CA3LE

Thanks for reporting this, you've given great information that I can use to make the test better. I'll try to break it the same way in development and work to make it throw an error instead of calculating a result in that instance. The result has been removed from the database, so your stats look clean again. Thank yo so much for the support.

Nobody ever requested a forum addition for those providers. We used to add them as they were requested. I'll be restructuring the forums soon anyways. There may not even be individual forums for providers like that anymore. I'm still thinking about it... it's a huge change so I can't be too hasty.

The browser doesn't seem to be a major limiting factor. Although, on faster connections the max (TiP readings) may read higher than your line is capable of. This doesn't affect the outcome of the final result, only the TiP reading. Only one of my results below displayed this. Furthest point inside the house from the router. Line of sight, 20 ft from router. 50MB test re-testing 65 MB Multithread 84 MB These tests purposely tax your device and browser, it can be too much. Note that Safari (mobile) crashes on classic linear tests over 120 MB, multithread can do any size. So that's the only limitation of the mobile browser I've seen. The readings you get from it however will be consistent with what you'd expect to see downloading and uploading over the Internet through any other application on your device. Your test results will reflect your real-world use. Become aware of how your device handles TMN and use the test accordingly. Just keep in mind that if you see extraordinary TiP readings... like this... it's actually due to the device lagging, then updating quickly. In this case pay more attention to the final number which calculated separately. Even though that reading isn't what we'd expect to see... it's actually indicating an issue. If the device was processing the test more smoothly as it runs on most desktops it would result in a smoother TiP reading. I'd expect future devices to process more smoothly.

I could make you a custom tool that will only grant access to a URL once a user has logged a certain speed on TMN. The client would click the button to enter your program, I assume you have some kind of program that you only want people to access if their speed is fast enough. If they have already logged a result over X Mbps then they pass on to the destination of your choice, if not they are given a message explaining that they must validate speed first... and are forwarded to TMN for testing. If the client is able to log a speed of X Mbps they move on. If they fail to meet requirements they're shown a message set by you explain why they MUST have the minimum speed and give the option to re-test or go somewhere else. Will a solution like that help you out? Should be easy work to piggyback something like that on the existing system.

I don't know how the other guys do it. When I test with speedof.me I get 197 Mbps... yeah right. That would be nice if that was reality. I was watching the activity monitor (polling at 1sec) while the test was running. Which isn't perfect but can give you a good general idea. The test is reading 197 Mbps live in the browser when in reality it's running around 180 Mbps. TestMy.net results are calculated from start to finish taking the entire test into account. Peaked at 189 Mbps but the overall result was knocked down to 173 Mbps when you consider how quickly (or slowly) the test initiated and any fluctuations during. Take this result for instance. Sure, you achieved 21 Mbps but it ramped up really slow and then... ...died out in the middle. So, would you call that 21 Mbps? I wouldn't. The numbers here might not correlate with other tests because other tests may only be considering the best portions of your result. First thing I'd do if I were you. Update OSX and all of your software. Then, reset your modem and router... leave them unplugged for at least 10 seconds. Then, if you're on wifi try to connect with ethernet. If that's not an option then test close to the router. Sometimes my laptop (new macbook pro) will throw low numbers, I then test on one of my wired iMacs and I'm rockin' at full speed. Sometimes in that scenario just turning wifi off and back on will result in the speed falling back in line with what I'd expect to see. Other times I have to reset the router. Run a few more multithread tests. I see that you were able to get up to 57 Mbps in multithread. That may be a clue. Run a few multithread tests, then disable multithread and run a few normal download tests. After turning multithread on and off navigate to the download test page and manually select your test size. A longer test will tell us more so select 100 MB. Select the same size each time manually to keep the variables consistent. You can also manually select the size on the auto test. Let me know when you're done and I'll take a look at your results again.

Thank you for the update. I'll have to dig deeper and see why this happened. I forced the system to give me the same connection ID and I was able to log a result so it's really weird that it wouldn't do it for you. I can't think of any reason that would happen but I'll keep my eyes peeled and let you know if I find anything. Glad it's working for you now, thanks for the heads up. Happy Testing!

It could have started slow... resulting in an overall slower speed. If there's a large lag as the test start, or any time during... it can dramatically affect the results. You may have reached 28 Mbps but you had to wait longer than someone who's able to POP up to 28 Mbps instantly. That's reflected in your end result.

very odd. missinglincoln is missing results... the irony. What happens if you sign out and test? Please also take a test then click on the share tab and share some of the stuff you see there in this thread. We'll figure out what's going on.

