CA3LE

That all looks pretty normal... Sweet, I love to hear that. TestMy.net's servers are specifically configured for each of their tasks. I keep all of the server software as minimal as possible. Behind the scenes I also split a lot of resources up into separate servers. There are individual servers for different tasks. Some serve static requests, some serve dynamic requests, a few serve databases, some are robots that run around the site caching frequently requested information... before you hit pages. Since I've sectioned off resources like this, things have run much smoother. ---- basically, the servers you're pinging... aren't doing anything else except focusing on your requests. Wow, this game looks super in depth! Looking at iRacing Live and it looks like NASCAR on tv. Do you have a set up at home with a steering wheel and pedals? I'm trying to find a list of their servers, not having any luck. Do you have IP addresses for some of these servers your connecting to? Don't they have servers on the west coast or central US?

even going all the way from San Fransisco to DE and UK [root@sf ~]# ping de.testmy.net PING de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=147 ms 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=147 ms 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=147 ms 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=147 ms --- de.testmy.net ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 4 received, 20% packet loss, time 4006ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 147.685/147.753/147.939/0.482 ms [root@sf ~]# ping uk.testmy.net PING uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=146 ms 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=146 ms 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=146 ms 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=146 ms --- uk.testmy.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3003ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 146.219/146.287/146.468/0.479 ms I think you should ping these two servers. If they're similar in time to what you're seeing to NY, I would definitely say there was a problem there. If you're getting 130ms to NY and 140ms to UK... there's something seriously lagging your route to NY. In turn lagging your connection to other cities connected by the same route. Here's my personal difference in those ping times. Damons-5K-iMac:~ CA3LE$ ping ny.testmy.net PING ny.testmy.net (207.246.91.111): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 207.246.91.111: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=58.734 ms 64 bytes from 207.246.91.111: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=52.464 ms 64 bytes from 207.246.91.111: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=53.594 ms --- ny.testmy.net ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 52.464/54.931/58.734/2.729 ms Damons-5K-iMac:~ CA3LE$ ping uk.testmy.net PING uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 45.76.133.26: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=124.049 ms 64 bytes from 45.76.133.26: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=119.679 ms 64 bytes from 45.76.133.26: icmp_seq=2 ttl=47 time=119.660 ms --- uk.testmy.net ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 119.660/121.129/124.049/2.065 ms ~60+ms.

It is normal for response time to increase at distance but I feel like yours is excessive in this situation. Check this out. My ping from NY to Los Angeles, San Fransisco and Portland. All much faster than what you're seeing. [root@ny ~]# ping lax.testmy.net PING lax.testmy.net (144.202.123.145) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from lax.testmy.net (144.202.123.145): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=71.1 ms 64 bytes from lax.testmy.net (144.202.123.145): icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=71.1 ms 64 bytes from lax.testmy.net (144.202.123.145): icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=71.3 ms --- lax.testmy.net ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 71.101/71.206/71.322/0.321 ms [root@ny ~]# ping sf.testmy.net PING sf.testmy.net (107.170.222.115) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from sf.testmy.net (107.170.222.115): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=79.2 ms 64 bytes from sf.testmy.net (107.170.222.115): icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=80.4 ms 64 bytes from sf.testmy.net (107.170.222.115): icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=80.3 ms 64 bytes from sf.testmy.net (107.170.222.115): icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=79.0 ms --- sf.testmy.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 79.008/79.749/80.423/0.647 ms [root@ny ~]# ping (known server in Portland, OR [outside of TMN network]) PING (known server in Portland, OR [outside of TMN network]) (x.x.x.x) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x): icmp_seq=1 ttl=114 time=70.8 ms 64 bytes from x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x): icmp_seq=2 ttl=114 time=71.2 ms 64 bytes from x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x): icmp_seq=3 ttl=114 time=70.7 ms 64 bytes from x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x): icmp_seq=4 ttl=114 time=70.7 ms 64 bytes from x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x): icmp_seq=5 ttl=114 time=71.0 ms --- (known server in Portland, OR [outside of TMN network]) ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4786ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 70.738/70.925/71.241/0.347 ms I can even go out to Germany and England faster than what you're seeing. [root@ny ~]# ping uk.testmy.net PING uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=70.9 ms 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=69.3 ms 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=69.1 ms 64 bytes from uk.testmy.net (45.76.133.26): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=69.1 ms --- uk.testmy.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 69.126/69.619/70.908/0.747 ms [root@ny ~]# ping de.testmy.net PING de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=79.6 ms 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=79.4 ms 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=79.5 ms 64 bytes from de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=83.6 ms --- de.testmy.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3011ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 79.410/80.560/83.699/1.824 ms But that doesn't mean that it's Comcast's issue, it could be a peering provider. Who hosts the server you're playing on? My personal home connection (Colorado Springs) I get a 130 ms ping.... if I ping TestMy.net in Germany. Damons-5K-iMac:latency CA3LE$ ping de.testmy.net PING de.testmy.net (199.247.19.173): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 199.247.19.173: icmp_seq=0 ttl=45 time=133.653 ms 64 bytes from 199.247.19.173: icmp_seq=1 ttl=45 time=133.684 ms 64 bytes from 199.247.19.173: icmp_seq=2 ttl=45 time=133.139 ms --- de.testmy.net ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 133.139/133.492/133.684/0.250 ms 1000's of miles further than you're doing, with international routing.

