CA3LE

Yes, if more subscribers are paying for a lower speed it will lower that hosts averages. But it does this for all hosts equally and unbiasedly. Hosts that offer faster basic packages will have a faster average. The ISP gives themselves a bad rap by having so many customers on these slower basic packages, if they offer a basic package of 5 Mbps and made it 100 Mbps instead (for instance) they could easily bring up their averages. The program isn't unfairly calculating, it's just giving you the numbers. It has no way of knowing if the person who just scored 5 Mbps is on the 5 Mbps plan or the 100 Mbps plan... unless it asks you. And as a programmer I can't rely on user input for variables. ... I always like to use variables that I can detect without user interaction. I definitely see what you're saying, it's a valid point. But I don't think it gives anyone a bad rap... they simply need to offer faster speeds to more users and they'll score better here. Like I said, all hosts averages are unbiasedly lowered by their slowest users. Some just have more slower users than others... and they have the slower averages they deserve as a consequence.

Hi John, thank you for sharing the great information. Very happy to hear that you've improved your speeds. Did you switch your DNS to Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 (and 1.0.0.1) or Google 8.8.8.8 (and 8.8.4.4)? For other people who'd like to do this you can find it on the Connection Guide under "Step 6 - Improve Your DNS Resolution and Privacy". DNS over HTTPS is available for Firefox users. I'm pretty certain that this is going to become the new standard and will eventually roll out to all browsers. May be able to do this at the router level in the future too. ISPs won't like that. Right now, all of your DNS traffic is being send with clear text, meaning it could be snooped. DNS over HTTPS encrypts your DNS queries. Encryption always has the potential to slow things down but actually (reading the link above) they say in many cases it's actually faster. Again, happy to hear you've picked up some extra speed that you've been paying for.

It's a combined average of your recent download and upload results. I realize this isn't the best for ranking and have been meaning to change it. I may go back to separate download and upload ranking or may make it average the combined download and upload speed. As it is right now, if you take more download tests you'll have an advantage over people who test upload more (if they score similarly to you). If I have it average download and upload your new average would be 223 Mbps (instead of 235 Mbps). (so you've taken slightly more download tests than upload tests, because you're still near the new average.) Others who test mostly download and have only 300 Mbps download (lol, only) could outrank you. I'll get in there and change that so it's more fair and let you know what I come up with.

I opened up TestMy Latency for public testing about 2 weeks ago. Thousands of tests have been performed daily, thank you for the data and insight. It's really helped to button down the program. It wouldn't be able to test the way it does today without you just simply running those early tests and logging that information to my database. Today I was in the shower and thought, "Why not make it able to test anywhere..." --- cut myself shaving because I wanted to get to my computer so fast. So I added an ability that's hidden right now and I would love for you to test it. https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&addr=google.com https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&addr=facebook.com https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&addr=msn.com ... any address you want. It's going to show as "My Network" right now because it's barely built in there. If you query TML like this and it returns a result then you're testing against the host at addr=. From what I've seen it doesn't matter if the host is behind a CDN like cloudflare, it will punch right through that and get the real time to the host. For instance, a website I know is hosted in Australia, who's users have linked to TMN for decades >> forums.whirlpool.net.au I ping that using ICMP ping and I get Damons-5K-iMac:~ CA3LE$ ping forums.whirlpool.net.au PING forums.whirlpool.net.au (104.20.14.233): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=9.928 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=9.410 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=9.819 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=9.808 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=11.445 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=9.191 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=9.319 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=9.396 ms 64 bytes from 104.20.14.233: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=9.357 ms ^C --- forums.whirlpool.net.au ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 9.191/9.741/11.445/0.650 ms Damons-5K-iMac:~ CA3LE$ (I can tell by the 104. address, don't even have to look it up, most likely cloudflare) That's the ping to the cloudflare proxy... not the actual forums.whirlpool.net.au server. but then I run that address with TML and get about 1 second delay. (sorry, can't share this like normal because it's not logging it to the database... again, this is a hidden function and I have to develop it further. There are blocks in the program preventing certain actions when it's outside of the scope it expects to see. Screenshots will have to do.) https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&https=1&addr=forums.whirlpool.net.au I do the same test to domains known to resolve in the US... Oops, I realize now that you need to add the &https=1 if the website is https. However, most will resolve both. https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&https=1&addr=google.com https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&https=1&addr=facebook.com https://testmy.net/latency?internal=1&fa=1&https=1&addr=msn.com by the way, facebook started responding slower on http also, wasn't just https. It's like it switched me to a different location. Actually, sharing does work as long as the address has less than 3 parts to it. "forums.whirlpool.net.au" won't save just because it has 4 parts to the address... I'll fix that. example embedded share https://testmy.net/latency?q=CA3LE&n=100&internal=1&fa=1&addr=testmy.net&stats=1 Help me understand what this can do, I'm figuring it out with you. Please run more tests and let me know what you find.

