rebrecs

I may need to revise that remark. Lately I am seeing instances of data points on my results graphs that are much faster than the ISP speed limit for my account. What tends to happen it is a bit of oscillation above and below the speed limit, finally converging on a more or less steady set of data points, and indicating a lot of middle variance. I have not changed anything. This is new. But, it the speed limit was set by setting fixed modem clocks, data would not be able to go faster than the modem speed. Thus, I remain open to the idea the ISP is measuring something else. (queue length/time, or packets / time <?>) I think I will remain open also to the notion that this could be a side effect of the test, or the browsers, or the time-stamping on the systems under test.

Sean, thanks, I really wish I understood what you have said here. Are you saying an ISP (via their DHCP server) will issue the same IP address to many different customers ?

Background My ISP speed is clamped at 400 Mbps Down, though I have been routinely getting 430+ Mbps. I have a 1 gig infrastructure in house. The direct-attach router ports are consumed by L2 switches and one Wintel computer. I execute TMN tests (Loc 1=multithread, Loc 2= normal) from the Wintel box. Reconfigure for new test plan I am about to introduce two more locations (TMN Identifiers -Loc's 3/4) which will be a pair of laptops. When attached to available L2 switch ports, each of the laptops produce TMN download test results near identical to the Wintel box I have historically used. I intend to use the laptop pair to run concurrent TMN download tests. My goal is to see how the speed allocation is arbitrated. I believe theoretically the answer should be near 50/50, or approximately 200 Mbps results for each device. The Questions Questions are centered around how TMN is going to react to this. Will TMN test controller (for lack of a better name) allow this? If so, Will TMN think this is one test or two ? If two, will the Identifiers be preserved? Each laptop browser will be initializing a test using different Identifiers. Will that cause two different Test IDs even though they share an IP address? What happens if I push the "go" button very near the same instant? Would it be better to delay the start of the second system by a second or two? Please advise on how I should proceed. Thanks in advance --john

This results on this tab seem frozen in time. Fastest ISPs-->Suddenlink-->member rank (tab)

Interesting. So, if their own "blessed test" is a meg off, I think you already have a case to present. I don't know whether you already have <?> Are you mandated by CenturyLink to use that specific router? I am really not happy to suggest spending money, who the heck wants to do that. But, an ISP only believes one configuration is legitimate when discussing your issues - and that is for your systems to be attached directly to a modem. In your case, you cannot do that since it is all built into one integrated entity. If you were inclined to separate the modem from the switching and Wifi gear, someday, it might be in your interest to do so. The ISP techs, the kind that come to your house, have a gadget they use to hook to the modem. I would be interested (if it were me) to see what reading that thing produced. Those gadgets produce all sorts of results, including REAL jitter (not network jitter) based on the clocks in the data stream. They also produce results regarding signal level (usually in db) and they produce results in Mbps !! The thing we want. If you don't have a discrete modem, then having a tech run the gadget is a good idea. In your original post you asked whether your modem could be slowing you down. Maybe. But I think more than likely, if the culprit lies anywhere in the a90-7500, my bet would go on the switch/router settings. I say that because if the modem part of the box were getting transmission errors, they would see it at their end too, and your log would be filling up. So, service call for tech+gadget, and check all the logfiles. That's my $0.02

In this context, jitter is a statement of deviation. In fact, engineers/techs who only work on tcp/ip networks will also use the word synonymous with "late packet arrival." I have never looked at what exactly the n% means but lower is better and I think 2% is probably ok.I saw something about it on Wikipedia, but It gives me a headache to think about it simply due to my objection to the word being used in this context at all. In all other areas of engineering it describes a deviation from a fixed expected rate. I would love to hear somebody tell me how a packet switching network has or ever claimed to have a fixed expected rate. but anyway, that's just me. It likely means 2% of the time, packets arrived later significantly later than the mean. (taking aspirins and guessing) I still think chasing down that middle variance may get you closer to your 6Mbps. Especially since both tests are about 1Mbps off. If you fix it, I bet your upload will jump up too. I'm only saying that because it made such a difference for me. There are people on here that legitimately know a lot more about this than I do. I'm hoping one of them in particular will come to the rescue. What kind of router do you use ?

