.net servers if you'd like. Search google for "speedtest.net server list" and you'll instantly find their publicly available server list. Search the XML file for your city or the server you know about already. Take the URL e.g. "http://speedtest.com.uy/speedtest/upload.php" then drop the "upload.php". Most of the servers are open to file navigation, just open the URL in your browser and you'll see the list of files that speedtest.net uses to test. Copy the URL for the packet size you'd like to test with and paste it into http://testmercury.net ... TMN will turn the image into a speedtest that can be automatically sized anywhere from 2X the original size to 200 MB. Literally just paste a URL to a valid image online and hit enter... So here's the directory listing for a random speedtest.net server in UY That's the standard file structure for speedtest.net servers. You could just take "random350x350.jpg" and add it to the end of any of the server addresses on the XML and it will make a great test using TMN instead of speedtest.net. Faster connections you may want to use the larger images, which are then repeated to reach the final test size. Hope this helps you nail down the problem. Always compare the multithread results (the Mercury test is multithread) to the classic linear results.

You guys will love this: I was farting around with my network just now, and I was testing my Gigabit throughput between my desktop and server, and I have some pretty good evidence of having achieved MORE than 1Gbps on the link. (Not in one direction - mind you.) The actual throughput (send + receive) was stable between 550Mbps (each) to 750Mbps (each). Essentially, I achieved up to 1.5Gbps total throughput. As is evident in the images, the speeds exceeded 1Gbps total. (And not just by a tiny bit - either.) Thanks, EBrown

Tested a week ago, I was getting >90mb. In the last few days, I was getting between 5 & 25mb. I have been testing with a cabled connection & wireless switched off. Tried some other speedtests tonight, and the were indicating c. 90mb. So I switched my server to the DE server and tried again - and got 90mb! So it appears to me that there is an issue with the GB server. Either that or my host (VirginMedia) doesn't like it.... Anyone else encounter this problem? Update: Actually it appears that at one stage I had changed to "Global multithread" and that was where my results became inconsistent. reset to London now, and it is better - though still slower than my Dusseldorf tests. (I'm In Belfast, Northern Ireland). regards Elkay

I hope this is what you mean. Crude but gets the job done ... again I hope!!! Oh, the reason for the slave and the Ethernet not directly to the HP Compaq is the wireless is being used by a Roku about 10 feet away. No, they are all off during all tests. In fact I try to have everything using bandwidth off during tests.

May I suggest running a traceroute to east.testmy.net, and post the results here please. tracert east.testmy.net

opera_mini_proxy and opera_software_asa and opera_software_america will no longer be detected as being in a city or country. Stats already saved to city and country databases are being removed right now. Hope this helps.

https://testmy.net/stats/?&t=u&d=10232015&x=1&l=25&q=StackinRaxx

I finally gave in and upgraded my internet from 20mbps/5mbps to 50/10. I am currently streaming some youtube/netflix so my speeds are slightly off and its peak hours anyway. but check it out.

I wanted to wish everyone a safe and Merry Christmas! 2012-Merry-Christmas-Hd-Wallpaper.zip

speedtest.net, as you know it now, was only started in 2006. source: wikipedia speedtest.net Wonder why their results favor the ISPs... One has to assume cronyism. ...they weren't chosen for accuracy. So you see... the speedtest.net you saw in the 90's was someone totally different. It was bought and converted in 2006, almost instantly was used by every ISP. ... even though it was common knowledge among computer nerds/geeks/dudes that it was complete BS. Wayback machine only goes back to 2000. Here's a funny screenshot. But yes, even the version before ookla stepped in required plugins to work. I've never required plugins.

