CA3LE

I wonder why you're getting that error. I've never seen or heard of that. Does anyone else see that? --- it's the same address you end up at when you do a download test... it's obviously not really missing. The multithreading currently only works with the download test... I know, the upload results while you have that turned on say otherwise... I just haven't had a chance to fix that. I'll be looking at rebuilding the upload test to allow multithreading soon. Seems like bandwidth shaping is becoming common practice. Using the two testing methods can help users discover this about their connections. I still believe that your true download speed is the speed rated by TMN's default, classic method... multithread is nice to know the capabilities of the connection but the linear load (as I guess I'm calling it) is a better judge of the real download speed you could expect to see in a normal transfer. Many issues that slow users down are often masked by multithreading, so I plan on leaving the linear method as default. ... 85.5 Mbps down... very nice. Here's what I just got with the same test. And dude, my results with the upload test suck too. But unfortunately it's the truth. I look at the activity monitor and see that I peaked twice as high as that number during the test. But if you look at the entire transfer from start to finish... the number output by TMN is totally on the money. It sucks, but you have to take the entire result into consideration. I started at 200 kB/s, 600 kB/s, 800 kB/s, 1 MB/s, 2.2 MB/s .... that's just the numbers I saw come in on a 2 second polling... average them... I arrive at 960 kB/s. Trust me, TestMy.net's calculation is much more precise that averaging the 2 second polling off my network controller. ... I don't like the numbers it tells me sometimes either, but they're always accurate. Sometimes I get better upload speed on this connection... Realize that the end time of the test come before that /results address is executed. By that time your score already calculated and about to be logged to the database... any lag will not effect the outcome. Furthermore, the end time calculation is server-side. As soon as the transfer is complete and that part of the program starts to execute... the calculation is actually done. It might say calculating on your screen but trust me, once you see that... it's already done microseconds earlier and nothing can change the result. ... in the past it was an issue, I rewrote it since. My aim in the rebuild of the upload speed test is do bring the TiP system into the upload results and finally add a progress bar. I think once you can see the details of how the data flowed during the test, the minimum speed, maximum and middle average... it will open some eyes as to why the scores here are so harsh. ... it evaluates everyone the same... if there is a problem with it, me and other people wouldn't post some of the insane scores we do... also realize that the transfer file size maxes out at only 33MB, once that size is raised the accuracy for faster connections is raised. ... Many people hosting online video streaming use the upload test here because they say it's a quick and accurate gauge of the true maximum upload bandwidth potential in a video stream. They take the number output by TMN and adjust their stream just below that and it works perfectly for them. That way they get the highest quality their connection can handle. ... they tell me that other tests out there can't be relied upon. So it must be doing something right.

... there is also this server in Miami, FL https://testmy.net/mirror/sietec -- by the way, the multithread test pulls data from all the official TMN US servers simultaneously. It will be worked into the mirrors with more cross selection options soon.

Run a multithread download test... the same thing happens with my connection. I'm able to pull much better speeds when I open multiple threads on my home connection. When I do the same thing on Verizon LTE my speeds with and without that option are nearly identical... so it's really dependent on your provider. Comparing the results with and without multithreading can really help. ... so you're suspicious that your bandwidth is being shaped? Or do you know that's what they're doing?

I've never studied calculus .. Newton was pretty insane to come up with that. That it all just works, no matter what, every time. Math is really the only reliable thing in the Universe. ... I've never studied it, but I've come to understand parts of it and it's concepts in my programming and other research I do. When you put that in a function it's instantly understood. I didn't test it, but it should return zero every time, right? Using calculus symbols I had to really think about it... and even then, I can't put together the whole concept to arrive at an answer. I understand some of the symbols because I often research subjects that explain things in math. But to tell you the truth, I didn't even know that was calculus. It's cool to watch your thought process grow over the years. You're such a smart dude, you're going on to do big things.

I love how someone added that option to the list for you.. haha

So I take it that works with any number 1,2,3 etc... in the second equation... is the "n!" saying any number other than the number? I know limit, summation, infinity... but seriously, I'm a high school dropout. You probably know a hell of a lot more about algebraic equations than I would. Can you explain those equations please?

