CA3LE

The times you've seen that happen, when it's loading, what does the progress bar do? Does it jump in progress or do anything out of the ordinary? Can you test in a different browser for me, like Chrome? TiP isn't perfect but keep in mind that if it does display funky results it doesn't affect the overall result. Those calculations are held separate from the overall result. Also, when it fails it's pretty obvious. The TiP system was programmed in one session and I haven't made any adjustments since it was implemented. I'm still not totally sure why it spikes on some systems... the problem is that I can't get it to do that for me. If I could, I'd know why it does that. So far, the best theories surround third party software or browser add-ons. Resetting the browser and rebooting the system may resolve it. But after looking into your results I see that you've had this happen a few other times in the past year so it might not be that easy. The problem may be that something is lagging the processing of javascript on your system. This causes the TiP calculations to be lagged... then all update the times all at once when the script gets moving again. All healthy systems I work with don't display this in the slightest. The only way I can get it to fail in development is to run it on an iOS device at really fast speed... then I get spikes but not as varied as you're seeing, it looks smooth by comparison. Your speed is definitely not actually doing that. This may actually be a clue to an underlying issue. Try in Chrome, repeatedly download test (~10X) and see if you can get it to do that again. 2MB should be a good size. A couple examples for everyone. Removing the wild spikes, the remaining data points are what I'd expect to see from your connection.

Well, that would suck if they do that. They may train their reps to downgrade your account if you're not using the exact modems they want you to. Lame. Let us know how it goes. I'd love to know that there was something better out there or a solution for the weak performance I've seen from 16 channels.

Why is it that hotmail and yahoo are so much more susceptible than gmail for instance. Does gmail just have better security and filtering? I route all my mail through gmail and I pretty much only see the emails I want to see and should see. BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death) for anyone who doesn't know. Actually, it's unfortunate but I'm sure that everyone knows what it is.. you just might not know the acronym off the top of your head. Can flash just die already? There should be a class action lawsuit brought up for their update process... we shouldn't have to see their stupid website, trying to sell us sh*t we don't want, every time we update because of THIER security flaws. It's like they do it on purpose to keep the consumer aware of them. Eff those guys... (but thanks for Photoshop)

It's still there. I just took the top link down. Look at the menu under "Extras > Mercury Speed Test" I'm in development but not working on that. I just moved it because it isn't a very popular option... I'm juuuust about to hit reply and the site just told me that you replied... I noticed that you found it under the menu.

First, I think that we're very similar consumers. I too am always looking for the best technology available (in everything) and I thought that the latest Motorola modem would do what ever other previous generation did. But it didn't. I had to pull it back a little to get better performance. Maybe it's the cable systems right now... maybe it shows what they're moving towards. -- hope not, that would suck. If you (or anyone else) happen to find a 16 channel modem (or better) that out performs the 8 channel SB6141 I'd love to know about it. The two 6183's I tried both had the same curve that yours displayed. Motorola in my mind has the absolute best cable modems. Would be interesting to see a contesting brand with 16 channels or more that showed a definite performance gain in these tests. I'd almost bet money that you'll have improved performance with the 8 channel modem. We'll see soon.

sweet!

Don't eat the cost... sell it on Amazon. Still worth more than the 6141, even used. The SB6141 has a theoretical max of 343 Mbps down, 131 Mbps up. Even my old SB6121 (4 channel) did well over 100 Mbps, easy... but I seemed to max out around 130 Mbps (it's theoretical max is 172 Mbps). You might need a 16 channel modem to truly pull your full 300 Mbps but I think that the SB6141 is worth a shot. I'd try it... just make sure you can return it after your experiment. ... if you find it works better sell the other one online and you'll probably still break even after seller fees. Personally, even if I dropped 20+ Mbps off the top end, I'd rather have it initiate instantly. It's worth more to me if I was able to pull a consistent 260-280 Mbps vs having over 300 with that slow ramp up that you're displaying. If you try it out, after you try it out... please share your results here. You may help others in your same situation.

Ahhh, the Motorola Surfboard SB6183. I recently had one... actually two of them, returned them in favor of an 8 channel modem because the numbers here don't lie. Consistently slow starts on that modem. The 8 channel SB6141 initiates quicker and reaches full speed quicker. TestMy.net results were very clear and totally steered me to better performance. More channels don't always equal more performance. Read this topic that unfolded when this happened. You be the judge, which modem SB6141 or SB6183 SB6141, still kickin' butt. Saved money AND I'm faster. I suggest you hit up BestBuy and give it a try. Hopefully you're still within the return policy on the 16 channel modem. I recommend buying from BestBuy because of their return policy... no questions asked if you decide that it's not what you need. -- seriously, I just went through the same deal. I'm pretty sure you're experiencing the same idiosyncrasies that made me loose confidence in that modem. For what I do here, developing TMN, that kind of wildly unpredictable performance arch wasn't going to suit the job. Let me know how it goes. (btw, don't bother with extended warrantees, if it runs for a few days with no problem... chances are it will run for years that way. These are very reliable pieces of equipment... just don't cover the all important air vents or restrict the heat dissipation in any way. e.g. don't put it in a confined space or put anything on top of it or your router.)

