CA3LE

You can but the system may disallow you or kick you out. I used to be more free with that stuff but it was too heavily abused. Originally I actually designed all the URLs to be driven by other's remote programs. I have another beta for a program you may be interested in. Called My Sensor, once enabled it gives you remote control over any computer that you visit TMN on. You can then just let it run, send remote test commands and get a constant stream of data on the connection. Uses almost no bandwidth (unless you tell it to test). --- it's been a very difficult project and I'm not ready to share it yet. I've personally been running it non-stop for over 4 years, works awesome really. Keeps getting better but it's still not ready for prime time yet. The linear upload is working in the beta now. As for your export options, I still need to build that out. Went on a tangent with the linear upload test. 🤣 🤪 I did notice that the columns that I'm saving those numbers to need to be altered. The pre-planned extra columns I used are int and I need them to be decimal. A problem because the numbers are in MB/s (saves a little space in the database being a smaller number). When it's saved in an int column it causes the number to be rounded. 5.49 MB/s may become 5 MB/s for example. An over 7 Mbps difference, which is unacceptable. So I need to alter that table. Your (high/low) results before I make that change will be rounded. Yes, I could just store that in Mbps on those columns and call it a day but that would bother me. Alter table is easy now in beta, much harder when it's live with millions of results. The beta has still only run less than 2 days worth of tests that the production version does. I'll get that table altered and then build out the functionality to go with it over the next few days.

I'll keep searching for a solution. When I try to run the command I would need to use, I get this... ca3le@Damons-2020-iMac js % sudo /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Apple80211.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/airport scan WARNING: The airport command line tool is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. For diagnosing Wi-Fi related issues, use the Wireless Diagnostics app or wdutil command line tool. The best solution would be to have the 2.4 and 5 GHz networks on separate SSIDs. Then just don't add the 2.4 GHz network to your laptop. But that's not always possible. Like with my Netgear Orbi. It's always dual band and gives me no control. Total garbage. But that's what we have to work with sometimes. There has to be a new solution! Let's make sure that's the case first. That just rang the bell as a possibility due to the symptoms.

This beta started as a request for a multithread upload test. Funny and ironic that the hardest part to implement in this version was the Linear (single thread) Upload. The "Linear" option has been removed and you'll now see a "Multithread" toggle under Tune ☆. Multithread and Linear now work with both test types. Hope you find this useful.

I'm looking at your results. Drops to a fairly consistent 200 Mbps level. Maybe... the newer software is for some reason connecting you to the 2.4 GHz wifi (intermittently) but then when you restart wifi or the computer you're getting connected to 5 GHz? Check the network details next time it's running weird. Hold [Option] + click the wifi icon and it will show you details.

ahhh, "My Average" is taking the last 25 results into consideration. That's a direct copy of how it's currently done. This also filters your results by identifier and host. So when you're on Spectrum you'll get an average of only those results, when you're on Verizon you'll get an average of your Verizon results. Same is true if you visit on a desktop, android or iOS. You'll only compare similar results. But that's only for "My Average" -- the ISP and location are taking into account all results and come from a continuous 15 minute average that runs for all databases. Those numbers constantly fluctuate with the current average user's performance.

The graph points are averaged with the previous two graph points. I explain this on the download and upload test pages, if you scroll down with the beta enabled. https://testmy.net/upload#test-info The current version plots each point without any averaging, the timing are more raw but it also makes it prone to more anomalies. In the beta, the 15% progress is actually an average of over a dozen data points... the next point at 30% then does the same calculation and then averages that result with the previous. At 45% it does the same thing except it includes the previous two points. The remaining points continue to average with the previous two points. Unfortunately this lowers the resolution but it draws better graphs consistent with what's happening. Better for a live graph in this situation in my opinion. The final result does not take any of that graph data into account, using only the start and stop times. True for all versions. Note: If you Tune ☆ "50th Percentile Result" the result will be calculated from the graph data.