So you maxed at 65 Mbps in multithread here. You should also try manually selecting 200MB from the download test -- you'll probably be a higher result. And then you maxed out at about 13 Mbps using the classic single thread test. Yeah, your latency graphs actually look really good. For a comparison here's what it looks like on a poor quality satellite connection. https://testmy.net/latency?q=52705179518882&n=100 How is your computer connected to your connection? Does the connection come into the DSL modem, to a router and then wired to your computer... or is it wifi to your computer... or is your modem directly connected to the computer with a cat-5 cable?

Hi Onira, welcome to TestMy.net! It definitely matters. By the way, Steam is multithreaded... that's why it's able to download so quickly for you. You definitely should bother with it because it's affecting your speed. Which is causing issues with your streaming and normal file transfer. ?t=c&d=10-30-2019+%2F+11-01-2019&l=25&q=1697447640522's Speed Test Results You're testing from Italy to the UK so distance isn't the issue. To only get an average of 4 Mbps, that's a joke. Please run some multithread tests here. First make sure you're selected to test against the UK then click multithread at the top and test like you did before. Also wouldn't hurt to run a quick latency test ... click "Test My Latency" so we get see what you get around the world. Just let me know when you're done and I'll pull up your results and share them here for everyone else to look at. ...and also give you some more recommendations.

Maybe it should say "My ISP Graph" ??? Let me know what you think.

"Host" means "your ISP" When you click that the comparison graph on the bottom of your test results changes to show the most recent results from your ISP (or host... they 'host' your internet connection). Clicking "My Saved Results" will change that same graph to show your own results only. These settings stick so when you re-test it will remember your last choice. Welcome to TestMy.net by the way! ?

In firefox, I accepted the notice and was able to test... never came up again for me. I disabled the consent platform for your username temporarily. Is your browser accepting any cookies? It needs to be able to store a cookie with information about your consent.

No problem, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll do some testing and have a resolution for you soon.

By limiting to only 100 MB in your case your getting a lower speed because your connection is taking a long time to build up. TestMy.net Test ID : nNvoumYgN TestMy.net Test ID : Kcx-bIyPH The speed in the second graph, where you selected auto size, starts out faster because during the first initial loads of the test (as it determines the right size) is warming up the connection. So by the time the final test starts, which is what your actual result is calculated from, you've already probably downloaded over 100MB. So then that result is higher... because the connection has warmed up past where the real issue is. (your issue is in how your speed starts... looks like that connection finishes really strong) This is why I'll always have the option to select your own size manually, I think it's a super important option for troubleshooting. To my knowledge TMN is the only internet speed test that offers manual test size options.

Sorry about that, fixed a little while ago. It will work for you now. ?

I'll look into why that's happening. I hate dealing with browser specific bugs like that.

Hey Sean, sorry about that. Consent management is supposed to be ignored in the program on the mirrors. I just pushed the update to correct that can you please confirm it's fixed. And by the way, I wanted to welcome you as a Moderator! Welcome!

Thank you! Yes, 'My Host Avg' is your ISP's average. The star rating is something that's followed TMN through the years, since the beginning. There is logic behind it but it doesn't take your TiP readings into account (the graph that shows how the data flowed during the speed test). Although it wouldn't be very hard to implement a few changes to have it take the variation of the individual test into account. Star Rating calculation history First started by only calculating based on your speed. Years later TMN started logging to a database. The stars were then calculated based on the Index (a recent average for all TMN users). Then when TMN started logging host results it started taking those into consideration. So now it's based on averages of yourself, the index and your host... ...but definitely, if the connection is deviating by X%, it would be helpful if the star rating was effected as a result. --- on my list now. -D

If you go to https://testmy.net/mysettings you can now change middle variance to standard deviation. Note that it's calculating using TiP points from 10% to 90% ... start and finish points are not in this calculation (my calc in the post above was including all points).

