jackdashack

Could easily be on your ISP's end... it may be totally out of your hands.  No matter how good you make it your end, you're only as strong as the weakest link.
 
It is fluctuating heavily and that's never good.  I would definitely look deeper into that.
 
Aren't you convinced yet that those other sites are a waste of your time?  Why do you keep visiting them?
 
 
You're never a bother, I appreciate questions, comments and suggestions. Keep 'em coming!

You've confirmed what TMN is telling you.  The two 16ms readings tell us that.  Your actual ping isn't far off from what TMN Response Time shows.  Run it longer than 4 hops, try ping -c 20 east.testmy.net
 
Just like with your Response Time, your ping is going back and forth.  That's never a good sign.  Room for improvement for sure.
 
Thanks for showing me that the test is working.  
 
So yeah, for all we know... the other tests out there that show 'ping' are showing you the best ping out of a series.  TMN shows you everything that it sees.
 
Hope this helps!

nice chart!

Westel model number please?
I don't intend to be so pedantic, but it is important to know what the device capabilities are to determine if there is a 'better' or more efficient or 'proper' configuration for the specific depth of the layout.
 
And why is the Westel necessary in any event? Unless it is acting as a 'dummy' or hub to connect other devices.

You have no idea! We've watched Seinfeld for years, repeat after repeat. Love the obvious. Which obscures the masses.
 
None the less, is the Westel wired or a repeater? I will say you point out the obvious as wired, but I have to ask, otherwise this could account for the high latency between the two , see?

Well i appol for what it appears Jack. Had mine a while too but , but maybe not as long as you 10-4 goodbuddy.   Ok jack well i think your nic is close to perfect  Hehe. Cheers n beers. not stress.

It goes off the number of posts you've made.  @jackintheshack has been a regular for a long time, I see his username all the time.  I was surprised when I noticed he's never posted.  Him and I first talked in email August 2011 to November 2011.  I guess sometimes when I talk to people in email and then just see their username on the site... it makes me feel like they've posted.
 
@jackintheshack
Here's a quote from an email 11/5/11, I'm noticing now that our last email was days before my daughter was born... funny I haven't talked to you since then and now you pop back up right before my second Son is about to be born.  --- Sorry if I didn't respond to the last message.  Was a busy time for sure.  Okay, on to the quote...
 
 
Like I was telling @jackdashack in PM last night.  We'll just have to have to remember that there is jackdashack and jackintheshack.  I think it's cool that there are enough members here to have run into this problem.

Ditto. No bigger man in character than one who apologizes.

Pedantic? lol, you must have watched Seinfeld. One of George's dates used that word and he had no clue, but he repeated it just to feign knowledge. Me too ... I guess it means redundant or repetitive.
 
As stated above, "" 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. ""

The Westell was just a left over from earlier days. Rather than throw it we used it to get the signal via the slave nearer the Roku in the FL Room. I call it the porch,   , it started out as a porch before remodeled years ago. Now I should say this, the use of the slave is nothing new. It's served this purpose for a year or more. OK, the slave deifned ...

There's no doubt this is the one. Here is a link. I am lazy at the moment and the router is pinned up ceiling high, at 65 I do not feel like climbing up to look. However most the week with brother putting in dedicated lines in the basement I felt like I'd performed this 40 times a day. I'm resting. But this is a pretty certain thing.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/13772

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.

ping east.testmy.net 

Run ping from the command prompt and it will help us understand more.  Paste the results here.

Well something happened...


 
Your speed dropped and RT skyrocketed.  I see that before it happened the identifier was 'kitchen' is this a different machine?
 
Your RT is as low as 29ms sometimes so it's not far off from what your seeing on the other test.  The question is why doesn't it stay there.  Look at mine to the server in Colorado Springs https://testmy.net/rt/CA3LE?miq=18&isp=comcast_cable.
 

A few spikes but it's fairly consistent with a low average, an average that's close to the lowest time.  That's good.
 

Your average on the other hand is much higher than your lowest Response Time.  That's worse but it doesn't necessarily mean that your connection has issues.  If you see it happen on more than one machine you should open command prompt and ping the test server and see if the issue is affecting the actual ping.
 