I love the idea, in fact I'm working on it. The reason it wasn't implemented like that in the first place is because the multithread test came many years after the classic test. It needed it to prove itself and we needed to better understand how it worked before it could be pushed out front. I wrote every line of it but that doesn't mean I fully understand it. Obviously I understand what's behind it but it's taken time to understand it's interactions and how it arrives to reflect the users performance. Very hard to explain. It's not just about bandwidth. I'm very confident in the multithread test. I was confident in its ability when it was released too... but now it's proven itself over time. The data it presents is far more valuable when combined with the linear test (need to put a name up to a vote... linear, classic, single thread... then stick to one name) results. The information is so valuable, they need to be combined (obviously the user will have a choice). In my experience a computer and Internet connection combination that can run similar high values in both tests is always going to run better than one that produces a skewed results. That's valuable information to know and hardly anyone even knows about the multithread test right now (or this whole site for that matter). And I bet many who do are confused by it. Sorry to anyone who's confused, kinda making this stuff up over here. I don't know the right or wrong way to lay it out because I don't have anything to go off of. I work on functionality first, presentation last. Thank you so much for the suggestion. This thread helps a lot. You're absolutely right, the information must be presented correctly. There's already too much information for most people... which is why I intend on releasing another version of TMN. Same core, ultra basic output. Not for you, you're an obvious 2%'er... it'll be for the other 98% of the population that look at this site and don't get it. Keep up the great thoughts and suggestions. Very much appreciated. Very nice...

Works for me... Tried the quick method... And addressed the the form... ...both methods sent emails immediately. Send me a PM (click or hover over my name next to this post, 'send message') with permission to temporarily change your password so that I can log into your account and try for myself. I can't think of any reason this wouldn't work for you but I'm happy to look into it.

Have you tried other browsers?

That would raise my eyebrow... It's not your connection... it's the computer somehow. Your iPad has seen 55 Mbps in multithread. I'd also first go off of the classic single thread test, if that's faster... the connection is faster. I would suspect from your results that pages are loading slower. But it may not be noticeable. If it's not bothering you... don't worry about it. When it's the other way around and your multithread results are MUCH faster... then it's more cause for concern. Personally... it would drive me nuts until I figured out why it's doing that. Because it's not normal unless the computer (CPU) or browser can't keep up with the intensity of the multithread test. Like editorsean, I would question something that may be post processing the information in your browser. I've seen 3rd party software and malware screw with results like this. It will become apparent in the multithread test because the issue becomes compounded by the volume of elements. ... could be that the elements actually download quickly but each one takes a lot of time to initiate. If it lags the test... it lags your page loading. Here's from my 2011 iMac... same as I get on my Late 2014 5K iMac. Classic [db link] Multithread Pretty similar to your computer... you should have similar results. Well, at 50 Mbps that is. Your iPad has pulled better speed so we know that your router, modem and ISP aren't to blame.

I'll look into this and get back to you.

Wow! That's a pretty dramatic speed increase. Putting my connection speed to shame. :::.. Download Speed Test Result Details ..::: Download Connection Speed:: 175949 Kbps or 175.9 Mbps Download Speed Test Size:: 167 MB or 171008 kB or 175112192 bytes Download Binary File Transfer Speed:: 21994 kB/s or 22 MB/s Tested At:: http://TestMy.net Version 14 Validation:: https://testmy.net/db/7sLKqOaY TiP Measurement Summary:: Min 83.61 Mbps | Middle Avg 178.73 Mbps | Max 184.5 Mbps | 4% Variance TiP Data Points:: 152.34 Mbps, 178.48 Mbps, 178.73 Mbps, 179.24 Mbps, 178.99 Mbps, 176.23 Mbps, 178.48 Mbps, 180.27 Mbps, 177.98 Mbps, 178.99 Mbps, 178.99 Mbps, 178.73 Mbps, 178.73 Mbps, 178.73 Mbps, 178.99 Mbps, 173.56 Mbps, 178.73 Mbps, 184.5 Mbps, 83.61 Mbps Client Stats:: https://testmy.net/quickstats/CA3LE https://testmy.net/compID/4602014672148 Test Time:: 2015-06-13 01:54:41 Local Time Client Location:: Pike Ntl Forest, CO US https://testmy.net/city/pike_ntl_forest_c Target:: Dallas, TX US http://dallas.testmy.net Client Host:: Comcast Cable https://testmy.net/hoststats/comcast_cable Compare:: 4% faster than client avg, 360% faster than host avg, 52% faster than city avg, 631% faster than country avg, 1044% faster than world index 1MB Download in 0.05 Seconds - 1GB Download in ~51 Seconds - 3142X faster than 56K This test of exactly 171008 kB took 7.965 seconds to complete User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_3) AppleWebKit/600.6.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/8.0.6 Safari/600.6.3 [!] Even the results where you score 1/2 your package speed are actually ramping up to 300 Mbps by the end. They're just starting slower than your best results. The details on your 302 Mbps result were nice. WOW! That's the curve we like to see here. Sweet connection!

