Jump to content

shark91962

Beta Tester
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results
  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    shark91962 reacted to mudmanc4 in What do you think is going on here?   
    At first glance the latency 'dip' appears as network congestion during the test, some type of QOS, or if this is happening on all tests, could be power fluctuations within the first line node. Or any number of other issues actually.
     
    As far as speedtest, it's not showing the latency because it discards such findings. Why is anyone's best guess. But great for ISP's since it will not show issues such as you have pointed out in testmy.net results.
  2. Like
    shark91962 got a reaction from CA3LE in I have over 50mbps coming from my modium.   
    CA3LE, I agree that the limiting factor is RAM. My brand new, "top-of-the line" Samsung smart TV is saddled with a paltry 1.05 GB of RAM and runs slowww on "single" thread, while my home-built desktop monster has 24  Gigs and does better, but about the same with multithreading enabled.
  3. Like
    shark91962 reacted to CA3LE in I have over 50mbps coming from my modium.   
    That's on your smart TV, right? Typically when we see results like that on a computer we suggest TCP Optimizer. Optimizing the TCP and MTU settings will often bring the single thread score up to the multithread result level. You may not be able to change these settings on your TV, I would almost bet that you wouldn't be able to.

    Sometimes if the drive performance is lacking single thread tests here will suffer.
     
    Here's results from a Macbook.  The first 9 results were taken with a failing mechanical HDD.  The last 4 stable results were taken after the HDD was swapped for a SSD.

    In hindsight I should have done some multithread tests to show you that multithread is usually unaffected in this scenario.  But I didn't know I'd be sharing the results at the time... I just wanted to quickly fix my friends laptop.  I could tell just by how the first few tests felt while they ran that it was the hard drive holding it back, plus I had already diagnosed it with multithread test comparison a month prior.  Did a swap for SSD, rebooted and instantly 90 Mbps ... over and over again.  Everything ran better by the way... I just tested it through the Internet and TMN.  ... Note: if I only had 15 Mbps Internet I wouldn't have been able to see the issue.  It's only at extreme speed that you can start using TMN for purposes beyond what I originally intended it to be used for.
     
    It's not always the Internet connection and ISPs fault.  Hardware can hold you back too.  TestMy.net is not just a bandwidth test... it started as a bandwidth test but at higher speeds we've found it does much more.
     
    Those results (from a TV on your connection type) look good to me.  That's a comfortable speed to surf at.  It would be better if both types tested at 35+ but I wouldn't get too hung up on it either.  That's not a bad performance.  It may be held back by the speed of the TV's memory... why things like that only affect my classic test, I don't know.. they just do. But now, when you get your next tv... you'll know how to benchmark the difference.  
  4. Like
    shark91962 got a reaction from CA3LE in Multithreading   
    FYI, I have a top manager at my ISP, AT&T, on the record stating that the minimum acceptable speed on my 45 Mbps connection is 24 Mbps. Unfortunately, only speedtest.net results are considered. I spoke to his boss, Richard Burns, and told him about TMN. He said he would pass it up the chain.
  5. Like
    shark91962 reacted to sietec in SIETEC's quick, short & simple tips   
    I will preface this post by saying that I am a Windows dummy, so I don't have a whole lot to offer to the Microsoft bunch out there.  However, my quick little tips don't apply so much to a particular OS as to general system settings good for almost any OS, so here goes:
     
    1.  Minimize the amount of running services on your system.
     
    I cannot overstress the importance of this one -- the more services & applications you have running simultaneously on your box, the more overhead utilized.  So many people have all kinds of virus scanners, supposed "speed up" apps, unnecessary running services/daemons/etc. which do not need to be running 24/7.  For instance, say you have a virus scanning platform.  **Please note, I am not advocating that you turn off your virus protection -- and only you can determine the level of protection you need, so in the end, use your own judgement and don't hold me responsible (please) **
     
    Anyway, virus scanners are generally not needed constantly.  You're not going to get a virus if you don't have one already and you are not downloading files, visiting malicious sites or running untrusted software.  There are times the preceding statement if false, but rarely enough to cause concern.  So, I suggest that you only have your virus software set to scan files on demand - e.g. when you download something or when you are reading emails.  Use your browser security settings to help minimize the chance you wonder into an insecure site and always make sure the sites you are using for sensitive information (such as bill payment, purchases, sensitive data, etc) are encrypted with trusted encryption (check the pad lock icon and make sure it is a "https" connection).  Using your browser to help with security is a performance sparing method to minimize the processor intensive constant scanning by a virus detection package.
     
