CA3LE

Nothing has changed in terms of the servers. Same test locations, same software. I try to limit the change of variables on my end. When I do a major update that may have an impact on variables I'll make a post in the forum. A lot of updates coming but they're always done in stages to minimize any possible negative impact on users and help catch any bugs. Awesome members like you always email me right away if anything moves in an unexpected way. You'll know when it's happening when betas will become available to you. You're already on the original Beta Tester team so you'll be notified by email. That's a clue. I see that as indication of a bottleneck possibly before you've even gone out to the internet. Can you run some more multithread tests for me? I see that you ran a few on the 17th but I'd like to see a few more data points. Make sure to select "Test My Download Speed" from the download test. We want it to cycle through the different sizes before the final test. (so don't do manual selection or re-test in this case) Other speed tests (all basically clones of each other) out there have a different goal than TestMy.net. I'm trying to provide tools where you can control the variables consistently between tests to aid troubleshooting. Not attempting to doing anything special to force the matter. Basically pulling the data as you would from any other source. Other tests seem to have the goal of maxing out the connection. There are a bunch of different tricks, you've seen me type about many of them over the years. There are no doubt other tricks they do that I don't know yet. Are you pulling those speeds? Often, yes... but is it a normal real-world method of exchange? I don't look at them closely because I don't want to be influenced. They're not doing it right. They can't be working in the client's favor when so many people show us here how they have real problems and always seem to get great results everywhere except TestMy.net. -- but they know and have evidence of a real problem, then fix the problem and have improved TMN results. They don't operate in your favor and you can't trust them. Plain and simple. TestMy.net users have proven over and over that those other tests are novelty at best and are not there when you need them the most. TestMy.net is always here and I try to keep it simple and consistent. My tools are different. Developed 100% by trial and error. But they work. You know they work, you were just testing consistently at nearly 1 Gbps a few weeks ago. Before you picked up the new gateway, I'm sure you ran some tests here (I see you here a lot). So you established a baseline before the new gateway. Did you visit and test right after getting the new gateway? What was the date you installed that?

Awesome! Glad to hear that. Greetings from Monument Colorado, US!

Give it another try, you're doing a multithread test so that result is actually possible.

Welcome! Yes, all of my tools are designed to work in any modern web browser. Just open testmy.net in your phone's browser and test away.

On yours https://testmy.net/quickstats/Sami#1 (searching by username) you'll see connectID 176226945936 See it now? Search the page for "ConnectID".

Sorry I'm just now seeing this topic. I see you're still testing without logging in. Go ahead and login and start saving results under your username. If you need to access your previous results you can click the connectID in the result details. For most people this should do it. By request I'll also merge results. So as soon as I see you're signing in I'll get all of your previous results tagged with your username. This used to be automatic but there are too many hosts that share IPs between users. I'm working on a new identification that will fix that. In the future when you sign up your previous results will automatically be linked to your username.

(HughesNet Community) Think you have slow speeds? I hadn't seen that before. Very cool. I'd really like to get my hand on some HughesNet equipment for first hand testing. They should accept the multithread results from TestMy.net. Under the hood it loads the test data in the same way a normal webpage loads images. The test data for the multithread test is in reality images. You can't really say it's an unacceptable test methodology if it's how you normally load data daily, everywhere you visit. Other sites I can't speak for. They do all kinds of things to get the result they're looking to get. TestMy.net is straight forward and isn't making adjustments for anything on the backend. In general TMN is better suited for troubleshooting because variables can remain constant between tests. Their service might not perform the way they'd like using multithread but it isn't about what they like. It's about putting a true gauge on your performance. It's more important to stress the connection in real-world scenarios. Downloading images into your browser is as real-world as it gets. I've said it before under different circumstances but it's still true. It's always good to know how you run in the best case scenario it's even better to understand the worst case. For most ISPs my default test is usually harder, seems the opposite may be true for HughesNet. Don't grade them on a curve, make them earn it. When testing on TestMy.net and comparing multithread to single thread test performance. If one is much slower than the other, you should consider that slower result highly important. The more pronounced it is, the more important. It's most often trying to clue you into something. Looking at your results again, when you're running poorly the single thread results still reflect it. Down to 0.53 Mbps recently. And you were still able to get nearly 27 Mbps using multithread. But it does seem more difficult for you to achieve higher results using multithread. ?t=u&d=06-01-2022+%2F+06-07-2022&l=25&q=KellyCha0s's Speed Test Results

Hello, welcome! I moved your topic to the new members area. What brings you here?

I've been watching your results for days since you switched multithread on and as soon as I first saw it, "BINGO. Hope they respond back." They're either caching, compressing or ignoring parts of the data. I'm not sure yet. Caching is when the data has already been loaded and instead of loading fresh data the data previously loaded is used instead. I do a lot on my end to instruct and in some cases force your browser and any proxies you connect through to not cache. The multithread test renders the test data much differently, otherwise the tests are identical. Usually it's the opposite from your situation. The client is running much slower than other speed tests tell them but they feel like everything (e.g. laptop, phone, and roku player) is running slower, in line with what TestMy.net is reporting. Then they turn on the multithread test and their speed increases (in line with other speed tests). Showing that when they open multiple connections they run fast but a single transfer is still slow. Troubleshooting reveals an array of issues that cause that. Anyway, your situation is the opposite and seems to be unique to Hughes. I'm not sure what their system is doing to cause it but maybe with your help we can figure it out. Over the next few days I'm going to think about possible modifications and get back to you about testing them.