I see what you're saying. I guess there was a dual issue. When I hit retest on the auto test each time it flopped back and forth -- linear, multi, linear, multi -- give it a try again, should be resolved. ... that is, unless there's a third way I messed it up.

No problem, happy to help. Spread the word.

Very nice. Do the same to de.testmy.net ... and then to uk.testmy.net.

I get better results from DE than GB here at my house in Colorado. (again, it will show up as London, GB for now) This is against the new DE server ... and against the London, GB server

Response on your other topic How to Test upload to Frankfurt/Amsterdam

Here you go... http://de.testmy.net/SmarTest/up (initiates an automatic upload test to Frankfurt DE) http://de.testmy.net/SmarTest/down (initiates an automatic download test to Frankfurt DE) You can manually change the size by using the following url format... http://de.testmy.net/ul-1MB [or in kB] http://de.testmy.net/ul-1024 (download test urls) http://de.testmy.net/dl-1MB or http://de.testmy.net/dl-1024 Hope this helps. Keep in mind that I've only quickly added this for you, it will appear in the logs as London, GB until I really add it. As long as it says de.testmy.net in the bowser while it's testing... you're testing to Deutschland. I may integrate it later if the server proves worthy. This is outside of my normal Softlayer network on Linode but it should serve your purpose. Testing against the server wasn't totally ideal but that may have to do with the outbound peers leaving Germany. I'd have to test within DE outside of the host network to know for sure. This is downloading from the server. de.testmy.net to eu.testmy.net [root@uk tmp]# wget http://de.testmy.net/dl-200MB --2015-08-15 13:12:47-- http://de.testmy.net/dl-200MB Resolving de.testmy.net... 85.90.245.112 Connecting to de.testmy.net|85.90.245.112|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: “dl-200MB.1” [ <=> ] 209,793,956 14.0M/s in 13s 2015-08-15 13:13:01 (15.7 MB/s) - “dl-200MB.1” saved [209793956] and then in the other direction, from eu.testmy.net to de.testmy.net [root@de tmp]# wget http://eu.testmy.net/dl-200MB --2015-08-15 18:05:35-- http://eu.testmy.net/dl-200MB Resolving eu.testmy.net (eu.testmy.net)... 159.8.149.164 Connecting to eu.testmy.net (eu.testmy.net)|159.8.149.164|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: ‘dl-200MB’ [ <=> ] 209,793,956 90.5MB/s in 2.2s 2015-08-15 18:05:38 (90.5 MB/s) - ‘dl-200MB’ saved [209793956] So uploading to the DE server is definitely not going to be an issue. But coming out of the server, at least when going to my server in London, it's not as fast as I'd like to see. Ideally I'd like to see at least 75-100 MB/s (600-800 Mbps) in both directions. In testing out to dallas2.testmy.net both the EU and new DE servers performed well for me. [root@uk tmp]# wget http://dallas2.testmy.net/dl-200MB --2015-08-15 13:17:47-- http://dallas2.testmy.net/dl-200MB Resolving dallas2.testmy.net... 108.168.210.66 Connecting to dallas2.testmy.net|108.168.210.66|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: “dl-200MB.2” [ <=> ] 209,793,960 57.8M/s in 5.2s 2015-08-15 13:17:53 (38.5 MB/s) - “dl-200MB.2” saved [209793960] [root@de tmp]# wget http://dallas2.testmy.net/dl-200MB --2015-08-15 18:15:36-- http://dallas2.testmy.net/dl-200MB Resolving dallas2.testmy.net (dallas2.testmy.net)... 108.168.210.66 Connecting to dallas2.testmy.net (dallas2.testmy.net)|108.168.210.66|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: ‘dl-200MB.2’ [ <=> ] 209,793,960 53.3MB/s in 7.6s 2015-08-15 18:15:44 (26.2 MB/s) - ‘dl-200MB.2’ saved [209793960] Testing de to dallas... root@home [/tmp]# wget http://de.testmy.net/dl-200MB --2015-08-15 11:20:20-- http://de.testmy.net/dl-200MB Resolving de.testmy.net... 85.90.245.112 Connecting to de.testmy.net|85.90.245.112|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: “dl-200MB” [ <=> ] 209,793,956 14.2M/s in 15s 2015-08-15 11:20:36 (13.0 MB/s) - “dl-200MB” saved [209793956] Not bad given the distance but again not what I really like to see from a test server. Other routes to different people and different times of day may have better or worse results, I'm not sure yet. In other words... it's ready for testing but you're the first to use it so let me know what you think of the results that come off it.