Sorry, long email... hopefully you read it since I wrote it just for you. Your connection may be faster if you take the time. Hi Ross, Don't be so quick to judge. This isn't my first rodeo. I've been testing bandwidth since 1996... (the name TestMy.net came about in 2001) I've dedicated myself to the subject and I've built TestMy.net myself line by line. It IS the most accurate and compatible in browser speed test available and it's able to detect issues that slow you down that other speed tests fail to notice. Ross, I hear this nearly every day. Stick with me and I'll explain a few things. First of all, I too use Usenet, every day. Giganews to be exact. I also am able to pull faster speeds with Usenet than I get from my TestMy.net results. There are various reasons for this. First, your speed on Usenet doesn't instantly ramp up to full speed. TMN is calculating your speed based on everything that happened from start to finish. ...that doesn't account for your speed being THAT much slower, I know, but keep that in mind. Second, Usenet is multithreading the download. Some providers right now are actually shaping their users bandwidth, limiting single thread transactions. TMN reflects this... Usenet and Torrents will be unaffected because they are threading. There is also TCP stack optimizations that can make a HUGE difference. It looks like you're running windows. This is more often the case with windows and fixing it is as easy as running TCP Optimizer, it's free with no install... it simply optimizes your TCP stack. Upon reboot most people have drastically improved speeds. Thousands of users over the years have emailed me and posted in my forum about the success they have with that. When I ran windows that was the first thing I did on a fresh install. Every time it made a huge difference. Trust me, if your results on TMN are effected, you're effected elsewhere too. If TCP is the issue, you will find relief and feel a difference in how snappy things are afterwords. Just because you can achieve 40 Mbps doesn't mean your optimized for that speed. TestMy.net is VERY good at picking up on TCP issues and provider bandwidth shaping because it's a linear, single thread transaction. It's the ONLY speed test that works the way it does. I also offer a multithread speed test now. I encourage you to try this method, it's brand new and the public is barely starting to even notice that I offer it. Personally.... here, I'll just show you my speed. Without Multithread enabled :::.. Download Speed Test Result Details ..::: Download Connection Speed:: 46403 Kbps or 46.4 Mbps Download Speed Test Size:: 80.8 MB or 82688 kB or 84672512 bytes | Timed:: 14.609 seconds Download Binary File Transfer Speed:: 5800 kB/s or 5.8 MB/s Tested At:: http://TestMy.net Version 13 Validation:: https://testmy.net/db/B0984KF TiP Measurement Summary:: Min 23.65 Mbps | Middle Avg 50.84 Mbps | Max 51.28 Mbps | 44% Variance TiP Data Points:: 24.89 Mbps, 47 Mbps, 51.28 Mbps, 51.19 Mbps, 50.94 Mbps, 51.11 Mbps, 51.19 Mbps, 51.06 Mbps, 50.98 Mbps, 51.28 Mbps, 51.19 Mbps, 51.02 Mbps, 51.15 Mbps, 50.98 Mbps, 50.72 Mbps, 50.81 Mbps, 51.02 Mbps, 51.28 Mbps, 23.65 Mbps More Stats:: https://testmy.net/quickstats/CA3LE https://testmy.net/compID/625710007986 Test Time:: 2013-06-26 08:09:47 Local Time Location:: Phoenix, AZ US >> Destination:: San Jose, CA US 1MB Download in 0.18 Seconds - 1GB Download in ~3 Minutes - 829X faster than 56K This test of exactly 82688 kB took 14.609 seconds to complete Running at 253% of hosts average (Cox Communications https://testmy.net/hoststats/cox_communications) User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/27.0.1453.93 Safari/537.36 [!] With Multithread enabled :::.. Download Speed Test Result Details ..::: Download Connection Speed:: 85954 Kbps or 86 Mbps Download Speed Test Size:: 80.7 MB or 82668 kB or 84651996 bytes | Timed:: 7.879 seconds Download Binary File Transfer Speed:: 10744 kB/s or 10.7 MB/s Tested At:: http://TestMy.net Version 13 Validation:: https://testmy.net/db/pGvHWzK Multithread Test Utilizing:: west2.testmy.net More Stats:: https://testmy.net/quickstats/CA3LE https://testmy.net/compID/625710007986 Test Time:: 2013-06-26 08:08:38 Local Time Location:: Phoenix, AZ US >> Destination:: Global Multithread 1MB Download in 