Okay, now let me help you with your cable packages. Whoever you talked to on the phone wasn't being fully honest. If your price has gone up then you're not in an agreement. Let me tell you how I deal with them and then you can apply it to your situation. Recently my own Comcast bill starting shooting up (here in Colorado Springs, CO). I only want TV and Internet service. I don't want a phone I'll never use and I definitely don't want their security system.... why would I add MORE services for them to jack the price up on later on... like they just did to me? I'd get like a $500 bill later on, lol. When I called they gave me the same spiel. "You need to bundle up with phone and/or security or all of them to get these deals! You're looking at NEW CUSTOMER pricing." WHATEVER. I told them, "You're either going to give me new customer pricing today or I'm going to disconnect service... you'll be mailing me new customer offers within days. Let's cut out the middle man." the rep tried to dissuade me further, "You'd have to pay connection fees." me, "if it saves me money at the end of the day..." rep, "let me (pretend to) talk to my manager." ... I ended up with ONLY the services I wanted and at new customer pricing. That's standard and if they try to tell you any different, ask to speak to their supervisor. Remember who's paying who here! When you're out of contract and sign up for a new contract... you ARE a new customer. Don't forget that and DON'T let them forget that either. Before you call, brush up on exactly what's offered right now and exactly what you want -- (I think you're in Gladstone, OR) https://www.xfinity.com/locations/oregon/gladstone -- look at the prices as a new customer. Get your package together exactly how you want it, call them up and let them know nicely that you'd like to sign again under those terms. I've had sales people tell me that I needed the phone service bundled to get the fastest internet packages. So... yeah, don't listen to sales people. -- talked to the next guy and he was like, "What? No dude, let me get you all set-up..." and he did.

never mind, I re-read your post... I see now.