    If you have a ton of system services running in the system tray of Windows, take a look at which ones you really need and eliminate the others. Same for system startup -- clear out everything that does NOT need to be started upon startup; this will save memory (RAM) and processor usage...which leads to quicker page response and transfer speeds.  Advanced users should check actual "services" in Windows and turn off those you don't need.  If you're running a linux flavor, I assume you're already pretty versed in modifying your configuration.  If not, PM me.  e.g. . chkconfig --list  to see a list of services or service --status-all to see what's running currently (RH/CentOS/etc.)
     
    2.  Change your MTU (max transmission unit) to 9000 if you're on a high speed cable or ethernet link.  This allows your network interface to send much larger frames than the standard 1500 value.  Basically, this parameter sets how large a single transmission frame may be, minus overhead.  So, if your system includes overhead in the setting, set it to less than 9000 so you don't get an error for exceeding 9000 (e.g. set it to 8900 to be safe).  Just make sure you do this if you know what you're doing only and if you're sure it is appropriate for your set up.  It shouldn't cause any problems, but make sure you know how to get back in there and change it to the previous value in case it breaks your connectivity (which I doubt!)
     
    3.  Try different browsers - not only are some browsers actually much better at speed natively, they save on system resource usage as well.  My suggestion: firefox or opera.  I was never a fan of opera until recently when they made a lot of improvements.  Firefox is always a good choice.  IE would be my last choice, but many people love it.  Chrome is pretty good too but I have noticed some issues with it lately.
     
    4. Stop background file transfer daemons such as online data backup utilities, cloud sync systems (iCloud, etc).  If you have things like that running in the background, they obviously will take a lot of your bandwidth away (unless you specifically configure them not to, they will use as much bandwidth as they can get their hands on).  So, shut down iCloud from syncing while the system is active and if you use something like Carbonite backup, let it work when you are not using your box (e.g. overnight).
     
    5. If you are using wifi, make sure you have a good signal and make sure you are using the faster encryption settings.  You should use 802.11g at a minimum and preferably 802.11n for best connectivity.  Most network connections (note I said most) will not realize much (if any) performance gain by going direct ethernet unless the previous 3 suggestions (signal, encryption, protocol) are not followed.  If you cannot adjust the first 3 settings, then you probably should connect directly to your router's ethernet connection or to your cable modem/DSL/etc.  You can also change the "power" or "energy" saving settings on your wifi box by setting the transmission power to 100% all the time.  Search your manufacturers KB or google for "increasing wifi transmission power" or, more generally, "tutorial to speed up wifi" Note that wifi is going to give you a theoretical maximum of 450Mbits per second in the best and hardly ever realized conditions.  Generally 300Mbits is as fast as you'll see and if you're not using 802.11n, 54Mbits optimum.  These optimal speeds are what the manufacturers tout, but it is nearly impossible to see them. Believe me, wifi can interfere (pardon the pun ) with even a moderate cable speed of 30-40 Mbits/second.  Summary: wired is always better, but there are ways to maximize your wifi connection.
     
    I will put the last 5 of my first 10 tips online over the next few days ... but, please feel free to reply to this post or PM me if you need help doing these things. 
     
    I hope some of this helped!
     
    SIETEC
     
    President & Lead Network Engineer
    SIETECserverNet :: sietecFASTcom :: sietecMATRIXcom
     
    Coming soon, I will be launching a hosting service unlike anything you have ever seen -- take a look at my test results here:
     