Yes and no... for right now. For download it's enabled by default for upload it only works with multithread... until I push my next update. You may have already read this topic on it. I got it fully working just last night. As soon as the linear upload test is available in the beta, it will be the default option. When you toggle the multithread option it will affect both upload and download tests.

sweet. As soon as I posted my response to you on Wednesday I got into building the single thread upload test into the new version. That inconsistency has been driving me nuts, that it's missing that super important element. That's what makes TMN different. It's been insanely hard to work that into the new test. The new version was first built as a multithread test in proof of concept - @xs1 requested a multithread upload test. Adding the single thread download test to that was simple, bing-bang-boom. But the single thread upload test is at least 10 times as hard to program. Even though it's already built... working it into the new program has been a challenge for sure. Anyways, I did it. It works really good too, graphing the results. Stripped to the essential functions. Tested it up to 500 MB... works awesome. I'll publish the update soon. I'm stoked!

Thank you. Not possible yet, I need to rewrite the export program and modify the db_search tool for it to be able to read the data. You've run enough tests to give me some good data to work from. I need to think about it for a little bit and then I'll get crackin'. I see your upload speed on the beta is much higher. This is because it's multithreaded, opening concurrent connections. Look like Starlink favors that... but you should still periodically run tests with the current upload test. I'm working to make the single thread upload test work with the beta, it better represents what you can expect to get in a single stream or file download. Multithreading can be misleading... unless that's how you use your connection. A bunch of smaller, concurrent uploads and downloads... I do that sometimes, with torrents or just having a lot of devices... but most of the time, when I care, it's a single file I'm waiting on. Single threaded performance is always at the core most important, in all computing. You're seeing 20-30 Mbps multithreaded but only 5 Mbps in a single thread operation. I personally call that 5 Mbps, not 20. In other words, you need to open 4-6 multiple uploads to get up to speed. But if you wanted to stream video, you'd want to keep it under 5 Mbps (I'd say 3 Mbps to be safe)... because it won't be able to handle more than that. I want to give people the bigger number for bragging rights but that doesn't help anyone. The only way to improve is to know the truth. So if you're curious why the results are so much greater, it's because it's not the same test. The current beta is my first multithreaded upload test, completely different method and way that the data is uploaded. Gives your connection opportunity to stretch its legs a bit more. Both tests are valid and important information. Tested from different perspectives. Download has both single (linear) and multithreaded in both versions, toggle that setting under "Tune ☆".

Maximum column has also been added. The beta is now open to all members, just visit My Settings and toggle the button. I hope you like it.

Hi @Sencinet -- Welcome! I can see how this will be very helpful. It's not easily possible with the current version. But the beta has better database structure, more is possible. I've added a minimum column and it's saving that data with the result. After you've gathered some results with the beta I'll program some tricks to make it do what you're looking for. A new column needed to be added to do this most efficiently. I'll probably add a button that says "show minimum speeds" -- you'll then be able to use TMN's normal graphing functions and export to CSV. BTW, the beta version does a pre-test to warm up the connection, which is additionally beneficial in this instance. The minimum I'm saving is only taken from the final result, not pre-test.

Hi Rod, I'm happy to see that you're still visiting. I was optimizing the query structure of the database search. This presented a new problem because now certain calculations are done later in the process. Not really an issue, we can work with that, especially given the performance gains of dropping 2/3 of the queries... except I can't tell if there should or shouldn't be a graph displayed early enough in the process to generate the page structure the way I wanted. A problem easily solved if it was a single graph. Instead of just making it work... I rebuilt it into a single graph. Along the way I finally solved the x-axis / y-axis. There are two separate y-axis for speed and then two x-axis for date. The dates align with each other properly now on the x-axis no matter what the situation. This update also makes DB search query much faster for members like you with over 100,000 results. My testing saw no less than 2X increase in speed, some queries saw as much as 6X improvement. Once I thought of how it could be done (early yesterday) it was mostly a matter of reorganizing. Still a good 20-30 hours of programming, lol. Numerous other bug fixes, more complex queries are possible. Thank you @Pgoodwin1 for the suggestions, got the juices flowing. Thank you @rrr10 -- sorry it took >5 years to program your suggestion. It's a harder problem than I ever could have imagined. No examples to go off of, very little documentation of this very specific use case. I guess not very many people want to combine charts in this way... well, I like it. I can see how it will help people understand results better. I hope you like it too.

