Jump to content

CA3LE

Administrator
  • Posts

    9,813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results
  • Days Won

    458

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Automatic repeating speed test (but generated at random intervals)   
    @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
  2. Like
    CA3LE reacted to charles leclair in Automatic repeating speed test (but generated at random intervals)   
    i would like to see the results also
  3. Thanks
    CA3LE reacted to japlah in Automatic repeating speed test (but generated at random intervals)   
    Hello
     
    I have been using testmy net many times namely to illustfate to my provider Virgin that they do not perform any where near their headline speeds offered across their contracts. Submitted 6 months data of regular auto test results but their response was
     
    1 We cannot accept results form such as testmy.net. I advised them that if I were to lodge a breach of contract under Consumer legislation, that "defense" would not be accepted and they would have to show why. To my knowledge no provider be it internet services or the kit can ignore proffesional test results presented and based on an accepted industry method of measurement.
     
    2 A curious reaction. Where the average had been at 40% of the headline rate it climed to just around 50%. Now that I am not checking it over the past few months the average has dropped to below 35% unless and until I persist with an auto test running in background. THat keeps the speed up. Without that it drops to 5 and less.
     
    3 I  suspect Virgins veracity and would like to check' persistantly and at random ( rather than regularliy every 10 minute, 30minutes or say 2 hours,,,,)? 
     
    How can that be done ?
     
    Regards
     
    John Perreur-Lloyd
  4. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Increase Test Size to Stress my ISP   
    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.
  5. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from m1g in Increase Test Size to Stress my ISP   
    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.
  6. Like
    CA3LE reacted to m1g in Increase Test Size to Stress my ISP   
    Grateful for the time and dedication to the explanation of my isp, in this case my isp has a problem or it is limiting my broadband if you look before 04/26/2022 my average speed was 55mbps now it is in a drop of 3mbps which I have made claims and nothing, although it is good that they increase the bandwidth it is because in our country the isps limit us and we need a reliable page like yours to measure our providers since they are fed directly of bgp in the USA.
  7. Like
    CA3LE reacted to Sean in Eir 5G test - hits phone browser speed limit   
    Both were run directly on my phone, however, I'd say it's more likely the browser's SSL overhead that's limiting the speed with browser based tests.  For example, I don't think the Ookla App uses SSL for its tests, never mind using a non-standard TCP port.  Indeed there's no way I could get Ookla's speed realistically with actual file downloads on my phone as they would face the same SSL bottleneck.  For example, any streaming service that offers downloads will obviously use SSL or other encryption overhead for their DRM. 
     
    Basically I need a faster phone. 😃  I'll probably upgrade to the Samsung S21 FE when there's a good sale on one.  Not just for speed tests, but for even offloading video files from my phone and additional 5G bands in use that my current phone lacks.  I don't get why manufacturers still put USB2 ports on phones just to save a few cents on manufacturing.
  8. Like
    CA3LE reacted to Sean in Eir 5G test - hits phone browser speed limit   
    While in an area with good 5G coverage on the 3.6GHz band, not in a moving vehicle for once, I tried a few speed tests.  It appears that ~370Mbps is about the max my Samsung A51 5G phone will get on TestMy and possibly any other browser based test.  During the test, the web browser appears unresponsive during the download test, unusually with the figure jumping straight to 100% once the speed hits about 350Mbps.  On the other hand, these are my fastest TestMy results to date on a phone:
     

     
    Although the Ookla App got faster (734Mb down), I have recently noticed a design flaw with most midrange 5G phones, including mine - There is no practical way to make use of 5G speed above about 350Mbps even with tethering.  Most midrange phones have a USB2 port (USB2 maxes out about 350-380Mbps real world) and 802.11ac Wi-Fi that is not MIMO capable (SISO maxes about 300Mbps real world on an 80MHz channel), two major bottlenecks when tethering.  So for my next phone, I need to make sure it has USB3 or Wi-Fi 6 with MIMO...
  9. Like
    CA3LE reacted to Sean in CAT5e o CAT6   
    My preference would be Cat 5e for general cable runs and Cat 6a for long cable runs where PoE or 10Gbps is required.  Both officially handle 1Gbps over a 100m run (328ft), but can usually handle up to 10Gbps over shorter runs. Cat 6a cable has thicker conductors than Cat 6 (without the 'a') and is rated to handle 10Gbps over a 100m run.
     
    I did the mistake of buying Cat 6a cable for our home wiring, only to spend a few hours troubleshooting and recrimping RJ45 plugs wondering why I could not get all 8 conductors to link.  It turned out that the pack of "Cat 6 plugs" I bought where actually Cat 5 plugs falsely described as Cat 6 in the Amazon listing.  This turned out to be the case with many listings I looked at based on the user reviews (sort by Newest first).  Even when I got hold of proper Cat 6 plugs from a local trade supplier, getting the 8 colour coded wires aligned up is a lot more awkward than with Cat 5e as the thicker conductors are stiff.
     