I suspect HughesNet is caching the test information somehow maybe with your help we can prevent that from happening. Try this, enable multithread. After that's enabled run the download test as you normally do. Run it at least 3 times then respond back on here. Looking at other HughesNet speed test results, filtering by multithread I see a significant decrease in the median. So that might be a clue. Maybe something about the operation of the multithread test is making it more difficult on their caching algorithm. All download results (including multithread) - Median 24.22 Mbps Multithread ONLY - Median only 1.31 Mbps!

There's an option for this now. Try it out, you must be signed in to see the option. Let me know how it works out for you.

@japlah I'm sorry I didn't see this when you posted it. I may have been programming. @charles leclair thank you for finding this topic. I think a random interval is a great idea for an automatic speed test option. I'll get that implemented and hit you back on this topic. I'll try to get to it sometime today or tomorrow. I'm going to think about it a little bit first. - D

Sent by TestMy.net member m1g m1g's Speed Test Results 200 MB is a lot of data. It's taking you over 20 seconds to run those tests. If your tests are completing in a couple of seconds, then an increase in size may help. When running the tests using default options (e.g. go to https://testmy.net/download and select "Test My Download Speed") it's possible to exceed 200 MB of data in a test. As it runs through to determine the proper size, it's ramping your connection up for the final test... of 200 MB if needed. When I ran mine just now it starts at 96 kB, then 3.1 MB, then 75.5 MB and finally 200 MB. So in reality that was a 279 MB test. A faster connection might end up running over 300 MB. But it's logged as 200 MB because that was the final test size. It does help to get the connection going before the test. But with your current speed you will probably end up with a smaller test size because the program knows how much it needs to see to make a determination. The amount of time the test runs is more important than the amount of data. TestMy.net will serve you more data if it feels like it needs more time. But it's not going to use time or bandwidth that isn't necessary, unless you tell it to. Your distance from Venezuela to Florida (3000 km) may play a role, depending on the connections between your ISP and the US. Here's my result nearby TestMy.net Test ID : CjBU5ycOa And here's my connection testing against Singapore (over 14,000 km) TestMy.net Test ID : u3QVZnr-z A similar distance for me is actually testing on the same server in Florida. (3000 km) -- you and I have very similar ping to that server ~50ms. TestMy.net Test ID : 0ypc_y5nf My speed to Florida was actually a little faster it just wasn't as clean so it ended up slower. That was testing with only 85 MB but again remember there were tests preceding that one. When I select 200 MB I get a lower result because it takes time to ramp up the connection. Time that's calculated in the final result. Where before that was done before the final test loads. TestMy.net Test ID : OnAU3G9PT I still hit 333 Mbps but all things considered it was slower. And if I enable multithread to Florida and run the same SmarTest (we haven't called it that in a long time but that's its name) I get a much higher result. And the way it ran through the test sizes my connection used over 300 MB of data to produce the 200 MB final test. TestMy.net Test ID : Qj0D50paR In other words, I think the 200 MB max is sufficient for your connection and most out there. The program can scale the test sizes to any size it's just being restricted. In the future I plan to open that up. Thank you, I'm happy you found us here. Unfortunately most don't. Please spread the word.

Interesting. So you got 734 Mbps down on ookla using the same exact connection? In other words, did ookla give you a result that was 2X faster than possible (due to a known bottleneck)?

I almost always use Cat5e. I run 10 Gbps on Cat5e, all day every day — just short distances. And even for longer distances it will surprise you. In my testing using my existing Cat5e house wiring I was getting 5 Gbps on probably about 100 ft. Far from ideal but actually worked awesome. If you were told that 5 Gbps was all that was possible you'd never tell the difference. Not jittery or anything, just simply half the speed of ideal conditions... but still 5 Gbps. In my experience Cat5e is also easier to work with if you're fitting your own connections. In short, you probably don't actually need the extra shielding of Cat6. You're better off spending the extra money on better networking gear.