That works with any 111 sequence... 111*111 = 12321 1111*111 = 1234321 Etc... 111,111*111,111 = 12345654321 Etc... Math is riddled with tricks like that. One of the beautiful aspects of math is that it has patterns, the same patterns are displayed in nature. On both macro and micro scales. Math is amazing on many levels. It has always facinated me.

I want to share something with you that some of you may not know. Knowing this might save you from being defrauded or having your identity stolen. Obviously your password should be secure but even with the most secure password imaginable it does little if you're going out every day telling people the password. You might do this often and not even realize it! Let me ask you this. When you find a new website that you like and you sign up, do you use the same password that you use for your primary email? If you do, you're asking for trouble. Malicious webmasters (and hackers who hack legit sites) can log that information and attempt to login to your email account that you supplied them with during registration. If you use the same password to signup as you use for your email and they're able to get in... the fun for them has just begun. Do you bank, get receipts from online retailers or associate that same email address with anything financial or personal? They will search and scour your inbox and outbox for anything of value. If your inbox has nothing of value, they'll use it to spam people. The password you use for your primary email needs to be secure. You don't necessarily need to get crazy on it but keep this stuff in mind when you set important passwords. Here are some suggestions and best practices for strong passwords. Password should contain characters from at least three of these categories: uppercase (A - Z); lowercase (a - z); base 10 digits (0 - 9); non - alphanumeric (e.g. !, $, #, or %); Unicode characters (if allowed). Password should not contain more than 3 characters from your account name For extra protection don't use any dictionary words. Even if you modify them slightly, it's build into many brute force algorithms to check for dictionary words and common modifications on dictionary words (use my nick as an example, CA3LE = CABLE... or 1337 = LEET ...CA3LE = 1337 too - simple math, lol). That will make it nearly impossible to hack, each addition makes it exponentially harder to figure out the password. Let me give you some examples with math. Well use a length of 8 characters in our password and see the difference in the number of combinations. If you use only a-z in your passwords 26^8 = 208,827,064,576 combinations A-Z and a-z (26+26)^8 = 53,459,728,531,456 combinations A-Z, a-z, 0-9 (26+26+10)^8 = 218,340,105,584,896 combinations A-Z, a-z, 0-9 & special characters (26+26+10+32)^8 = 6,095,689,385,410,820 combinations A-Z, a-z, 0-9, special characters & unicode characters (currently 1,114,112 characters and growing - Unicode Lookup is a cool website to check on that) (26+26+10+32+1114112)^8 = 2.37532993765908E48 ... so 237,532,993,765,908,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations See how much harder the password becomes. Although, like I said, if you're using it elsewhere it might be sifted making it's complexity null. Personally, I have a little list of stupid passwords that I use to sign up for stupid things... sites that I'm not buying stuff from. Then a list of difficult passwords I use for everything else. If I think a site looks a little shady I'll register with a junk address on top of using the junk password. I'm not suggesting you make your password Uf∞8&iE¶ª2^;k¡∞¢•. But for god sake you can't use password123 anymore and you can't use the same email and password to signup on other sites. Trust me, it's dumb. Always has been but even more today.

very true and really not to hard to do... but I think it could be done without additional software. I've written many simple bash scripts that do that... part of my roots with speed testing was command line. I just never shared it with anyone. Yeah, I would try to make it in a way that could be run from any command line... regardless of operating system or software installed. You know me... that's always my aim. Because I personally wouldn't want to have to fart around with installing things to make a simple test work... you really shouldn't have to. Testing without their knowledge isn't going to happen. If you could do that... you could use it to attack people. I don't know how I'm going to make it yet or when I can start but I will make it a project of mine to come up with a command line option. I have a few interesting ideas for how I could do it... We'll just have to see what I come up with. I have a lot of work on the table right now. If one of you could just give me a million bucks so I get build a team of developers to build some of the pieces of my puzzle, that would be cool.

First, welcome. You know what, a lot of people have asked for that over the years... I'm going to put something together for you. I don't know how long it will take me, I'll update this thread once I've played around a bit. But before I can do anything I need to get my Windows virtual machine back up. Been meaning to do that for months anyways. I'll check out Centrastage... looks complex. Doesn't seem like something that could quickly and easily be used by your clients. Why not just send them to TestMy.net? Why do you necessarily need a command line program? I'll be happy to put one together for you... actually one of my first tests was a simple command line program, I think it would be fun to put that together.