First, let's look at your traceroute to ny.testmy.net windows (which I see you're using) open command prompt and run tracert ny.testmy.net mac or linux open terminal and run traceroute ny.testmy.net Paste back the output. CA3LE$ traceroute ny.testmy.net traceroute to ny.testmy.net (207.246.91.111), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.802 ms 0.377 ms 0.314 ms 2 cm-1-acr01.monument.co.denver.comcast.net (96.120.13.101) 8.595 ms 8.222 ms 10.448 ms 3 ae-101-rur01.monument.co.denver.comcast.net (68.85.220.69) 8.900 ms 9.573 ms 13.542 ms 4 ae-12-ar01.denver.co.denver.comcast.net (162.151.50.41) 9.570 ms 9.662 ms 10.623 ms 5 be-33652-cr02.1601milehigh.co.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.92.121) 11.005 ms 12.239 ms 10.807 ms 6 be-10521-cr02.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.169) 33.684 ms 33.731 ms 33.951 ms 7 be-10305-cr02.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.201) 55.259 ms 53.538 ms 56.405 ms 8 be-10368-pe01.111eighthave.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.84.218) 51.993 ms 53.390 ms 51.899 ms 9 50.242.150.38 (50.242.150.38) 73.023 ms 53.070 ms 52.953 ms 10 vl42-br2.pnj1.choopa.net (108.61.2.89) 60.792 ms 53.663 ms 60.735 ms 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 ny.testmy.net (207.246.91.111) 52.699 ms !Z 58.369 ms !Z 52.484 ms !Z Don't know if you've seen your response time. Were you having this issue as far back as 5/14/19? spudler_t's New York Response Time

Sean saves the day again! ?

Some issues may only affect parts of your route. When you were getting slower speeds to au.testmy.net it may have been something that was only affecting portions of your route. Google's servers are most likely much closer to you, thus may not have been affected. I say "were getting" because I see that you're getting much better results since you posted. ?t=u&d=05-01-2019+%2F+06-08-2019&y=d&l=50&q=AuntLuella's Speed Test Results June 7th... ouch. myaverage?q=AuntLuella&dateFull=05-01-2019+%2F+06-08-2019&TestType=download&var=Date Sorry it took me a while to approve this post, I was looking into setting up another AU server for you to test on and had a hard time finding something suitable. Right when I'd think I found something it would be spoiled by fine print "100 Mbps..." or "250 Mbps uplink" -- I can't use that! If you have issues like that again try testing with a different mirror, like sg.testmy.net or jp.testmy.net. Even though they're further out testing against them may help you diagnose routing issues. Actually, you're in southwest AU... Alkimos is about the same distance from Sydney as it is from Singapore (both about 3900 km). --- can you please run some tests against the Singapore mirror, I'm curious what your speeds are with international routing to Singapore. I bet they're pretty good.

Thank you for clearing that up Sean, you rock. I'll add an option to change the date format sitewide.

K, it's good now. This caused people running auto tests to be set briefly on a 1 minute interval. Sorry if this caused anyone's test to finish early.

? Like I said, interactions... I need to look at that again. Reverted back but will improve the process here.

I did see some double emails in the logs, though I'm not sure how... I modified the process slightly to call this action at a different time. Hopefully moving it down the chain of events clears up the possibility of that happening. ... again, not quite sure how that would happen sometimes, the programming seems pretty black and white to me. But that's programming for you, sometimes interactions aren't always apparent... but in the end there is always logic to the reason it's happening, just might not make sense to you until later.

Have you tried Chrome or another browser? Using a freshly installed Firefox 67.0.1 on Windows 10, I'm not having any issues. I would check my plugins / add-ons -- something install on top of the browser is often most likely to blame in these situations. You can restart firefox without add-ons and if you see improvement then reset firefox settings. Here's a quick video to show you how. Let me know if this helps. ... any plugin that's causing issues with this is probably doing more to the webpages you're visiting that you want. --- if you find a specific plugin that was the culprit please let me know. One's I've heard of in the past are those coupon code grabbing add-ons.

Can you post a screenshot or recording of what you're seeing. There isn't supposed to be any alignment like you're describing. Opening with sheets on Mac Opening with Google Sheets Opening the same file with a raw txt editor shows the true CSV (Comma-separated values) content I think that Excel is doing its own formatting. Post a screenshot so I can see what you're seeing on your screen.