First, I will be changing variance to standard deviation in the future. Let's use this result of your as an example. TestMy.net Test ID : 5zlOE7tGc Ideally this flat lines and doesn't deviate from start to finish. Sometimes though, if the result is much lower than your line speed this flat line can be an indication of a bottleneck. Most of the time a flat line with 0% variance is a good thing. One of my recent results as an example. TestMy.net Test ID : fUJ4g~VHj Here's the actual calculation from the program. round(($maximumThruput - $minimumThruput)/(($maximumThruput + $minimumThruput)/2)*100) So your example above would be round((0.32 - 8.32)/((8.32 + 0.32)/2)*100) = -185% The difference from the min and max divided by the average of the min and max... then calculated into percent. The higher the number the more it indicates that the connection was heavily fluctuating during the test. Using standard deviation from your example above you'd get 2.4 Mbps [https://testmy.net/working/deviation/standard-deviation.php?arr=3.28,2.91,1.79,1.84,3.04,4.93,1.43,0.32,0.34,1.31,1.91,3.34,1.89,1.73,3.9,7.28,8.32,8.18] -- Again, ideally this number would be 0 Mbps. My result above's standard deviation is 42 Mbps... higher number but not relative to the result. [https://testmy.net/working/deviation/standard-deviation.php?arr=155.34,345.77,338.49,338.49,340.88,347.01,334.96,331.51,338.49,338.49,345.77,349.53,348.26,342.09,348.26,347.01,339.68,343.31,344.53] So the standard deviation then needs to then be turned into a percentage of your average. $standardDeviation / $middleAverage Your example: 2.4/2.93 = .82 ... or 82% My example: 42/342.24 = .12 ... or 12% Using standard deviation I think will be much easier for everyone to understand. To understand the current formula myself I had to go into the program... my users don't have that luxury. Long story short: Variance shows what I wanted to show but makes it overly complicated. I'll work on that for you.... actually -- I kinda just did, just need to work that all into the program.

I think Net Neutrality is a good thing. By definition... net neu·tral·i·ty noun the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. The fact that it's now repealed worries me. It leaves providers open to making you pay for extra services that are just a part of our internet. They could allow you to only access certain websites and services unless you pay for premium packages. e.g. One day your netflix may just stop working... unless you pay for the streaming media package. Why do you think they wanted to repeal it so bad? Money. If the gate keepers (ISPs) have the ability to dice it into channels and charge you more... they will. The Internet I know and love is a single channel. They will dampen the evolution. Sure, if they start to slice and dice our internet up I believe it will continue to evolve by circumventing the big ISPs. People will demand it. But then guess who holds the keys then, the municipalities and ultimately the government. ...maybe that's been the real plan all along. ? If you want a good laugh watch this one. Making fun of Ajit Pai , FCC Chairman. Warning, ADULT language and humor!

I still need to investigate further. For users who experience this issue in the future I've added the option to enable the upload test failsafe manually. This uses the old upload test with the new version. It detects when this has possibly happened and gives the user the option.

I didn't have ublock origin installed. Once ublock origin is installed I can now see the problem... so I should be able to fix it now. I've confirmed what the contributor to the mint forums pointed out, it does work in the old version. You can select and use that version with ublock enabled. I need to look into the program and see what's different or what is triggering ublock. ublock's own logger may help too. Then either write a fix to the new code or add a rule to have it use the old upload test version in your situation, automatically. I'll update this thread with what I find.

Post up your system info. type "system information" in the search under the Mint menu. Then take a screenshot for me please. https://www.wikihow.com/Take-a-Screenshot-in-Linux

Is that Mint install fresh? In my test I had a freshly installed Mint 19.2 and freshly installed Waterfox 56.2.14. Maybe there's something else installed or configured on both of your systems preventing form data from posting correctly. If this were coming from an internet protection program of some kind I'd expect to see the same results in all browsers. But you said... In the past has it worked correctly?

Scared me for a second, I saw this email notification and thought I accidentally ordered one of those just now. I just saw "router" "order" "Amazon" and thought I accidentally clicked buy it now or something, Haha. You did that quick! Which one did you order? Let us know how it works out after it arrives!

I'm looking into the reasons it may be programmed to send you back to the homepage. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is that it will do that if the post data required to make a calculation is missing. Did you change any settings away from their default settings within Waterfox? edit: confirmed, the only time you can ever be sent from the results page directly to the homepage is if the post data is missing. Maybe something in your Waterfox install is blocking the form data from being submitted properly.

I'd be ordering up a new router, if it doesn't help... return it. Here's the one @Photoplane1 is using. https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC1200-Smart-WiFi-Router/dp/B07N1L5HX1/ For $7 more I might also look at https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC1750-Smart-WiFi-Router/dp/B079JD7F7G/ Personally, I like netgear ... a Nighthawk AC1750 will only set you back $78 ... there's a $10 off that right now. https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-R6700-Nighthawk-Gigabit-Ethernet/dp/B00R2AZLD2/ That's a great router. None of those are affiliate links or anything, just trying to help.