I'm putting a machine online for you in Frankfurt DE. Give me a few minutes.

Yesterday I made it so that if you're selected on a different server than you actually initiate a test on, it automatically switches your settings to the server you're testing from. I happened to forget about multithread, which internally is handled a little different. Correction has been made and it shouldn't have that issue again. I also test posted a couple of images. Under my own account and under a test account with regular privileges. I was able to post images without problems... the first time. Then when I retried with the flash uploader it didn't work... switched to the basic uploader and it worked. I have no idea why the flash uploader wouldn't work all of a sudden but I'll look into it. This is why there's a backup basic uploader (link right below the attach button), because flash is stupid. -- funny thing is, first two times I tried, it worked... it wasn't until after a preview was posted that it broke. (sigh, I'd rather that it was just broken... much harder to figure out when it works sometimes.) I'll either fix it or make the basic uploader default. ... I'm working on a new forum anyways, IPB (the forum software used now) is probably on its way out. Thank you for reporting this. Please keep your eyes out for anything else out of the ordinary, I'm currently making improvements. First with things in the backend that you may not notice, then as time goes on the changes will be more noticeable.

Right on. Good to hear. It may be a mystery that will never be solved. lol

Unplug it for 10 seconds and plug it back it. Do the same with your router if you have one.

Hi sourcejedi, welcome! Yes, I'm very aware. I also have a new test that I'll hopefully feel comfortable releasing soon. It's a latency test but different. It's already been run on you. On the 27th for instance you had an average Response Time of 30ms to the London, GB server. The best being 21ms and worst being 105ms. The system is so passive and requires so little that it's finished before you even notice it's even done anything. I'd like to understand its output better before releasing it. I built it and I don't even fully understand it. It may take help from my users to figure out its personality and quirks. In which case I'll just have to release it, as usual.. with no documentation. Then let everyone figure it out and help me understand what I just built. lol --- all I know right now is that its output directly correlates with the connection performance. It's hard to know exactly why that is in each situation because something like this hasn't been built yet. I have no point of reference. -- cool thing about that test is that it can be run every few seconds and use almost no bandwidth. By the way. I have 150/20 from Comcast. Not uncommon for me to see 180 Mbps. Even on this connection when I max it out my latency spikes way up to 600-1000+ms.

So you'd want the same test but you'd like to be able to set a threshold. Then when it drops below the threshold the system emails you?

According you your results your connectID has changed twice. Meaning that your public IP address has changed twice. The connectID is a play on your IP address, when the IP changes the connectID changes. For those who have IPs that change frequently I highly recommend signing up and staying signed in while you use TMN. I'm working on a new version of the auto test that will correct itself when the connection drops. What's most likely happening is that your connection is dropping out completely causing the test to timeout and lose its connection. If your signed in your results are saved by your username... these stats remain in the database unless you or I remove them. Under your results saved by username look at the connectID column. Click on the IDs to display all tests taken by that ID. 1105968299952 1105965731040 You'll see that there are actually results where you may not have been signed in under both of those IDs. If you had yet another IP address and didn't sign-in and log a result then it's much harder to track back and figure out what the connectID was. Your username, being signed in, helps keep track of everything. Even if it fails, when a result is shown it's logged and can be retrieved later from the database. In the future the auto test will correct itself and continue the test as soon as the connection is back online.

Hi Nostalgic_Link, welcome. When you enable multithread currently it only affects the download test. The upload test doesn't reference any of the variables related to enabling multithread. Your issue is odd. Do you have any new Internet security or other programs that may affect the output of websites in your browser? Have you tried a different browser? The odd part is that you're able to trigger this by disabling multithread. It really shouldn't be possible. Clear your browser cache and cookies and try a different browser. That may provide more clues.

Thanks -- I'm CA3LE, nice to meet you. Very nice speed. -- Welcome to TestMy.net!

You're welcome. If you like what I'm building tell your friends!

TiP measurements are times taken while the test is running. So the 10% TiP for instance you're measuring the time from start to 10%. Example from your results :: So, at 10% you downloaded 20 MB and you did it in 7.32 seconds so your speed is 23.96 Mbps. They are sub-times but in the end those times do not affect the overall result, they're a reference and aid to help you understand how the test data flowed.