Regardless of what the other tests tell you, you shouldn't ignore the results here.  For all we know the other tests may run a series of pings and only keep the best one.
 
The RT numbers don't just come out of the air.  If everything between you and the test server and all other variables were perfect you'd see a reading of 0ms... my local testing of RT always results in 0ms.  It's only when something gets in the way that it will add to the Response Time.
 
Have you tried another browser?  Try in Chrome.  What are the specs of the machines?  
 

 
No you shouldn't cut it in half.  It's already been cut in half by the time you see it.  Your ping to speedtest may also be on a server that's physically closer than the ones you're using here.
 
To do this open your command prompt (looks to me like you're on XP).  Type
ping east.testmy.net that's for the Washington D.C. server you're using, if you're testing against another server substitute it's subdomain...
 
Central US >> Dallas, TX, USA - dallas
Central US >> Colorado Springs, CO, USA - co
East Coast US >> Washington, D.C. - east
East Coast US >> New York, NY, USA - ny
West Coast US >> San Jose, CA, USA - west
West Coast US >> San Francisco, CA, USA - sf
Europe >> London, GB - uk
Europe >> Dusseldorf, DE - de
Asia >> Hong Kong, CN - cn
Asia >> Singapore, SG - sg
Australia >> Melbourne, AU - au
 
Let me give you my numbers as an example.  Ethernet wired connection, Comcast Extreme 150.  First I'll show you the actual ping in terminal, then TMN RT... I did an average of 10 pings.  e.g.
ping -c 10 dallas.testmy.net  
ping -c 10
 
Central US >> Dallas, TX, USA - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 25.587/26.383/28.471/0.874 ms
Central US >> Colorado Springs, CO, USA - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 13.817/14.565/16.175/0.660 ms
East Coast US >> Washington, D.C. - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 57.212/57.706/58.733/0.463 ms
East Coast US >> New York, NY, USA - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 58.659/59.323/59.995/0.385 ms
West Coast US >> San Jose, CA, USA - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 39.326/39.952/40.580/0.400 ms
West Coast US >> San Francisco, CA, USA - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 53.522/54.429/58.288/1.474 ms
Europe >> London, GB - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 151.804/160.726/170.455/7.082 ms
Europe >> Dusseldorf, DE - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 144.740/146.039/153.047/2.358 ms
Asia >> Hong Kong, CN - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 204.042/204.488/205.078/0.319 ms
Asia >> Singapore, SG - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 211.519/213.094/213.930/0.744 ms
Australia >> Melbourne, AU - round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 309.783/310.274/311.033/0.355 ms
 
The Response Time by TestMy.net
 
Central US >> Dallas, TX, USA - 37 ms / 35 ms avg
Central US >> Colorado Springs, CO, USA - 22 ms / 20 ms avg
East Coast US >> Washington, D.C. - 64 ms / 67 ms avg
East Coast US >> New York, NY, USA - 64 ms / 70 ms avg
West Coast US >> San Jose, CA, USA - 44 ms / 48 ms avg
West Coast US >> San Francisco, CA, USA - 57 ms / 62 ms avg
Europe >> London, GB - 160 ms / 170 ms avg
Europe >> Dusseldorf, DE - 152 ms / 154 ms avg
Asia >> Hong Kong, CN - 237 ms / 228 ms avg
Asia >> Singapore, SG - 211 ms / 217 ms avg
Australia >> Melbourne, AU - 323 ms / 328 ms avg
 
Very similar.  But like I said, I've seen things influence RT and not ping.  You should compare your ping to your Response Time but you can't really compare your Response Time to your ping.  Response Time is always slightly higher than the actual ping because of request headers and other factors involved.  I don't correct for anything, you're seeing the raw information as the program sees it... "it took X amount of time for your browser to receive and respond to my super tiny request."  ...then the time is cut in half to represent one way.

There's a reason I don't call it latency or ping.  I'm also sorry for not providing any documentation but the truth is... I'm still trying to understand that tool myself.  Not finished.
 