know what happens when you run the ISP test, if you are so inclined. By the way, fixing the middle variance did make a big difference in my overall TMN results, especially on the upload side. sorry for two posts, I hit the wrong button or something while trying to undo the caps lock

RMcQ, yes, TestMy.Net is a great resource. I never see any ads so no telling how they get paid. Possibly selling the test results. Or maybe collecting from the ISPs for a better service resource than they have Who knows. Anyway, back to the topic, does centurylink have a speed test of their own ? If so, it is likely an Ookla based test. The results of those have to be used carefully, but they can provide an interesting data point. I ask, because you have a 5% middle variance. I spent some time fighting middle variance and it was the ISP Ookla speed test that gave me the hints I needed to finally fix it. When my TMN tests were indicating a high middle variance the ISP test was also bursty. The ISP speed test always returned perfect numbers (i.e. the full paid-for speed) but on its meter I could see the traffic stopping ans starting in bursts, which agreed with the middle variance result on my TMN speed test. My variance may have been greater than 5, and the notes are not handy. I don't know how bad the variance has to be before the bursts can be seen on Ookla. But, i WOULD LIKE TO

Interesting question. There are several ways to do it. Each has less or more merit depending on the goal. Given that an ISP's goal is the managing speed limits on a per customer basis, and the fact they tend to discuss (and sell) "speed" in terms of bits-per-second, my guess would be they are throttling at the signalling level versus measuring and capping a "byte flow" inside their switching gear. If I am right about that (and that's a big if) then the modem at their end, that your modem talks to, would set the max transmission speed. I really don't think it would be practical for them to do otherwise. That's my $0.02

Hi, sorry for your troubles. I can totally relate to what you have been through. Just curious, if you don't mind ... the gear that they brought to your house, is it mandatory to use their equipment? Asked another way, do you have a choice of using your own internet access equipment? (modems, routers, switches , whatever) Second, the Hughesnet equipment, what are the brands/models they use ?

Hi, this is not a bug report, just request for clarification. Member Rank is presented differently depending on where you look at it. This could easily be 'date range' selection or update frequency, or 'most recent tests only versus total history'. It is not causing my world to be shattered but I would like to understand it. If you look at member rank this way: DB-> Fastest Members-> find your name; there is one set of data formulating the average, thus the rank. If you look at member rank this way: DB-> Fastest ISPs-> pick your ISP-> select Member Rank Tab-> find your name; there you will see different data formulating the average, thus the rank. Again, no emergency, just curious. Thanks in advance. --john

Suddenlink fell from 1st to 2nd place with a noticeable reduction in average speed. Their infrastructure in my geography got very sick earlier this year and it took them a long time to straighten it out. Thus it makes me nervous when I see this drop.

Three months ago I began investigating what is involved in hosting my own domain. That may seem counter-intuitive to some, since most folks I know rejoice in not having to do that. The ubiquitous opinion is; "put the headaches into the hands of people who know how to do that." Admittedly, I may also find it is indeed too much work. My domains are hosted by Bluehost, and I have always had great experiences with that company. My reasons for wanting to self-host are not a negative reflection upon Bluehost. My ISP is Suddenlink. I will change to another ISP as soon as there is a viable alternative. At this time, there is not. My objection to Suddenlink is not technical. Indeed, they are ranked #1 on the TMN ISP Speed page. In order to host my domain, my facility must have the fastest UPLOAD speed attainable within my budget. Once I found TMN, my testing revealed big problems. Problems which did not show up on the Suddenlink Speed Test. Three months ago, I was paying for 40 Mbps Upload, and getting 5 Mbps. Today my speed is at 40 Mbps and holding. It was a difficult journey from 5 to 40. One I could not have made without TMN. I cannot over emphasize how impressed I am with TMN. Those of you who are not programmers or engineers in the data industry are likely not able to appreciate the magnitude and excellence of the work that has gone on to create and maintain this site. All of the changes made to get this result were made with configuration options and parameters on a single piece of gear in my facility, an ASUS AC-3100, which is a consumer combo box. Fundamentally it is a 4 port network bridge device with one port capable of interfacing to a cable modem, and a Wireless Access Point bolted on (built-in). I suppose there is an implicit endorsement of the unit in what I just said. It is able to move data at the ISP limited rate. Con's; hard to decipher the use of it's options due to the non-technical nature of its documentation. (consumer friendly baby talk) 5 to 40 in 3 months:

And now finally -- I have reached the speed I am paying for !!!! I need to thank TNM. I could not have gotten to here without it. Prior to this last change, I had hit a brick wall at 20Mbps with terrible variance. Now runs smoothly at full speed. Additionally, I can now get the full 400Mbps without using multithread. The change that got me to this quantum leap were made in my router to the NAT settings.

Hi, I know you have bigger fish to fry, so consider this a quick discussion from which a feature request might emerge. Part 1 - middle variance Part 2 - My Averages Part 1: Variance I was thinking about middle variance and wondering whether variances (generally) can legitimately be averaged ? If so, would an average of variances be interesting enough to be included on either the My Averages or My Results pages? How interesting is it? TCP/IP routing, by nature, accepts congestion as a fact of life. I don't want to suggest any improvements to the only protocol we have that has worked for over 50 years. But, if the variance is high due to settings or issues either on my server or in my router, then it becomes interesting to me. (Under my control) Additionally, if my alleged "Internet Service Provider" is responsible for adding variance beyond what would be expected on an IP network, then that, unfortunately, has to be interesting to me also. My vote is yes. It is interesting as a troubleshooting aid if nothing else. Having said that, I understand the priority of adding such as this would likely be low compared to other features. Especially since one can repeatedly run single tests to use it as a troubleshooting aid. I think I would rank it as a "nice to have." Part 2: My Averages Please correct me if I am mistaken, I don't think the My Averages report is aware of identifiers. I believe it uses all the data it can find and produces the results. Admittedly I have not looked at the CSV export file which might be different. You could get as fancy as you want with filtering capabilities on that report. I have seen other posts here requesting "is it a cell phone," etc. In my view, and for my purposes, running the report "by identifier" is very sufficient. It is easy enough to assign identifiers to cell phones (or whatever) when running tests. Again, let me know if I am misrepresenting the functionality that is currently available. As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work. --John

ignore previous, I found that answer. Multithread applies to download and automatic. should I assume you continue to open connections until you hit the max speed attainable ?

Does multithreaded apply to both Upload and Download tests ?

Hi, While testing Downloads, I'm switching back and forth between Multi-threaded and Single Server modes. The single server tests (non multi-threaded) are consistently a lot worse from a total Mbps perspective. Additionally, the Single Server Test results screen (page<?>), upon completion shows me a Tips analysis chart along with the test result. The multithreaded test results screen/page does not show me a Tips analysis upon completion. I could not locate a way to invoke a Tips analysis on the multithreaded results. I apologize in advance if this is all explained somewhere and I failed to discover it. I might infer that the Tips chart is not shown if the variance is deemed ok (below some level), or that it does not apply to multithreaded tests, or both , or neither. Could you help me out ? Thank you. --John

Wow... look at this test result. I pay for 400 Down and my Avg Down is around 448. I snuck one by their speed throttle mechanism. At least now I know my neighborhood and facility wiring etc. can handle 1 gig. How this happened I don't know, but here is my theory. Based on the last thing I did, which was manipulating my so called router to grab it's Ip address from the host's DHCP but ignore everything else that comes from the Host's DHCP -- my router finally picked up DNS from 1.1.1.1 I proved my so called router was using the new DNS server via the cool tool on this site (DNS lookup or something similar, under Misc --> tools). So, the very first time I ran the test without the extra DHCP baggage - my Down test hit 1 gig+, but their clever infrastructure caught on real fast. At first it over-corrected, then settled down in at the speed I usually get in my test results. So, no, benchmarking is not my hobby. I just want to be well prepared for my inevitable conversation with my dear old ISP.