Which modem would you rather have? Which do you think performs best? You decide. All tests taken on Comcast Extreme 150/20 Motorola Surfboard SB6183 (16x4 channel cable modem) $129.99 (found at Target for $119.99) Single Thread 127.7 / Multithread 175.7 Mbps Taken about this time yesterday, off peak. This was very typical of how this modem performed. Slow start... leveled out to about 180.5 Mbps. The super slow start really hurts the overall score. Best I ever saw in the classic download test was 152.5 Mbps, followed by 139.6 Mbps 5 minutes later, 10 minutes after that... 100.7 Mbps. The lag at the beginning, ouch! Made for inconsistent results. Multithread around the same time, targeting dallas.testmy.net Motorola Surfboard SB6141 (8x4 channel cable modem) $89.99 Single Thread 172.7 / Multithread 176.2 Mbps Off peak 4am. Running how it typically runs. Super fast start... leveled out to 179 Mbps. This result is repeated every time I test and have very little variance. Very nice smooth feel. Multithread around the same time, targeting dallas.testmy.net I tried to keep the test sizes, servers and approximate test time the same. Very little variables besides the modem swap. Under both circumstances the results were repeatable, time of day not being a factor in the outcome. Single thread download test results from the SB6183 could never come close to the lightning fast start of the SB6141. Even my old SB6121 (4x4 channel modem) started at over 100 Mbps instantly... the performance profile of the SB6183 seems odd compared to other Surfboard modems I've tested in the past. I've never seen a cable modem take so long to ramp up on TMN... and my name is CA3LE. The SB6183 I tested was not a bad modem. The first one I got was... died after about 3-4 days. Just completely pooped out. But having that happen gave me the opportunity to test a second SB6183. Lame start, same exact curve. When downloading 50 threads from usenet. SB6183 - would have spikes over 32 MB/s (256 Mbps) but would settle in around 22.8 MB/s (182 Mbps) (screenshot was a little early). In the screenshots below the higher speed lasted an abnormally long period of time. The same spikes happened during multithread testing but I don't think they contributed too much to the over all score because they were so brief. I'm not even sure if it was really happening... I don't really trust the interface readings in OSX anymore. Sometimes nothing shows for seconds when there is obviously transfer happening. So I take that data with a grain of salt. SB6141 - Pops up to 22.3 (178.4 Mbps) and stays there, little fluctuation. So, if you are taxing to the max with usenet the SB6183 shines. Also to be noted. A set of unreleased tools (only I can see) that measures response time is showing a difference. Old SB6141 37-39 ms, SB6141 33-35 ms, SB6183 30-32 ms. I think this can be explained by the faster processor onboard the SB6141 and even faster on the SB6183. So (gamers) if your goal is lowering lag, SB6183. I guess this shows the new tools I'm working on are ... working. Been waiting for it to truly prove itself in practice before release. Can't post those results yet... I like the more predictable performance of the SB6141. What would you choose?

So I had a theory that the 8 channel SB6141 may perform better. I just had to know so I went through the hassle and swapped my modem again. I swapped the SB6183 for a SB6141 and you know what... it's faster. SB6183 (16 channel, $129.99) Comcast Ultimate 150/20 I tried two SB6183's and they both displayed this slow response. Never getting near my old SB6121 or this SB6141 in terms of starting out fast. Always took seconds to ramp up, unless multithreading. SB6141 (8 channel, $89.99) Comcast Ultimate 150/20 (only 25 minutes later... nothing changed besides the modem swap, same variables.) Now this is more like it. Instantly apparent that this modem initializes the connection much MUCH faster. I don't know why this is... but for my Internet package the 8 channel SB6141 performs better. TestMy.net results are proof. The other modem started so slow this one just POPS right up instantly. Looks like people can save their money and actually have a faster responding connection.

