Sean

I'm not sure if this is a bug or something intentional, but had the following large pop-up during a test.  I ran a combined linear test, which completed successfully.  I enabled multithread, clicked "Re-test", closed the full screen pop-up ad and the after the first stage of the upload test appeared, it displayed the following large count down and asked me if I want to continue with the test, which then completed successfully
 

Edit: I ran a handful of further tests, including simultaneously on my mobile (different 4G connection), but didn't get this again.

You'll get this error if you run too many tests too quickly.  It should be there... but not unless you hit the test more than you did.
 
It shouldn't happen on your first re-test like that.  I was seeing it too, when combined test was used and re-test was quickly done.  I made an adjustment and it now passes properly under that scenario.
 
Thanks for the heads up.  

I'm not sure if this is a bug or something intentional, but had the following large pop-up during a test.  I ran a combined linear test, which completed successfully.  I enabled multithread, clicked "Re-test", closed the full screen pop-up ad and the after the first stage of the upload test appeared, it displayed the following large count down and asked me if I want to continue with the test, which then completed successfully
 

Edit: I ran a handful of further tests, including simultaneously on my mobile (different 4G connection), but didn't get this again.

Hi Sean,
 
I made some adjustments, when you enable "Linear Load" it will modify the Upload page to direct you to the legacy upload test.
 
This doesn't work with combined test, using combined test with linear load under the beta will still load the new version.
 
I hope to develop the linear upload test to work with the new graphs but I'm not sure if it's possible yet.  It's pretty tricky.  Porting the download test over was simple.  The problem has to do with a limitation of a certain browser API.  
 
The current version will remain available, I have no plans to get rid of that.  If I can't get it to work exactly the way I want... then I'll just integrate the old version, minus the extra graphing on the upload.

Based on how the Beta seems to function, I would think it would be a prime opportunity to add a "dual" test, which simultaneously runs both upload and download.
 
This would be nice for testing in enterprises that have their own data-centers and host VPN/Web/etc. traffic, as they can find out what types of bandwidth carving they should do. I.e., if my Buckeye 1-gig fiber supports a full-duplex 1-gig, then I don't have to worry as much about having a good upload speed when someone else is using my network. But if it's a half-duplex 1-gig, then it changes how I might want to carve out bandwidth.
 
Just a thought, would be an interesting metric to add. Could be a purple double-arrow in the results that indicates the combined speed as well, since it's not a pure upload/download, but a "dual" / "simultaneous" / "mixed" test.

I tried retesting with my router upload limited to 0.5Mbps up (to mimic my workplace DSL uplink) and the 10MB manual download block performs better giving about 7-8Mbps in Chrome after a few tests.  With a 102MB manual block it gets around 50Mbps:

With linear, it gives around the full download speed like when I do not have the upload throttled to 512Kbps. 

 
Going by your test results above, it appears you either did not limit the upload speed to 512Kbps on your gateway / router (to mimic a slow 512Kbps DSL upload) or it was measuring the 512Kbps upload limit as 39.2Mbps. 
 
The following shows the 512Kbps upload configured on my router to mimic the 512Kbps upload limit on my workplace's DSL connection.  With MikroTik routers, FastTrack must be disabled (IP -> Firewall) for speed limits to take effect. 

 

With a slower upload speed or higher latency it interferes with the normal flow.  If the requests are lagged it will affect the result.
 
With 100+ smaller requests the connection has to negotiate each one.   The latency and upload can effect this.
 
This will be less pronounced with linear because we don't have to keep initiating requests over and over.  
 
I went around and around with this one, trying to get those connections to ramp up quicker.  Originally I was trying to make the test ramp up quicker by adjusting test parameters for that situation.  Then realized that it's only doing what it's supposed to do.  This happens when the connection is weak, it's only showing you what happened.  If something slows down the requests or the process... it affects the end result.
 
So keep in mind when you're using the beta, it's splitting the multithread process much more than my previous version.  100 elements for < 1MB tests and 200 elements beyond that, where the production multithread at 10MB you only open 12 threads and 200MB opens 30 threads.  Big difference.  The beta is more demanding.
 
The difference is before I adjusted the process to meet the connection.  Smaller tests were done with less elements.  I've decided going forward that TMN shouldn't scale based on the connection, rather measure every connection the same.  As the linear test does.  Remember I'm only talking about the multithread process.
 
The beta upload test works the same way, 100 and 200 elements.
 
A couple of things to can do.  Click [customize] and Enable Linear Boost or test linear on connections like that one.
 
 
I've seen that too, always on crappy connections.  I think you're right about it being due to packet loss.  I'm going to see about detecting when a thread gets stuck like that and then reinitiate that thread and report the event in the results.
 
It's all about how the data is being rendered.  The beta is an entirely new test with different variables.  These new variables seem to favor more modern connection types because they're better designed for this type of load.  A bunch of small requests may be harder to render in some cases than a few large ones.  But that's what we're here to test.

From my testing so far, the Beta appears to work well with my 4G based Internet connection at home.  However, when I managed to give it a quick test run at my workplace, the beta kept delivering speeds under 1Mbps down in Chrome even though they have a 10Mbps DSL connection.
 
From further testing at home and setting upload / download limits on my MikroTik router, I found that when I set the upload speed to 512Kbps to match the DSL uplink at my workplace, I am able to replicate the issue here and also uncovered a few other small issues.
 