    Basically, unless you need 2.5Gbps or faster over very long cable runs, I would choose Cat 5e for the ease of installation and termination and the high risk of buying Cat 5 plugs / wall plates falsely described as Cat 6 capable.  In any case, Cat 5e will provide vastly improved throughput, latency and stability over any Wi-Fi or Homeplug based connection, particularly over longer indoor ranges. 
  10. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Sean in CAT5e o CAT6   
    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.   
  11. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in CAT5e o CAT6   
    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.   
  12. Haha
    CA3LE reacted to cholla in Verizon 5g   
    You should be in a Beatles cover band. 😁
     
     
  13. Like
    CA3LE reacted to xs1 in Verizon 5g   
    1:  I actually lol'd on this. XD  This was the general consensus of many....MANY people and Verizon pretty much said F.U. to all its unhappy customers; @ one point even trying to disgustingly blame Samsung for " Not implementing multi-bands of 5G from the factory".  The thing that really put the nail in the coffin for me was i just bought a Samsung Note 8 not even a year prior, ($899) and just brought it in for an issue i was having with media loading... than they were like " We've got a deal for you!!" 🙄
     
    2: NGL, never imagined you having anything less than the newest of new mobile tech.... Glad to see you can still surprise us after all these moons, D
  14. Like
    CA3LE reacted to Sean in Verizon 5g   
    Having heard the US 3G shutdown news from over here, I'm surprised they did not bother to create a workaround for unsupported smartphones.  It would just have been a matter of Verizon creating a simple App to handle voice calls and text messages via 4G data to replace the default dialler App, which even the oldest smartphones would be capable of (I remember using VoIP apps back in 2012).  Sure it would take a little getting used to using an App to dial out or for SMS, but better than losing voice/text services entirely until the user upgrades.  It's not like the App would need to be anything special either like WhatsApp to handle multimedia, video calling, etc.
     
    With the budget network I'm with (48 Ireland), they only support 3G roaming at present, so I can imagine this will be an issue if I visit the USA after the 3G switch-off.  European law will soon require mobile operators to offer like-home connectivity when roaming throughout the EU, so it's likely they will offer 4G roaming even outside the EU when that happens.  While the 48 network only offers 4G in Ireland with its partner network Three, it occasionally switches to 5G:
     

  15. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Sean in Verizon 5g   
    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.
  16. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from xs1 in Verizon 5g   
    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.
  17. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from xs1 in It's been a while.   
    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.
  18. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from mudmanc4 in It's been a while.   
    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.
  19. Thanks
    CA3LE got a reaction from xs1 in Hello from Jamaica   
    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.
     
     
  20. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Obeahman in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
    The most common question that people ask us is why their results here differ from speedtest.net. I want to explain something that may help you understand why this is.

    According to the Ookla Wiki [updated link] the following is true about your tests taken at speedtest.net...
    The fastest 10% and slowest 30% of your results are DISCARDED The remaining data is averaged together to determine the final result Throwing away the fastest 10% and slowest 30% of the results in my opinion does not make for an accurate test. Isn't THAT the data that you're here to see?

    Also note this isn't only true for speedtest.net. Ookla is huge, most of the speed tests online run their software.

    Source: wiki.ookla.com

    Multithreading makes your connection look better
    Ookla speed tests are also multithreaded. Meaning that they open more than one connection to the host and combine the speeds. This often can mask congestion issues. For instance, imagine that you have a pipe along your route that's limiting you to 10 Mbps. If you open more than one connection through that pipe you'll be able to achieve a faster speed... but testing that way will not clue you in that there is actually a problem along the route. Remember, you shouldn't have to multithread your connection to pull your full speed.  
     
    Multithreaded speed tests, like the majority out there, are designed to benefit the Internet provider not the consumer.  They often display your maximum throughput not your throughput over the course of an entire upload or download.  Omitting the worst portion of your test resulting in inflated scores that may make you feel warm and fuzzy but aren't going to help you see and resolve connection issues.
     
    Multithreading can show that you're able to max out your connection by combining the speed of concurrent connections but a great connection can max out without having to multithread.


    So, if you have to multithread your connection to get your full speed, you should be asking why that is.  With TestMy.net it's instantly apparent if there is a congested route. Your speed here reflects the actual loading time of data within your browser... not the combined efforts of multiple threads being altered (dropping the top 10% and bottom 30% of the results) and added together, all through a plugin that isn't suited for the task.
     
    :: EDIT ::
    If you'd like to multithread with TMN, I offer that as well.  Try the multithread speed test.  TMN's multithread test gives you the option to select from an array of servers.  Allowing you to test across multiple routes, to more than one server at a time.  TestMy.net is the only Internet speed test with this ability.