Here's one example I had with my own provider, Xfinity. Kids want to watch episodes on Nick Jr's app. Looking for Xfinity, Comcast... and Xplornet. Not listed. This is unacceptable because I pay for cable and subscribe to Nick Jr. This is just one of many examples. Here's a similar topic. Solved: Re: Nick Jr - Xfinity Help and Support Forums They basically tell us to record it on DVR and watch it on the Xfinity streaming app. I thought maybe Xplornet was the same deal... but I don't see where they have their own app. I think you should contact Xplornet (1-866-841-6001 or online form) and ask them, "Why don't I have access to third party streaming services when I'm subscribed to these channels?" If you contact them, please let us know their response.

I'm not sure but I'll look into it and get right back to you. I have the same issue with Xfinity (Comcast)... I'm like, "WTH, why isn't Comcast listed?" ... They have like hundreds of providers listed but the largest cable provider in the US, nowhere to be found. Guess they didn't want to make that deal... I'll research and hit you back, I'd like to know too

J.P. Morgan was pretty pissed that Tesla wouldn't sell him his patents... shortly after, Nikola Tesla's master lab and the majority of his key research was burnt to the ground. That didn't lead or have anything to do with his death... a loss of his his life's work but not his life, though after that it probably made him age faster. Watch that video above from start to finish... it's a really good synopsis. Don't get me wrong, Edison was a bad A mofo. Definitely someone to look up to...... if you're evil ...and want to rule the world. (lol) Jeff Bezos is getting to that level of control. Way off topic... but maybe you'll find it interesting. You may already know that tycoons like J.P Morgan and Rockefeller inspired the game Monopoly. The difference here is Jeff Bezos is smart enough to run a legal monopoly. bah ha ha ha. Try to stop that. ha ha ha ha ha. Just look at his eyes in this 1999 interview. He had the vision and knew. All the way back in 1999, he already knew that Amazon was the shit. Not, "going to be" the shit -- in his mind, it already was. But he's also careful to level investor expectations. What an amazing interview. An amazing man... he truly believes in the customer. Watch. The eyes of a madman. My kind of dude. You can see calculations happening in his mind in realtime. During this interview... he's envisioning 40+ years into the future. Remember the guy from the show Hero's. --- Jeff Bezos is Isaac Mendez Pretty much... while he envisions his business you can see that his eyes are in the future. Isaac Mendez comes to my mind. You can see that he knows what he's saying WILL become the future. He's basically saying, "Are you kidding me? Why can't you see the future like I do?" Such a badass. ... by the way Mr. Bezos... AWS is way over priced. Not competitively priced AT ALL, people can get exactly what they need with your weakest competition MUCH easier, cheaper and faster. I'd expect more from Amazon.com and I wonder why people use you for hosting. Maybe your ecosystem has locked people into using you, they're stuck. I keep trying over the years and it keeps disappointing me. Google too. The hosting and bandwidth quality isn't the issue... it's the billing (and ecosystem). It's FAR out of range for high bandwidth websites like this...... and many others. Amazon is missing out. Or maybe everyone else is under cutting prices just to compete..... but if they're profitable then Amazon should really be profitable at those same prices or better. WTH is my amazon basics hosting? I just want a VPS host, my choice of OS, 10G ethernet and scalable RAM and CPU..... I'm really not asking for much here. But I try to get that from AWS and it's first a pain in the ass... then second I find out it's ASTRONOMICALLY priced. F U. Get real Amazon! Any businesses out there building systems around ecosystems that lock them into pricing like that, DOOMED! I'll keep checking like I always do --- if this ever changes before I notice, someone please let me know. I would love to get servers with Google (again) or AWS. My take on the whole subject: Tesla selflessly reinvented the world as we understood it. Edison did the same thing but with selfish intensions. And Bezos... gave us PRIME! -- no joke, watch what Bezos does. He hasn't even started yet. ?