NGL - Normally I would have upgraded in 2020 ... other things came up. lol

Ooooh man, I'd be pissed too. I would have left them too and ever since I'd be looking for the class action suit that I'm sure is in the works. If it isn't, maybe it should be. Verizon carried that phone with 5G branding, if they ended up not using the tech in favor of something else --- well, then that's okay too (technology changes) but they need to reimburse the customers who thought they were future proofing themselves. You can't sell it branded as 5G then later say, "oh, it's 5G but not the kind we use." -- "WTF! I bought it from YOU!" "I think they might use those bands in Malaysia or Cambodia, maybe think of moving." I had something similar but different recently happen with Verizon. I have a pixel 2, which I still love. Came out October 2017. So a little over 4 years old now. Google stopped updates for it last year. But still, overall it's a great device. Fast, responsive, does what you tell it to do... and Verizon will have 4G for a long time, so this device should remain compatible, right? WRONG! As they retire the 3G CDMA network they're also killing all 4G non-VoLTE (Voice over LTE) devices December 31st 2022. They gave a warning but nothing else. Even $300 off would have made me happy, come on - SOMETHING! Basically, I got "you'll be kicked off the network unless you upgrade." In my case, I needed to upgrade. Was planning one soon anyway (really shouldn't have gone this long in the business I'm in but it's such an awesome device!). But for most people, my Pixel 2 is still a perfectly good device - great even. They could allow it to continue to use data... but no. I ended up with the S22 Ultra but am still walking around my house with my Pixel 2... haha. All of the best devices are always FORCED to die eventually. More planned, forced obsolescence is all we can expect in the future.

Welcome to the site!

DANG! If that's what you get in "an area that's horribly overprovisioned." -- sign me up! Sorry I'm slow to respond dude, been consumed with building a couple of ZFS servers on the backend. It's a process, that's just about complete.

Thank you Obeahman! This is one of the best testimonials we've received in a long time. Feedback like this drives my development. It's really nice to hear stories of TMN working for people. It's pretty crazy how under served so many people are and how most tests don't seem to notice. It's hard to convey to the majority of people why TMN is different so first hand testimonials are really helpful. There are major differences here that in my opinion render other tests useless when most needed. You witnessed it yourself. I'm happy to hear that you found TestMy.net and that it's done what I originally set out to do, help you get what you're paying for. Hopefully in the future more people find us here. Much appreciated on this end as well.

@quid I sent some instructions via private message.

@quid noticed your donation earlier, just noticed by checking the email address that it was you, thank you. I know that you know, you didn't have to do that. I really appreciate you took the time. Your donation pays for Terabytes of much needed bandwidth. I only have that link in the forums and get very few (almost no) donations. To be honest, I never wanted ads on TestMy.net. But this is a bandwidth intensive application. It's expensive to host and that's after I built a network and hardware stack to cut costs. In the future I'd like to provide a service that people will see value in and happily pay a small monthly, quarterly or yearly fee to experience TestMy.net the way the developer intended. Ad free. If I can get enough support in that direction my dream is to make TestMy.net ad free for all.

btw, the reason this website exists was to test my Cox cable internet back when it was first released in 1996 (I was 15) ... to see what throughput I was actually getting from Cox Communications. (TMN got its name later) Really though, I think the automatic test you've been running is already telling us a lot. ?t=u&d=01-16-2022+%2F+01-17-2022&y=u&l=25&q=quid's Speed Test Results A couple things I would check, Router placement: How far away is the router and what obstructions are present? Are there any mechanical devices near the router that may be interfering with the signal. Is the router confined in an enclosed space? Other devices: What are the other devices doing? Can you run a test for a period with all other devices disabled? (1 pm to 1am your time should be a good period given what I see above) Is your arlo power wired or battery? If it's a battery only unit I can give you instructions for how to give it hardwired D/C power, this not only will save you money on those expensive a123 batteries but it will make it more reliable in cold temperatures. You might even have a suitable power adapter that you can repurpose for free. If you can, take a laptop outside near the arlo camera and run some tests. Go to https://testmy.net/mysettings and change the first (e.g. laptop, 1, 2, 3) so that we can tell the results apart. It could be that double pane windows, metallic window tint and/or materials your house is made out of are making it difficult to communicate. Your laptop may have more powerful wifi than the arlo but it may still provide some clues. Test first inside the door (maybe use identifier 1), then outside (identifier 2), then back inside (back to identifier 1). So first, I'd make sure the placement of the router is optimal. Then I'd make sure there aren't computers or devices mucking it up. Could be a torrent in the other room you forgot about (maybe a family member or roommate), could be your phone uploading a bunch of stuff to the cloud when you get home after a long day taking photos. There are many scenarios that can consume upload and make it an issue for everything network-wide. If your upload is it all taken up, you're internet's going to suffer across the board. If you disable all devices and the issue clears up but you don't know where to start, then maybe reconnect them one by one until you see the problem. Pinpoint and target the machine that seems to be slowing things down. No matter what, I'm going to make sure you get early access to my new tool because it seems like it's right up your alley. It tests your home connection every second of every day while also respecting your network bandwidth. I've been running it myself since 2020 and have never noticed it running, unless I have connection issues. Then it makes its presence known. It's designed to run indefinitely and use minimal resources, all around. Like everything at TestMy.net it only requires a modern web browser. This is actually different from the code in development I was previously talking about. And then in thinking about what you were saying,"test my upload throughput for an extended period" got me thinking since yesterday about a totally different upload test method, a hack to the current method that would provide deeper insight. Seriously, thank you! I don't know if it will work but it will be fun to experiment with. If it does work I can see a huge benefit.

Let me see what I can arrange for you. Looks like you'd use about 14GB per hour. So that's not a big deal. I'll mess around over the next few days with some code I've been developing and get back with you. Needs a few modifications to do exactly what you're after.

Hi Stack! It's under my settings (at the bottom of all pages), also can be found on the download test and upload test pages to the right.