    So THAT'S why your results differ.   --  TestMy.net is a harder test to ace and a lot less forgiving than other speed tests.  But isn't that what a benchmark should be?

    :: EDIT ::
    Another thing to consider is if you're running windows, particularly if it's older than Windows 7 you may need to tune your TCP stack to see your full speeds. Windows doesn't always come out of the box optimized for fast connections. Flash based speed tests fail to detect this problem.

    To make this change for free I recommend TCP Optimizer. This makes changing those settings very easy and nearly fool proof. Just open it, slide the bar over to your speed that you're supposed to have, check "modify all adapters" ...apply the settings and reboot. You should have faster speeds after your re-test if that was the problem.

    Here's an outside source talking about exactly this issue, I'll hunt down more examples. >> Download Speed Test - Something fishy?

    A few related topics ::
    Accuracy.. Slow upload, drastically different from other speed tests Resuts Vs. Actual Download speeds? TestMy.net shows different results than other speed tests TestMy v Ookla Difference Between Speed Test Sites? Satellite Service Testing Locking at around 14Mbps Questioning speedtest.net resolved with TestMy.net  
    Outside Sources ::
    Internet providers caught inflating speed test results [myce.com] Use Testmy.net or else!! NO MORE speedtest.net posts will be allowed!!! by the Admin on [xplornetsucks.com] Accurate Speeds Or Speed Test Error? on [wildblueworld.com]
  21. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Obeahman in Hello from Jamaica   
    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.
     
     
  22. Thanks
    CA3LE reacted to Obeahman in Hello from Jamaica   
    Hey all. Just wanted to say a big thank you to the creators and maintainers of testmy.net.
     
    I live in Jamaica and we don't have fast or quality internet service here unless you live in the more populated areas. Where I live there are no physical internet connections available so I've had to use fixed wireless options for years. I've been through every single one that's been available and your speed test has helped keep my sanity. Basically all of them have tried to send me to the sites that make them shine and make me look like the crazy unreasonable customer.
     
    My current provider just upgraded my package after almost 15 years and wanted me to do daily speed tests to make sure everything was fine. They told me to use openspeedtest.com and I told them I would use testmy.net instead (been using you for years and loving it, THANK YOU again) but they said they wanted to measure jitter as well so I relented. Well, after a while I  noticed the connection was acting up and while testmy.net gave me the real world, openspeedtest.com was giving results saying I had full speed and nothing was wrong.
     
    To cut a long story short, after 2 months of telling them something was wrong and trying to convince them to use testmy.net instead, they have finally relented and admitted there's a problem  on their network. So thank you again to each and every one of you who has and anything to do with this site. Please continue to do what you do and fight for the little guy.
     
    Much appreciated.
  23. Like
    CA3LE got a reaction from Sean in 1 hour upload test   
    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.
     
  24. Thanks
    CA3LE reacted to quid in 1 hour upload test   
    I'd like to test my upload throughput for an extended period such as one or two hours.  I realize that this will entail uploading Giga bytes of data and tie up a server -- I'd be willing to pay for such a test.  Are there any tools for doing this?
  25. Like
    CA3LE reacted to quid in 1 hour upload test   
    Thanks!
       btw, the reason for this is that I'd like to see what throughput I am actually getting from Cox Communications.  I recently installed some Arlo Pro 4 cameras and found that they dropped offline a lot.  In fact I have two cameras that cycle offline and online every couple minutes (even with nothing on the network but one camera, a smartphone (running the Arlo app) and a Netgear WAC120 access point, and router the camera goes offline).  So, I tried using my cell phone as a mobile hotspot (which delivered about 80 Mbps down and 50 Mbps up -- and that worked.   Arlo then, (unsurprisingly) said that my 150 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up plan from Cox was not enough.  Honestly, a 10 Mbps upload should be fine.
       So, I upgraded to 1 Gbps down and 35 Mbps up Cox plan.  The Arlo camera performance is much better, but, even running one camera, it drops offline occasionally.  And the network speed seems to drop a bit too sometimes.
       The speed tests you offer, as well as the automatic ones, are really pretty nice.  Still, since it is not continuous, it would miss occasional communications slow downs (which would derail my Arlo camera).  And cable plans don't guarantee a minimum throughput unfortunately. 
     
      So, I would like run a continuous test to document the actual throughput that a real-time devices (like security cameras) have to work with.  My application is not critical I suppose.  I need the camera to see when our cats show up at our back door to let them in (the occasional snowfalls are hard on them) -- so this is important to us.  It is surprising though how many folks complain about WiFi security cameras going offline.  It may be just that the ISP is not providing enough upload bandwidth.  And I can't get DSL around here which would provide a guaranteed bandwidth.
×
×
  • Create New...