     
    My clients will be able to achieve similar, depending on the service chosen, and it is my goal to help them do so.  Interested in pre-sales information? Drop me a line at [email protected] and let me know what you are looking for ... deep discounts to the first 25 people!  My website is being re done right now, but I basically offer anything most hosting companines offer, just in a virtual box.  (which, believe it or not, that is how I achieved most of these results, through one of my virtual machines).  You still get to pick how many processors, RAM, type of HD and space on disk, NIC speeds, etc. You can even choose a free virtual appliance that suits what you are doing and launch it on my platform.  Or, I can assist you in installing your OS and let you take it from there .. full root/administrator access!  Again, if interested, email or PM me!
  6. Like
    shark91962 got a reaction from m6t6m in Hello from Indiana out near the cows   
    Welcome from NE Ohio. I am also a new member. I know about slowww. When I started out, if you had a 28 Kbps connection, you were a GOD! The sound of a dial-up tone trying over and over to find it's path haunts me to this day.
  7. Like
    shark91962 reacted to Pgoodwin1 in Greetings from 1996...   
    I remember in the early 1980s when software quality and configuration control meant writing (in ballpoint pen on a floppy) "this is the latest version"
  8. Like
    shark91962 reacted to Pgoodwin1 in Merry Christmas TMN   
    Ho Ho Ho. Merry Christmas.
  9. Like
    shark91962 reacted to CA3LE in Merry Christmas TMN   
    I wanted to wish everyone a safe and Merry Christmas! 
     

    2012-Merry-Christmas-Hd-Wallpaper.zip
  10. Like
    shark91962 got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Greetings from 1996...   
    Since you asked, CA3LE- my story: 52 yrs old; retired at 45 to start a small business building custom rigs for gamers, along with some networking for a few doctor's offices. Masters in Computer Science with Bachelors in Robotics. I started out as a programmer for a large tech company.
  11. Like
    shark91962 got a reaction from mudmanc4 in Hello from Indiana out near the cows   
    Welcome from NE Ohio. I am also a new member. I know about slowww. When I started out, if you had a 28 Kbps connection, you were a GOD! The sound of a dial-up tone trying over and over to find it's path haunts me to this day.
  12. Like
    shark91962 reacted to CA3LE in Hello from Indiana out near the cows   
    Welcome!  
     
    CCNA you say.  What a coincidence https://testmy.net/ipb/topic/32186-secret-manta-things/- 7 hours prior to your post.
     
    Your students, "You gotta lead by example, teach. That's like... rule number one of being a teacher."  (oh yeah, your supposed to read that in a stereotypical surfer voice... and flip your hair after the first sentence.   I know your in Indiana and it doesn't make sense, just play along!)   
  13. Like
    shark91962 reacted to Pgoodwin1 in Greetings from 1996...   
    CA3LE who designed and operates this site has quite a bit of info. Pick the Flash tab here. https://testmy.net/legit-speed-test.php
    And his info on the home page - see tabs in the middle of the page. https://testmy.net
  14. Like
    shark91962 reacted to mudmanc4 in Greetings from 1996...   
    Freaking fantastic!  ==> punk
  15. Like
    shark91962 reacted to nanobot in Don't yell at me - Speedtest.net comparison   
    The difference of the two you say?

    Speedtest.net uses a pure flash-based approach, and drops the top and bottom 5% of your tested speed. Why? Because the first instant of testing is typically slower due to the requirement to establish a connection. Then there's often a sudden burst which is typically irrelevant to your speed. Speedtest.net is more useful for a total-throughput test. It's often handy for gamers to test what the typical speed of their connection is. (After all, they are using UDP mostly which is connectionless, so there is no establishment of a connection.)

    Testmy.net uses a pure HTTP based approach, and does not remove any data. Why? Because almost all of the typical users network traffic is over HTTP, which requires the establishment of a connection. (Downloads, webpages, style-sheets, images, etc.) Testmy.net is much more relevant to testing your total connection throughput. Basically giving you a true establishment of how websites should download.

    Thanks,
    EBrown
  16. Like
    shark91962 got a reaction from CA3LE in Greetings from 1996...   
    Thanks for the info on speedtest.net CA3LE. I had no idea it was the Speakeasy dude. When I started building computers (1976), there were no speedtest sites; actually, no sites AT ALL! 
  17. Like
    shark91962 reacted to CA3LE in Greetings from 1996...   
    speedtest.net, as you know it now, was only started in 2006.  
     
    source: wikipedia speedtest.net
     
    Wonder why their results favor the ISPs...        One has to assume cronyism.  ...they weren't chosen for accuracy. 
     
    So you see... the speedtest.net you saw in the 90's was someone totally different.  It was bought and converted in 2006, almost instantly was used by every ISP.   ... even though it was common knowledge among computer nerds/geeks/dudes that it was complete BS.
     
    Wayback machine only goes back to 2000.  Here's a funny screenshot.
     

     
    But yes, even the version before ookla stepped in required plugins to work.  I've never required plugins.
     



×
×
  • Create New...