With my workplace DSL connection the following is the Beta test followed by the linear test in Chrome with the UK server:

 
Retest with the German server.  As I write this post, I see the up/down rows are swapped on the left. 🙃

 
I did one more test in Edge and although it performed better than Chrome, the upload and download was still around half the linear download test:

 
Other observations:
 
The Beta test does not mention it being a multithread test in the test result.  For comparison, the non-beta multithread test mentions "Multithread":

 
Download tests with a block size under 1MB incorrectly show the KB as MB in the test results page.  For example, the following test result on the left shows a test block of 205kB, however in the test results page, it shows "205 MB":

If the download or upload test is unable to fetch all the blocks, it gets stuck.  This happened a few times, probably due to the small packet loss on my 4G connection, such as the following screenshot where it endlessly waited here for the final 2 kB block.
 

 
 

I thought this was kinda funny, did a combined test and got the exact same 767.2Mbps on both upload and download. Had to giggle at this one.
 

From looking through your test results, it looks like the intermittent dips could be your 4G router switching between 4G bands.  This is particularly an issue with Cat 4 routers that only connect to a single 4G band, such as the TP-Link MR200/400/6400 series and the Huawei B593 and B3xx series.  For example, Three uses 4G band 20 extensively in rural areas due to its ability to penetrate building material, vegetation, etc. better than 4G bands 1 and 3, however, however they only have 1/3 the bandwidth on band 20 compared to band 3 and it's more congested due to users in fringe areas only being able to pick up that band indoors.  Speed drops after around 6pm is mainly due to traffic load on the mast as the bandwidth is shared between everyone connected to the mast, like a road. 
 
If you have a Huawei 4G router, you can try using LTE H-Monitor (link) to lock to individual bands (Configuration -> Radio).  Choose a single Upload band and the matching download band (e.g. B3 1800MHz for both).  Run a speed test, then repeat with a different band such as B1 and B28.  If you get no signal, then that band is not in use.  Three uses bands 1, 3, 20, 28 and 32 (download only).  The TP-Link routers and most older Huawei routers lack support for bands 28 and 32. 
 
Higher end routers such as the Huawei B628 and B818 can connect to multiple bands simultaneously (i.e. carrier aggregation) and also have Gigabit Ethernet ports, so can potentially deliver much faster, possibly 200-300Mbps if band 32 is on the mast you're connected to.

(2x100ft, 2x10ft) to Cat-8 blue shielded from Tinifiber (Hyperscale Data Center Cables) now Spectrum is my bitch 😂

I've got the Samsung s21 ultra;  work where im in the "5GUC" 
 
PS:  oh, and ookla showed over 500. 
 
 

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...

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.

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...

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. 

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.   

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:
 

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

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.

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:
 

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.

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.
 

Reg
 
  Regarding router placement and other devices, the test result you referenced was done using an access point near the Arlo that is remote from the router  (and both test computer and Arlo not very near the access point)-- so, yep, I did not expect great performance.  btw, I do the tests generally when my teenager's devices are not in use.  And when I document performance (ie a test with just an arlo camera, phone and access point) it is just that.  When I test Cox Com performance, I just use my computer connected to the router (via Cat6a)  and no other devices.
 
   There are really two issues I need to address.  The first is, what actually is the Cox throughput.  To do this, I connect the computer to the router by Cat6a and remove other devices.  Doing a test, say once per minute, is helpful; but it the not the same as a 1 hour continuous test.  The latter test will catch any performance degradations during that one hour (where any such degradation could disturb the Arlo).  The former only catches problems if they happen to arise during the brief interval of a test.
 
   The second issue regards access point placement.    I have installed an access point near the camera (in an opposite corner of the house from my router (the router, a SonicWall TZ400, does not have an integral access point).   I have also run the Arlo in communication 10 feet from an access point  that is connected via 7' of Cat6a cable to the router and it also cycled offline and online  I have been testing the throughput of this as well.  Still, the is really a secondary issue.  It Cox Com does not provide a minimum upload of 3 Mbps (ie the thrust of issue #1 above), then the Arlo camera is likely to have trouble and i will return it to get a more robust solution.  (Arlo claims that each Pro 4 camera needs 3 Mbps -- although they seem to use less.)  There may be design issues with the Arlo as well that make it more sensitive to disruption of throughput (last month I had had an Arlo Pro 4 that did not cycle offline and online but returned it because the speaker did  not work, which has then lead me into this current rabbit hole). 
 
   The only significant improvement I have encountered so far was the Cox ISP upgrade from a 10 Mbps upload plan (where the camera(s) had cycled offline and online every 2 min) to a 35 Mbps upload plan (where the camera(s) cycle offline and online every few hours.    Oh, and use of a smartphone as a mobile hotspot also dramatically reduced the propensity of the camera(s) to cycle offline and online.   Clearly, the Cox Comm is contributing to the problem.  On my side, it is easy to test (plug my PC, running just your tool, into the LAN port of my router and unplug all other devices, except the cable between the WAN port and my Arris Surfboard SB8200 cable modem). 
 
   The Arlo Pro 4 uses an internal battery.  A contact charger cable can be installed for continuous power.   I have been pretty happy with the battery life.  And the image quality is nice even at night with the spot light off.  And the camera can handle snow and rain storms and freezing rain nicely.  Honestly, the Arlo Pro 4 has a lot to recommend it.  However, it is not reliable (and this may be due to a combination of Arlo and Cox issues).