Qwest's / Centurylink's price lock. haha, I think it's funny. Okay, so they lock you in at that price. But they also lock you in at that speed. Dude, in 5 years 40 Mbps will be laughable. Sure, you get that price guaranteed... but if you want to change anything... bye bye deal. In 5 years I think a 40 Mbps connection will be like a 1.5 Mbps connection is today. You'll start to see people passing you up and you'll never make it to 5 years... I know I wouldn't. ... they know that. But they also know that some people will stick with it because they feel like they can't leave because of the 'deal' they have 'locked' in. A 40 Mbps line will be cheaper in 5 years than right now, as speeds like that become more of a standard. So I had Centurylink / Qwest a few years ago. 40/20. They delivered my package, reliable service... loved the 20 Mbps upload. But it never felt as snappy as a cable connection. It didn't respond as quickly and had higher latency. Yes, I could pull my speed but it just never felt as good as cable, even a slower cable connection would have browsed better. Cable is superior technology in comparison to twisted pair. Now if you can get Centurylink to install fiber all the way to your house... different story. But currently they only do fiber to the node... at least in Phoenix. Yet they sell themselves as "Centurylink's Fiberoptic Fast Internet!" --- your connection with them has as much fiber as pretty much any other network out there. Cox for instance has had a "ring in ring" redundant fiber network in most of their markets since before cable Internet was invented... in some instance even before the Internet itself was popular. Fiber isn't new technology. But selling twisted pair and misleading people with the phrase "fiber optic fast" ... that's pretty new. haha. Read it again, "fiber optic fast" -- they never say it's fiber optic.... it's fast LIKE fiber optic. haha. Oh marketing douches, what will you think of next. I haven't worked for Cox since 2004... I don't gain anything by telling you this. I just want to warn you that the grass is probably greener on the cable side. At least Centrylink stopped doing contracts.

I knew your screen name looked familiar. Welcome back! -- Guess I should have clicked your profile, then I would have seen that.

I feel sorry for anyone stuck on Windows 8. Yeah, that should work for you. Windows 8 takes control over the BIOS, one of my biggest beefs with that OS. ... uh, geeze, leave my BIOS alone! What the hell are you supposed to do if if totally crashes? What, you have to put windows 8 on first, just to take control of your BIOS? ... then install what you want, what a headache! What are they going to do next, try to run everything off the cloud and take away my ability to store local files?! (don't laugh, it could happen... even CPU power could be taken out of your control and processed across the net. Devices could get really, really small in return... basically a display with a connection. But we'll lose our computing freedom. If that happens, the powers that be would have too much control in my opinion. Whole different subject.) Once you disable UEFI and enable legacy boot you can then boot up off your install media and install like normally, format your drive and install Win7. If you want the ability to use the recovery partition for windows 8 and go back later... don't format the whole drive, only format the partition that's booting windows 8. In other words, leave the recovery partition. Good luck! Welcome to TestMy.net by the way!

It's probably a bug... I look into your results and see why that is and correct it. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll update you when I know. ------UPDATE------ Send me a link to where you see this.. or a screenshot. I'm looking at your results and they seem like they're correctly resolved. I think I know what may have happened... you were seeing your hosts recent results on the test results page. You can change that to show your results, there is a link right there to the botton left. ... after you test a few times and get some results logged, it switches over to show your results. You must have seen that and not noticed it was other people on your ISP being listed. To show just your results, click "Results" in the top right menu... the results shown after you complete a test has comparisons included and doesn't show all your previous speed test results. ------UPDATE------ Oh yeah, WELCOME!

There is now an option to enable multithreading. This will be expanded to mirrors very soon. -- you still need to question why you aren't able to pull more speed without multiple threads... but this gives you a tool for testing with more than one thread.

Probably was reading a little high earlier. One of the server urls was entered incorrectly. I wrote a failsafe, it runs through the servers to check that they are online before initiating the test... if they're offline it uses only the remaining selected servers. It outputs the array of servers that it's testing with at the bottom of the page while the test is running... ... what it did earlier when one of the servers wasn't found... it thought the data was there when it wasn't... having data not there and calculated into the result obviously raises the score. But now that shouldn't happen, if the server isn't found... it's taken out of the equation.

I can do anything I want... lol no problem.