The modem is an Arris SB6190 I thought I was running multithreaded tests. I will check my settings.

Hi, Here are two multi-path concepts. Are they related? If so, how? My ISP, (*not known for passing useful, accurate, or true information) has advised that a DOCSIS 3.0 modem is required in order to get the promised net speed. That sounds like something that would be in a help-desk cookbook, so I'm going to accept it. However, my question is more along the lines of-- whether a program, say at the Java language/C++ language level can specify channels/lanes (whatever), or if the DOCSIS thing is just network hardware infrastructure. And most relevant, does our TMN multi-threaded architecture depend on DOCSIS? Thanks in advance. --john

I can easily accept that rationale. Thank you. I don't want to get started on what they "deserve." I continue to evangelize the use of TMN Good stuff.

Sir Webmaster, I am using DNS services from Cloudfare (1.1.1.1 / 1.0.0.1) So that you know your efforts are not in vain - I chose Cloudfare based on reading "Step 6" a while back. Good Document. ?

Hi, this is just a small thing .. but since you asked.... After a test, there is comparison data at top. Things like % > than my average, % greater than whole world, etc. One of them is % > than Host. Hmmm. I would have to think about this longer to know what to recommend. For now I will just submit what I am pondering. The average numbers on Host have a lot to do with the subscription. (e.g. I pay for 5Mbps, and so 5Mbps is what I get.) Lots of people are running tests, and we don't know what speed they are paying for in their subscription. I think it may drive assumptions in peoples minds that could give the ISP a bad rap. As in, it may not be true that XYZ ISP can only go 5 Mbps Up, but it is certainly true that the majority of people here running tests have paid for that specific rate. Like I said, its a small thing, but does mean that particular comparison statement might could use an asterisk or something to clarify the fact that the Host results are sensitive to more than just the capability of their infrastructure. It is not an issue for individuals running tests since we already know the specifics of our own subscriptions.

Hi all, just passing along my experience - your mileage may vary. I think its worth submitting since I was able to double both my UP and DOWN test speeds with these small changes. These observations were made with an ASUS AC-3100 Router, from a hardwired 8p 24 gig (mem) server with a 1 gig Ethernet card. Firewall off I understand this is religious, but I set the devices to protect themselves as best I can. After all, I had no firewall rules in place anyway. So the firewall was just kind of a big piece of code in the router that had to do work on the packets - slowing the router down significantly. IMO that protection can be done elsewhere for much less expense in speed. Again, broad stroke firewall (even with no rules set) does protect against certain attacks - so turning it of is a choice I gamble on since I'm not the department of defense and nobody is trying to prove anything by screwing me over. AND, my server firewall does the same stuff regarding DoS attacks and what not. ( all these fear factors we live with ) NAT Acceleration (cut through) on NAT is a confusing thing to investigate. Devices, L3 switches, routers all have settings. I'm still reading about it. However for today, I can tell you that NAT acceleration ON allows a bunch of stuff to bypass the processor in the router and it makes a HUGE difference in Download speed. Turning it on or off did not make any difference in Upload speed. DNS Settings Talking about DNS settings arrives at a discussion of DHCP settings. That is because DHCP does you the kind favor of loading up the address of it's favorite DNS values when you do not tell it otherwise. This is the setting that allowed me to get from about 5Mbps Upload to 20Mbps Upload instantly. I was initially using the ISPs DNS server, and had my router set to allow DHCP pass through so my devices were becoming contaminated with the ISPs DNS address. This is a tricky topic but it makes a big difference. Consult your manuals carefully. Bottom line, do what is needed to get a good DNS server working for you. --john