What it's testing is the time it takes for you to respond to a very simple request, the round trip time is then cut in half.  This number can be very similar to the number you'd get from ping, +1-5ms when things are totally ideal.  It can be influenced by the device, browser, software installed on top of the browser and even open tabs.  Keep in mind that if your result is affected in the test, chances are that the other browser tabs your surfing are also experiencing the same lag.  If you see a consistent 500+ms RT something is causing it to happen. If it spikes and you get that high reading more than one time in a row it's usually a bad sign.
 
I often leave tons of tabs open.  Sometimes it can get to where Chrome, Safari and Firefox all have 20-40 tabs open at the same time.  Rarely I see my RT (Response Time) spike up on TMN... look.
 

 
The few seesaw spikes don't concern me, it's the occurrences where it goes over 200ms and stayed there.  Each time that happened I closed all the browser tabs and restarted the browser... immediately RT returned to baseline.  The test didn't just do that for no reason... something influenced it and if it can influence my test it can influence the other tabs your browsing on.  Whatever the cause, closing the open tabs and restarting the browser cleared it up... meaning there had to be a true issue.  Maybe a script or something running on one of those tabs causing increased latency.  Opening another browser showed normal RT (you can see on the instance 3/4 in where the second result dropped back down, that's when I opened the other browser to compare) and ping from terminal to the selected server was also normal.
 
Keep in mind that ping influences RT but RT doesn't always affect ping because it can be influenced by things that don't affect ping.  Originally I was building a latency/ping test.  I built it the way I thought would work and on accident ended up building something different, my observations told me that I couldn't really call it ping so I call it Response Time.  
 
Unless you see it go way off baseline and stay there I'd be less concerned about little bobbles and be looking more at the average.  This isn't perfect, nothing here is or will ever be... but it's helped me detect issues more than a few times so I released it to our members hoping it will help more people.  

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.

Sorry, I duplicated the images. 4 images, 2 of the same each. ":-\\

Yes, DC is my default and never Dallas. lol  And I think I follow your reasoning which I know is correct. So ... I'll read it several times until it sinks. Thanks again so very much! 

WOW! had forgotten all about this. Well I know you have been busy CA3LE with things higher up the priority list. I will check it out soon! Thanks for your committment! jack ":-Dx
rgarland, I think CA3LE has answered this right above your post.

Took me a while to get to it... but you can now mass delete.  Select check boxes next to the result or select all at the top.  Execute with the delete button at the top.
 

 
This is something I just added quickly.  Later, I'll make a small floating options list pop up that will have organize and delete options when you check boxes.  For now... this is WAY better than the previous one... at... a... time... delete.

Thanks TMN Friend: all's well and it's working great with the USB Hard Drive.  ":-D  jack

Hey, that's no problem and thanks for the "shot."  There's way more response here than I see on other forums. This it becoming my "go to" place for most issues. 
 
Yes, I know there is a work around, I've just forgotten in the same way you mentioned above. I'll keep plugging and be sure to post it when I come across it the next time. I have a folder I've kept for several years now I titled PC HELPS. I used to faithfully write down the answers to things like this on a notepad and keep them. I am going to go searching there. It's possible I might have.
 
Thanks again!  Jack  ":-D

Yes. As long as electronics are kept cool, they can run a long long time. Some of the newer modems even de-power their ports to save energy, so at night when you're not accessing the LAN ports, the modem is basically just idling and not dissipating much power. Not sure if yours has the energy saver stuff in it, but even if it doesn't, during long periods of doing little work, the thing will have no problem running all night, as long as it's in an area that allows what little heat they generate to rise above it and away from it. As long as there's reasonable air space around it and the air isn't hot, those things should last.

I have an Apple AirPort Extreme Base Station wireless router and it has the USB port on it. The Mac OS recognized it right away, and I don't know why Windows wouldn't either in this day and age. It's pretty handy. I bought a 2 TB and partitioned it into 2 x 1 TB drives, one for me, and one for the wife. Both partitions showed up fine.

Forwarding this to Christian, he had one of those... he might have the answer for you.