Looks like you normally get 15-20 Mbps but like you said, right now you're only getting ~1 Mbps. If your PS4 is downloading a game... that would totally explain why your speed would drop like that. Any network activity that's drawing bandwidth off the Internet will affect your results. Whatever is speed it's being downloaded at... you can pretty much figure that amount will come right off the top of your results. Say I have a 10 Mbps connection and I'm downloading something at 1 MB/s (8 Mbps) --- I'm only left with 2 Mbps to test with (or do anything else). Your connection is a 20 lane freeway... 19 lanes are most likely being taken up by your PS4 download right now. If your router has QoS settings you may be able to alleviate some of the symptoms on the rest of your network by deprioritizing the PlayStation traffic or setting your computers to a higher priority. Here's some info on setting up QoS on netgear routers. Concept is the same for other routers.

You posted it alright, I was able to see the issue it just disappeared right away because it only took a second to fix. Now I see the same thing in EBrown's sig. ... except this time it was missing that update all together. Updated.

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. A variable needed to be added to the combined output. Like you said it was showing the correct local time but was saying GMT -7. All the times used to be in GMT-7... that wording had to be replaced with a variable. How it works now is it will show in GMT unless you've visited TMN. If you've visited TMN there's a cookie that I set and reference to adjust to your local time. The next version will show the time relative to the user referencing the result and also tell what time it was in relationship to the person who was taking the test. The results above, to me, show as 9am ... but that's what time it was where I am when you took the test... the next version will include your timezone data. The data is logged now so it just needs to be referenced and displayed. --- so you're GMT+1 ... I'm GMT-6 so the actual time you took the test was at 4pm, right? Definitely important information if you're troubleshooting with someone across timezones. I'll work to make it less confusing and more informative. Thanks again! Which means you haven't been on the speed test side of the site since you last cleared cookies. Hit the homepage then refresh this page and those images should change to show YOUR time. That's what "local time" means.

... why not find another provider who will deliver? Do you have limited options in a remote area or something? If I ever felt lied to or given the run around... I'd be shopping for a new provider. Surely they aren't the only game in town. You shouldn't have to multithread to pull your full speed. You didn't have to before. Multithread is where you're downloading from multiple sources or splitting a task into a bunch of processes vs one process. Multi-homed is different, that's where a computer or device is connected to multiple networks to increase reliability. e.g. TestMy.net's servers have multi-homed bandwidth from over 25 tier 1 providers. You connect through only one provider at any given time but having those options there increase reliability and decrease network congestion.

Let's see what you get with the multithread speed test and then we can make a better assessment.

Does your web browsing slow down significantly when you're seeing the issue?

Well I got home this afternoon and our Internet is out. Comcast reports no outage and the cable TV is working fine so I assume the SB 6183 took a dump. Power cycled the modem a few times, in the modem it's showing... I'll swap it out at Best Buy... maybe it was bad from the start and that's why it was initiating so slow. I've had countless Motorola Surfboard modems. First time I've had one die.

Welcome! Sorry I'm just getting to this topic, getting over a nasty cold... well over a week but I think we're at the tail end now. Thanks, I appreciate that. Seriously, some people need to try out 2 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up before they complain... but then again, 2 Mbps was something to be jealous of back in the day. Sh*t, your 1 Mbps upload, I didn't see that at my house until... June 06 2006! Thought it was faster by then but I guess not. Your upload is fast compared to your download. Right now on the test results page... Comparing to yourself it's calculating your last 5 results for each test type. Comparing to your city, country and ISP (provider) it's calculating the last 30K results. Index is calculated every 2 minutes based on all tests for each type world-wide. There's a problem with that, if a large percentage of people all tested at the top of the hour at the same time it could cause issues. Especially if they all had massively powerful connections. The way it is now, there are often many people testing at the same time at any given time but not thousands who all decide to hit at the exact same time each hour. I'd worry about that feature on scale... especially if the site is hit with redit traffic again. I like the idea... maybe could be implemented where the system checks how many other people are scheduled during that time and will only allow a certain amount of people in each slot. TCP Optimizer can only help when the bandwidth is there to begin with. I think you're probably utilizing the connection to it's full potential... it's just lacking potential. Can you get any cable provider at your house? I'm guessing you've already exhausted your options, huh? You're welcome. Happy to help. Thanks for your continued patronage.

One of our members reported this private message today. I wonder if this guy knows a Nigerian Prince I doubt very many people got this message here, we use PM flood control so the person could have only sent a maximum of 5 in 24 hours. I think they specifically target recent posters who they know are active members. I wanted to post this for other people who may be searching for info on this message. If you get this message or anything similar, it's a scam. If anyone wants to eff with this guy (pretend you're falling for it or something) PM me for the email address. -- I just want to read the emails later.