0.1 Seconds - 1GB Download in ~2 Minutes - 1535X faster than 56K This test of exactly 82668 kB took 7.879 seconds to complete Running at 474% of hosts average (Cox Communications https://testmy.net/hoststats/cox_communications) User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/27.0.1453.93 Safari/537.36 [!] Both are testing from the same server, same amount of information, moments apart but the test is invoked differently. Both results are right... put a meter on the line and you'll see. Some faster connections need to multithread to pull their full speed. Now, if I optimized my TCP stack just right I would probably be able to get those numbers more in line with each other... I leave settings default on my machines because it aids my development. Having the issue myself showed me that I needed a multithread test to give people to compare the classic results to. ... so I recently built and released it. If I always rocked optimal settings myself then I wouldn't be able to test the way the majority of my visitors test. I have optimal setups I test with too, achieving hundreds of Mbps. (commercial connections, not my home connection... I wish!) You can multithread to one or all of my servers... giving you the ability to get a global result from a single test. No other speed test is able to perform this way. Another feature that really sets TMN apart. I also see that you're in Scotland, International routes and distance will drop your speeds as well. I recommend testing off my server in Amsterdam. Compare the results to what you get to my servers in the US (since you probably visit many sites hosted in the US). Again, TCP optimization is important. Because you're adjusting the maximum size of the packets. Imagine it like this. You have a bucket and a thimble. The thimble is what you're working with now... when you increase your MTU you'll be working with a bucket. You don't have to go back and fourth to the well as many times with the bucket. At short distance it's less noticeable but testing all the way across the Atlantic... your speed is going to suffer with that thimble. What also comes into play is that many consumer level international routes can be limited. (this is getting better over the years... it used to be a more widespread problem) Multithreading will raise the speed in that situation as long as the route isn't being limited by congestion. I hope that you find the issue, resolve it and email me back. Like I said, I get this a lot. Nearly everyone emails me back to say, "Sorry... I'm going to tell my friends about TestMy.net now..." -- I hope that in the end you'll see that TMN reports the truth and share my site with your friends. I work day and night to make it better for you. I don't advertise so I rely on my work to speak for itself and let the public decide if it's worth sharing. So far, so good. Cheers, - Damon - TestMy.net P.S. I realized I forgot to give you a link to the Amsterdam server http://eu.testmy.net will default you to Amsterdam, NL. You can also make a selection at https://testmy.net/mirror ... a link to that is at the top of all the pages. See attachement. I recommend the official servers because I control them but if you look under the self hosted tab you'll see a server in Huerth, NRW Germany and London, GB. You might want to try those too. Any mirror listed is capable of at least 100 Mbps, my official servers are all connected with a minimum of 1000 Mbps... my main server in Dallas has dual 1000 Mbps uplinks to the Internet. ... all of my servers are connected through the Softlayer Network which has some of the deepest peering in the industry and a worldwide private network. The cities where I host my servers are chosen based on their website hosting popularity. My site in Texas hosts well over 100,000 servers each of which can have countless websites... that's not to mention all the other hosts in Dallas, that's JUST Softlayer's servers. You're going to connect to the areas where my servers are if you're on the Internet... so those are the areas I have you test to. Other speed tests try to eliminate routing factors to boost your score... I believe those are important variables. You already know the speed you're supposed to get... I'm trying to show you the speed that you REALLY get. Cheers, - D