As always, thank you for your excellent suggestion. My plan is to basically duplicate what they do over at PassMark's site cpubenchmark.net https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5027vs5684vs5172vs2830/AMD-Ryzen-9-7900X-vs-Intel-i9-14900KF-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-7600-vs-Intel-Xeon-E5-2667-v4 Definitely won't be easy. But comparison like that is extremely helpful. Side note: pretty sure I'm going with the Ryzen 7900X on the new database server. Currently running Dual E5-2667 v4. The 7900X hits where I need it most (single thread) and a single CPU will blow the doors off what I'm running right now. ... couple that with Ryzen's ECC memory support and then they say that the AM5 socket will be the platform until 2027 so upgrade options for many years. -- when you run a mysql database query, that's a single thread operation. Excited to get it built and compare performance. So imagine that comparison but with internet benchmarks. Easy to understand and easy to use.

Hello! How can I add a speed test server and company to the database? https://testmy.net/hoststats I don't have a way for you to be added to the database, it's automatic. Based on GeoIP data. Clients that test from your IP blocks may or may not be detected as Cube-Host depending on your IP leasing. If you own the IP space, then it should resolve to your name. I update my GeoIP data a few times a year. ... when TMN detects a client in your IP space it creates the databases, etc automatically. This can be checked by testing the source https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip-demo and comparing to testmy.net IPTools If you'd like to host speed test servers, you can enable the beta (under My Settings) and then see https://testmy.net/myserver. You can use that to quickly setup test servers wherever you want. Or you can donate VPS servers to TestMy.net and I can build them out into full test servers. Let me know if you need any help, - Damon