Hey man... You're a sophist user, you shouldn't have that restriction... I went in and changed it so you and any other accounts higher than a normal registration have that lifted. Anyone who has a good reason like yours to want the restriction lifted can PM me for special account consideration.

Okay, moved. I originally posted that in the beta testers area but I decided it's ready for everyone to play with. There is a link to turn the feature on and off on the download speed test page below the SmarTest button. Really boosts my TMN score. Read the opening post of this thread in detail to understand why both methods are beneficial. Both results are accurate, just rendered a different way so they yield different results. Using Linear Load method Using Multithread Method Both results matched readings taken off my network interface. I'll have some youtube videos up soon. The number output by the multithread speed test falls exactly in line with what I experience with really good torrents or giganews usenet transfers... still falling short of the 150 Mbps that Cox is supposed to deliver... and obviously maxed out because Pandora cuts out during the test. Another tool from my arsenal to yours.

I'm just going to put this one in the public forums...

Update: The Multithread Speed Test doesn't just open more threads, it can also test servers simultaneously and return a single result. Get a single number for a world-wide speed test. Select one or all of TestMy.net's servers. Hey testers! I came up with something new yesterday. It came together better than I had imagined. It's actually a twist on an old technique I used to use. So, the normal download speed test streams the data, as you would read a document. This new method loads elements that are able to be simultaneously downloaded, in a way that allows your browser to max out. I achieve speed far greater using this method, confirmed by readings from the controller. It taxes my connection so hard it causes my Pandora to pause and skip. That's when you know you're pulling all it's got (confirms that I'm pulling the same speeds I get from Usenet and torrents... still 50 Mbps below what Cox advertises for my package). The speed builds faster and is held longer... but I've also seen in my test bed where the opposite is true, the configuration and the browsers optimization and performance come into play for sure. If for example the browser is only set to allow a limited number of concurrent connections, then performance on this test will obviously suffer. This in no way is meant to replace the download test I have now, they are two totally separate methods and can both be used in their own way to find issues. They're both correct... they just request the information in different ways so the result is different. The normal test finds things that multithreading would hide. The information from the multithreaded test can be just as useful. In my opinion comparing the results of the two test types can lead users to discover and resolve more issues easier. Okay, I blabbed for long enough. For anyone that stuck around... Turn on multithreading - switch the server or follow that link again to turn it off. This only works with the download speed test and disables TiP when enabled. Realize that this method could be more resource intensive. That's the point to a test like this... you want to tax your resources. It crashed one of my VPS servers early in its development... although I haven't seen a problem since. Having said that, I also saw zero issues when testing on desktop, tablets and smartphones. Test with this option and let me know if you find anything weird. -D

I need to add a button next to the like button that says "double like" just for quotes like this one.

haha, PM me and tell me what you did... just curious.

Hey, by the way. If you really want to do that with software a program called cold turkey looks really cool. Free. Pretty cool download page, you can pay for it if you want and give part of the money to charity if you want. Or download it for free. I like that concept. I suggest you support them through that if you appreciate what they've built. I haven't used it so let us know what you think... I just did a little research and came up with that for you.

Hey man, You've got an issue. Somewhere along the line something is limiting your single thread. You shouldn't have to multithread to max out your connection. I don't have to, other people don't have to. Look at my signature. My fastest speeds are from thousands of miles out, hundreds of Mbps. If I can do it... you should be able to. It's funny that you say this right when I have a message in my PM box from sietec [host's sietec speed test in Miami FL]. He's pulling nearly 600 Mbps, over 70 MB/s, so fast I had to make an adjustment because the system thought his scores were an error. I believe he's testing from Miami to Texas pulling those speeds. Again, if he can do it... why can't you? He's also a host like you are... and he's really putting TMN under the microscope. Because he has the program on his servers he can scrutinize it big time. As can anyone. Part of my original intention of releasing this to other servers is that I wanted people to put it under the microscope, I stand behind what I've built. Many other people do as well. Here's a quote from his last email. "I have found essentially zero discrepancy between what your results show and what I measure myself. I cannot say that about any other speed test site, not one." That's a pretty heavy quote coming from someone posting speeds like this... Once I make the upload test larger he'll be able to symmetrically pull 600 Mbps, I'm sure. Only lower because it's only 33MB. This is the most accurate and compatible speed test online.