I might have already replied to this topic a while ago, so if I did, forgive me...I just didn't check whether I had or not. I'd just like to give a quick summary of my view of TMN vs. "the others." I am a networking guy by profession as well as by degree and certifications, so it is natural for me to be the "curious cat" about everything networking and to try to "fool the system" (e.g. find bugs that cause erroneous results) as well as attempt to prove or disprove the validity of someone's claim (in this case, the accuracy of TMN). Many (probably most) people do not realize that there have been TCP (and other transports) benchmarking for just about as long as the transport itself has been around. Some of the most powerful are command line tools found (typically) in Linux systems that offer extreme flexibility in testing (e.g. packet sizes, compression algorithms, hardware offload for things like checksums and VLAN or QOS tagging, certain kernel path bypass mechanisms, window scaling heuristics, and literally dozens of other adjustable parameters to test the maximum Tx/Rx speed between two or more computers). That said, I've used pretty much all of them at one point or another and have done very meticulous comparisons to the results on TMN. The margin of error is astonishingly low (generally less than 5%). Compared to Ookla's Flash based test, this is a factor of 10 difference in accuracy because the average from that site that I have found is around 50% (with a huge standard deviation). One day, I will perform the tests again and post the results in a forum here..I didn't save everything last time and want to make my post "legitimate" by including all methods and screenshots utilized. I'll try to get around to it sometime soon. That was the first thing to get out of the way. Secondly, as explained in other posts, Flash is a VERY expensive technology (expensive meaning processor and memory intensive) and adds quite a bit of latency as well due to the complex paths the data flow must go through. Is it appealing to the eye? Absolutely. Would I choose the most graphically appealing test if my goal is to get the most accurate results? Absolutely not. See paragraph above...command line is about as ugly as you can get - but also as accurate as you can get (using the correct tools). I'll preface point three by saying that I don't know enough about the internals of either TMN or Ookla to make a totally accurate claim about their inner workings but I may through my obversations, I can assure you that Ookla has major problems with regard to the results. One of the best ways to test this on your own is to use a program called Wireshark and start a capture of your network packets (make sure to choose the correct network card!!) during a TMN test and an Ookla test. The first thing to notice is the amount of data that is transferred during a test. I cannot figure out, for the life of me, the algorithm with which Ookla determines how much actual data to transfer. By "data," I mean, for example, how many megabytes are transferred to your box during the test. Second thing I noticed was a lot of "noise" in the packets that seemed to be upstream communication to the Ookla host server from my computer during a download test (NOT ACKS, so please don't call me out saying it was ACKS). There is some type of communication to the server going on - which OBVIOUSLY interferes with an accurate download score if a Download test is also simultaneously transmitting information other than standard TCP Acknowledgments, replies, etc. That doesn't occur on TMN. There is simply an ACK and SYN as expected during a raw transfer. The TMN server determines whether or not more data is needed to determine an ACCURATE result based on how quickly you down- or uploaded the information (7 seconds down and 5 seconds up for a specific amount of data transfer). Assuming a download, at first you will receive the smallest continuous piece of data and if it took less than 7 seconds to transfer, TMN will push the next size to you. This process repeats until: The seven seconds expire and you have not received the entire download chunk - or - You reach the maximum size (200MB) and complete the download in less than seven seconds. This way, during the download, the only cost incurred on your PC is that of the Operating System's networking routines and the CPU usage for offloaded tasks (for instance, checksum offload). BTW, this occurs during ANY network communication and there is no way around it. Another thing to consider if you are receiving results that are inconsistent amongst testing sites is the location of the hosting server. If you go to speedtest and live in Atlanta, Speedtest will choose the location closest to you with the least latency (and, in this case, would be in Atlanta). The further a byte has to travel, the more latency introduced and (generally) more hops must be taken to reach the destination. All of which introduces decreases in speed with increase in hops and latency. So, if you're testing on Speedtest in Atlanta on an Atlanta based server and then hop over to TMN and use a Dallas server, it is only natural to expect that the transfer speed will (again, typically) be slower and vice-versa. So, a more accurate way to compare the sites would be to choose a Dallas location on speedtest, take the test and then test via Dallas on TMN. Or, you can just trust me..TMN is better The last point I'll make in this post is that with TMN, the data transfer occurs via standard HTTP, which is how the vast majority of your real world downloads and browsing occurs. One exception is on a secure site that uses SSL and is preceded with "https://" - that normally occurs on port 443 instead of 80 as in HTTP and incurs a heavy performance penalty for the encryption and decryption of the data after is is received. There are tons of other protocols such as FTP, SCP, SSH, CIFS, SMB, NFS, etc. but, like I said, 99% of the typical user's internet browsing occurs on HTTP. I don't know exactly how the data is transmitted and received on Ookla based sites but I do not believe it is HTTP - I think it is an embedded part of the Flash wrapper. So, to close this post that I meant to be short and to the point and went way overboard, my opinion and experience is that the most accurate measurement of your bandwidth is going to be found on TMN. I apologize for the rambling. I hope at least someone finds this helpful! Take Care....more to come (in the future, sometime!) --SIETEC--