Pgoodwin1 Hi CA3LE. Got an odd bug you can maybe fix. I go to DB/Fastest ISPs/Full Listing, I searched on Cincinnati Bell and Spectrum. I pulled up the Speed Test Logs for both - separate windows to compare It defaults to All Identifiers in the Results tables. I set it to 1000 / page. OK. I select the “Speed” column heading so that it shows the fastest. OK. Everything’s fine. The issue: In the Results Table, I can’t choose to display the fastest Speeds first in the Speed column when selecting an Identifier (other than All Identifiers) If I select an Identifier (like Dallas, TX), the Speed column automatically reverts to the slowest Speed of the 1000. When I select the Speed column heading to make it show fastest first, the Identifier automatically reverts to “All Identifiers”. When I reselect Dallas TX, it automatically displays the slowest Speed first again. haha - an endless cycle of despair Pgoodwin1 BTW: My personal test results “My Results” table doesn’t behave that way. You can select an Identifier then sort on the fastest speed without it reverting to All Identifiers Pgoodwin1 @CA3LE just wondered if you had a chance to look into this. If you don’t plan to, that’s OK too. CA3LE I'll fix this for you and hit you back. Pgoodwin1 😁 Great CA3LE Did some updates to the database query. It should now work the way you were expecting. Let me know if it's querying correctly now. Pgoodwin1 It’s working perfect now. Thanks. That’s a very cool tool. maybe in the future you could add the date range field like our personal results page has. That way you could look at the ISPs performance over a specific period. one suggestion on our date range in our personal results: make it so you don’t have to scroll through the Calendar. When you want the start date to be 3 years prior to today’s date, it takes a long time to get there. Maybe use two boxes, one for start date, one for end date, and let the user be able to type in the date as an option. More error prone that way though, but if it showed the date format, us idiots should be able to get it right. i don’t want much. HAHA🤗 CA3LE 14 hours ago, Pgoodwin1 said: maybe in the future The future is now. You can now search hosts and locations by date range. Currently this pulls data from a table where the old results are purged. So will be limited to about the last 45K results per host. Within those results you can now perform more fine grained searches. I'm working on a super server upgrade that will cut down query times on my larger tables. This should enable us to run queries like never before on the larger datasets. I have what I think is going to be a very interesting topic on the subject. Where I'm going to detail my build process. All of my servers are custom built but this new server is going to be my most custom build ever. Basically, found that enterprise grade hardware (that I've been using) isn't the way for TestMy.net moving forward. I was able to beat TestMy.net's current Dual Xeon E5-2667 v4 w/ Optane setup using a single Optane and an old i7 10700K. Not by a little either. It seems core performance is the bottleneck. The 13th and 14th gen Intel chips have oxidation and voltage issues so I think I'm going to end up going with AMD. Also Ryzen supports ECC memory. I'm basically building a Ryzen gaming PC inside of a 2U rack mount chassis. Also building a piKVM v2 into it to basically give the machine IPMI. Be able to remotely see the display, control input, mount ISOs... control it like I'm there. I've got the build coming in right now at less than $1K. That's about what I paid for just the CPU's and Optane drive in the master server. And I got them used, 1/6 the original price. After testing I'm convinced, my dream server is a gaming PC. Enterprise hardware, even the most recent CPUs... right there with basic consumer CPUs. They support more memory, have more cache but the performance per core where it counts most is far, far lower. My concern with hosting TestMy.net is usually focused on single thread performance. Similar to how I focus on single thread performance in my tests but this is talking about CPU threads. More threads is definitely helpful and nessesary but the speed of each thread is the most important variable. The single thread performance I'll get out of any AM5 Ryzen will absolutely crush any of the Xeon CPUs in my price range. The ones I'm looking at out perform or are at par with even the latest enterprise CPUs. At the end of the day I can build servers cheaper with the latest chips. All working together in my proxmox cluster so hardware failure is tolerable... but I imagine they'll be just as stable, under volting the CPUs and run them through extra stability testing before production. There's so much competition in the gaming PC performance arena which leads to less expensive consumer chips being faster. And yes, better database structure solves problems. But so does adding more power. It's far easier for me to give my cluster more power than to restructure databases. Things I've built recently and going forward are better planned but there's all the databases and tables prior. If you don't mind, I'd like to share this thread as a topic. Pgoodwin1 Wow. That sounds really good. It does totally amaze me what you can get in processing power these days. Consumer grade machines can be so fast and not that expensive. “If you don't mind, I'd like to share this thread as a topic.” Certainly go ahead and share it as a topic thanks for the upgrade with the date range. That tool is awesome now for comparing ISPs. I’ve been looking at maybe changing from Spectrum to AltaFiber (which is Cincinnati Bell). That change you made just adding the date range makes it very easy to compare apples to apples - different test servers, No problem, thank you for the suggestion. CA3LE No problem, thank you for the suggestion. The limitation on the host and location queries has needed that correction for a long time. Once I know someone is trying to query in a broken way, it's motivation to make it work the way you expect.

When the auto speed test was first designed in 2010/2011, phones were still figuring things out. Always, my goal with design is to make ONE thing that works with all browsers and devices. So I've always avoided apps. TestMy.net has never had an Android of iPhone app. Now it's 2024, phones are a different breed. They are full fledged gaming PCs that make the desktop computers from 2010 look like a joke. In 2010 average RAM was 3-4GB. Now, our phones are coming out with 8-12GB! The philosophy remains, ONE thing for them all. For the auto test to work on any machine, not just Android, make sure the power remains on and the test in focus. On my S22 I normally have my display set to never turn off. I'm now noticing that they must have recently updated... now you can't set anything higher than 10 minutes. That's alright, there's an app for that. Screen Alive on Android does the trick. It's free with an option to donate to the developer. Surprisingly, this isn't an issue on iOS. I would have thought if anyone did this it would be Apple. Android usually does things first but not things like this. On iOS just go do Display & Brightness > Auto Lock > Never. Once your phone's display doesn't sleep anymore you can plug it into power and start up the auto test. Keep the browser in focus and it will do its thing. Please let me know if this helps