Me too. I just thought about it and came to check up. I don't always see notifications as I can get sucked into programming vortexes sometimes that prevent me from seeing anything other than what's right in front of my eyeballs. Being totally honest... Topics that I genuinely find interesting, I pop back in like this. Any notification I got on this topic (subscribed btw) got buried... sometimes I see them. Sometimes not. First, I have to reread this topic now, but keep in mind, people were pulling much faster speeds on TestMy.net way over 10 years ago. Right now... nearly anyone's phone > nearly any computer from 10 years ago. Processor speed can be a factor, especially in multithread, but it's not a real factor unless resources are being fully utilized elsewhere. Like, if another application is eating up all of your available resources.. then it may affect your results. Otherwise, very minimal CPU resources are actually needed to run TMN. Your computer may burst resources if available but they aren't necessary to make the test function properly. It might help with animations but the test itself functions the same regardless of the animations on your screen. This is made to run equally on all devices, the network resource is the limiting factor in the methodology behind TestMy.net. The same core behind what I originally built is still what drives this speed test. The basic principals are exactly the same, over the years it just renders quicker and gets to the final result more efficiently. My multithread speed test (other speed tests run this way by default) can often give people a more favorable result, especially with a fast CPU and fast computer in general situation.... but from our user feedback it's obvious those favorable results only hide issues. --- other speed tests use multithread by default. My own results... much better with multithread, used to be even. When my multithread and classic results match... that's always a perfectly running connection. And a clean computer on top of it. If you want me to bore you with the details, just ask me a question. To be honest... I've told the story too many times and nobody cares. --- 20 people might read this far, might.

See the email results option. Are you testing on a 5 minute interval? Run another test and see if it's fixed for you. I made a small change that may have made a difference. Set your test to upload only, 5 cycles... then keep refreshing the page (the entire page, "force re-test" won't do it) to force it to the end quicker.

In the footer, anywhere outside of the forum, you'll see a link for "My Settings" --- maybe you've opened that before and have extra email options set. That email option is separate, if it's enabled and the test results meet the criteria you've set AND it's the last test of an auto test cycle you'd get an email from that system and also a "auto test complete" email. The only other way it could send a second notification is if the "Test Done" page gets refreshed. I did notice issues with sendmail that required a restart of php-fpm. Maybe that had something to do with the double email. I personally haven't been able to get it to do that. I was getting intermittent send failures. I've enabled logging on failure and also success and will investigate further as more auto tests complete and hit the logs. As for a setting... there isn't one. If you're signed in the program assumes that you want to be notified when your test is complete. A second email isn't ever supposed to happen.

I'm working on this right now actually. ? Very soon.

Thank you!

No Problem, all done. Welcome to TestMy.net!

Yes, just send me a message or respond here with the username you'd like to change it to and I'll take care of it for you right away.

Thanks, I'm surprised there hasn't been more response to this. It's pretty much the most powerful tool I've ever built... statistically speaking. Personally, I love it. My Average also works with all of the ISPs, cities and countries in the database. Those areas are in development but will be released in iterations soon. I'm using it right now and... to me, it's crazy to see years of data plotted out in front of me, so quickly. Many of the queries aren't even close to optimized or indexed but it can still make it happen like lightning. Around 2011/2012 I changed the way providers were being logged to the database, this tool combines the old data with the new data for its calculations so I'm able to get full records going back to 2005. All in milliseconds. (actually the database predates that but an early error reset all of the dates to 2005... whoops! Too late by the time I noticed. Live, learn, be happy.) These are extremely heavy queries to the database but using some of the same strategies that I use for hoststats I'm able to make these pages render for you in under 0.05 seconds. Behind the scenes these queries take minutes but TMN is in the background pre-fetching and caching calculations. Check out how much Hughes Net has improved over the years. LOL, that 2nd video was copyright claimed for the audio before I could even post this. (I mean right as I pasted the link) Youtube is on it! That's good, that dude deserves credit. So you might see ads just on that 2nd video... just wanted to share what I was really listening to right now.