Happy Mother's Day to all the wonderful Mommy's and Grandmommy's

so far so good tested speeds average 80 down 35 to 40 up ,here in lil ole vermont

Hi Alex, Distance will not be an issue if your provider is delivering. GB to NL isn't that far, if your provider and the people they peer with were delivering... you'd be able to easily pull your speeds at that distance. I have connections that I pull hundreds of Mbps from at distances of thousands of miles. TestMy.net uncovers issues that other speed tests fail to detect. It could be your TCP settings effecting performance. It could be poor routing or it could be that your ISP is pulling a fast one.. shaping the way you can draw your bandwidth. LOTS of people are contacting me telling me that this is happening to them. TMN is purposely designed to render as normal content would which makes it in tune with many issues that go undetected otherwise. Before you're so quick to judge you might want to read this post one of my members wrote, just last night. https://testmy.net/ipb/topic/30731-multithread/?p=339762 -- He's an aerospace engineer with a lot of experience with bandwidth. His independent findings as well as others backup my claims. That's coming from someone who's pulling over 600 Mbps frequently using the same exact test you used... it's not my test, it's not my bandwidth. Other speed tests are wrong more often than not. Believe the numbers you want to believe but before you rush to judgement you might want to put a meter on your line and compare. TestMy.net is right on the money every time. Other tests myself and others compare to don't line up and obviously aren't taking the entire test into consideration. They also often don't use enough test information to be accurate so results can be inflated from bursting. Another way you can achieve higher speeds is by multithreading. If you go to https://testmy.net/mirror you'll see information on it and a link to toggle it on and off. Currently however I haven't expanded this to my servers outside of the US. The way it's setup now you'll be pulling resources from all my servers in the US at the same time. By opening more threads you may be able to pull more speed, even given the distance. The resulting score will represent your speed not just to one location... but across the entire US. Multithreading is not my default option because enabling it can mask issues that only testing a single thread will pickup on. Again, this is what makes my site different. Other sites are simply trying to max out your connection. There is more to it than that. The truth is, if your connection is running correctly and your ISP isn't shaping your bandwidth... you should be able to max a single thread. ... personally, I have the same issue on my home connection as you might. I can't come close to my speeds in a single thread, multithread opens me up an extra 30Mbps. Using the multithread speed test on my connection more accurately depicts the capability but the question remains, why can I only do that when I open more threads? If there was an issue with the test or servers myself (on other connections I have) and other users wouldn't be able to pull many 100's of Mbps. ISPs are starting to heavily shape the way you can draw your bandwidth. Often limiting single thread transactions. Other speed tests fail to pick up on this... maybe they design it that way on purpose because that's who the ISPs use. ... Ookla brand speed tests in particular are BS. They ignore part of the transfer and omit a portion of the data, the result is an inflated score. Read more - That information comes from their OWN admission printed in their own wiki. Dude, you have to admit to me... if the results are adjusted, it nullifies the result. You can't trust something that makes adjustments for a number that's variable. ... Say that your connection dips for part of the test. Chances are, it won't be accounted for in the final result. You're testing to know that information and they're hiding it from you. TMN accounts for EVERYTHING that happens during the test. If you look at the TiP details on my results you'll see how much simply looking at different parts of the data can effect the result. Look at 'middle average', that's removing the first and last reading... Not only does ookla/speedtest.net ignore the start and finish, they remove the worst portion of your results before calculation. Flash speed tests have been proven inaccurate by MANY people much smarter than I am. I've also been told that ISPs that opt in can actually make adjustments to how much of the results are dropped off. HAHA, sounds like fraud to me. Letting ISPs basically make their own results. BAH! How they sleep at night escapes me. Keep this in mind too... I was building my test nearly 10 years before ookla released their first test. Believe who you want to... my program is just calling it how it sees it. Other people in GB are able to pull well over 100 Mbps... even out to my US servers --- https://testmy.net/country/gb/max --- your connection just isn't delivering like you thought it was. The truth hurts sometimes but when you searched for a speed test I don't think you were looking for someone to pull wool over your eyes... you were looking for a test. If you don't believe my results, use the other guys test with results designed to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks for visiting, I hope that I've helped shed some light and that you'll trust and continue to use my service. If I opened your eyes to anything, please help me spread the word. I'm trying my hardest to get this information to people but I'm only one person. - Cheers and Kind Regards, - Damon Mueller

I found a well written article on why you should upgrade your cable modem to DOCSIS 3. He also explains that TestMy.net's results were a more accurate benchmark that better reflected the actual speeds he was seeing. DOCSIS 3.0 Channel Bonding and You If you have a pre-DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem and your connection speed is suffering, this might be exactly what you need to bring you up to speed. We've been telling people this for years... but this article does a good job of explaining why it helps. Again, another case where an Ookla speed test failed to provide real results... and TestMy.net worked as designed.

well here's my new build. up and running like a beast. i7 3770k thermaltake frio ock cooler master haf x full tower samsung 120gb ssd 1tb data drive Lg bluray drive 8gb ddr3 1600 ram powercolor 7970 850 gold rated corsair psu 23 inch 1080p monitor gigabyte ....im too tired to rememberthe number.... d3h mobo sorry for blurry images. i took them with my phone and my hands arent exactly steady.

The only worries I have when upgrading any linux distro are normally related to hardware drivers, normally ones for my wifi and video card. If you are not using them (I think ubuntu makes it pretty clear if you are) then you normally shouldn’t worry about upgrading to the latest supported release. Now If Mr Valve / Steam (Gabe) would actually get behind his support for Linux, I wouldn’t have any reason to use windows at all

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas

i usually see very different results than here, when my internet is having issues speedtest.net doesn't usually detect them at all it will show my full 50/5 where as here i can see my service is really suffering and only receiving half that i actually get better results from here then i see on speedtest.net maybe that's just me...