It may have been a routing issue. Has it cleared up yet? If I saw something like that happen as @xs1 said, I'd run traceroute and compare to a known working machine. As for getting it fixed. Depends on where the issue is, could be on your provider's end, my provider's end or one of their peers in between. Usually, these kinds of problems resolve on their own. It may be that there was only an issue going to and from that specific datacenter. As long as you're testing good across the greater majority, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Unless it starts affecting the real communication that you do. Important thing... we know it's not unique or localized to your computer or network. You've proven this by testing across multiple networks and showing greater results.

The stats that show under hoststats are taken over longer periods and have more results considered. The stats that show under the ISP ranking tab are done in the background every 15 minutes and only consider the most recent results. My next major hoststats update will use the same numbers for everything. Using the overall average shown on the current hoststats pages. I think a histogram is an excellent idea, I'll be working on that. With less than 300 results each, it's hard to compare. The dataset on those providers is very small. If you click the "Log" button on the hoststats pages you can see the number of results. iWay looks better... but Init7 has a slightly larger sample.

Sorry it's taken me a couple of days, I'm developing. If you toggle the beta in My Settings, then visit the upload or download test there's an explanation. There are reasons I originally did it that way and they still hold true. It makes for a more consistent test with far less variables. Man! Your suggestion for the upload test back in 2018. That's an algorithm I still use. Has saved a lot of bandwidth and time... no joke, over the hundreds of millions of upload tests since, probably something like a decade or more of wait time saved at this point. I can calculate the bandwidth saved... I'll just estimate quickly, going off the recent upload test results Keep in mind, what's logged to the database is the final result. The client may have cycled though up to 4 tests before getting to the final test. 2 GB in the last 4 minutes (non-peak early morning hours) 1440min per day / 4minutes = 360 * 2GB = 720GB per day The optimization was made 6 years ago 720*365*6 = 1,576,800 GB or 1.6 Petabytes! Wow. I think you could easily figure an extra 30+% for the pre-tests. So about 2 PB saved! Using the current median download speed from the recent download test results of 62 Mbps we can get a rough estimate of the time saved. byte conversion 62/8 = 7.75 MB/s 2 PB is 2147483648 MB (2*1024*1024*1024) 2147483648 / 7.75 = 277094664 seconds saved (((277094664 / 60sec per min) / 60min per hr) / 24hrs per day) / 365days per yr = 8.8 YEARS SAVED! The actual number is probably much higher. Your post, I'd say has saved at least 10 years of wait time collectively. Amazing. I'm keeping your histogram idea at the forefront of my mind too. -- I'll post over there.

Changed it so it looks for /b/imb/blank.png first, then defaults to favicon.

Hi Z! What it's actually looking for by default is the presence of favicon.ico. Your website doesn't have that in the document root. Just now I made it work the way that you were expecting. If favicon.ico isn't found it then checks for /b/img/blank.png. blank.png is preferred. Hope this helps. Here's my result https://testmy.net/latency?tID=g5uvfbbcq3

If you see the reference value, you're well within the spec. Between -27 and -8 dBm Those numbers look good to me.

lol Freudian Slip?

Welcome to TestMy.net @James2007 Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Hi Sean, I made some adjustments, when you enable "Linear Load" it will modify the Upload page to direct you to the legacy upload test. This doesn't work with combined test, using combined test with linear load under the beta will still load the new version. I hope to develop the linear upload test to work with the new graphs but I'm not sure if it's possible yet. It's pretty tricky. Porting the download test over was simple. The problem has to do with a limitation of a certain browser API. The current version will remain available, I have no plans to get rid of that. If I can't get it to work exactly the way I want... then I'll just integrate the old version, minus the extra graphing on the upload.