xs1

Maybe contact that developer.
 
Easier to just use TestMy.net instead.  Try the beta under My Settings.
 
 

Well maybe you should cool it down, dude! 😄

Well maybe you should cool it down, dude! 😄

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.  

Just a query. Is the residential gateway/ modem provided by Spectrum?
If so is PC connected directly to that provided modem or passed through either a switch or isp extender device or perhaps a wall jack rj45 ethernet port using inside wire in the walls. 
Also if straight to router is there a port out of usually 4 or 5 grouped ports that are not of the same color or may even labeled as "1Gbps" some go higher when dealing with fastest speeds. Att and Comcast have equipment that use this
 
Internet speed on PC is largely hardware specific. gpu, cpu, memory, Network interface 
 
 
As a former tech for the Death Star I would bet its the top suggestions. Lasty the PC...but it is more common than you think of coming up shy.
 
820 on here is good on testmy I wouldn't fret

Yeh it's not bad for WiFi at all I have had 550 over WiFi before. With a cable the best I've seen on my ps5 using speed test.net is 596.3 so pretty damn close. Attached the WiFi test pretty damn good. 

461/600 over Wi-Fi is pretty good.  Are you always Wi-Fi? Have you tried wired? 

Using DNS in Singapore doesn't really help for your latency to the server.
 
Latency is like the time it takes for you to send a message to your friend and for them to respond. In the world of the internet, when you click on something or ask your computer to do something online, it sends a request to another computer far away. Latency is how long it takes for that request to reach the other computer and for you to get an answer back. If it takes a long time, everything online feels slow, like when you're waiting for someone to respond to a text.
 
When you ask your computer to load a website, it sends a message to another computer far away called a server. That server holds the information for the website you want. The message travels through wires, cables, or even space (if it’s using satellites!), and when the server gets it, it sends the website information back to your computer the same way. The time it takes for the message to go to the server and back to your computer is what we call latency. The quicker it travels, the faster things load!
 
You can't improve this unless you're able to take a shorter path to the server.  The physical distance creates unavoidable latency... the speed of light is the limiting factor.
 
What the Latency Test is showing you is that servers in Singapore will perform best for you.  Amazon is hosted on a CDN (content delivery network) so when you request using that test it pulls from a server closer to you automatically.
 
To improve latency over long distances, here’s how it works:
Use servers closer to you: Imagine a game of telephone. The closer the person, the quicker the message gets to you. Using servers that are closer (like a local one instead of one far away) speeds things up.
Optimize the route: Think of taking the quickest path home. By using smarter routes (like special internet paths called "content delivery networks"), the message travels faster, just like choosing a shortcut.
Use faster connections: Just like a fast car on a highway, using better internet connections helps the message travel quicker, even over long distances!

Don't know how I missed this topic.
 
I read it when it came in but I never responded, sorry dude.
 
I was thinking about the same thing as I was developing the beta... how it would be interesting to combine them together.
 
So along the way I developed it with that in mind for the future.  There are a couple of different ways I've imagined it can be done.  I think I'll just have to experiment in the real-world.
 
It's definitely coming.  Whether people understand it, use it, want it or care about it... that's another story.  But I think it would be a cool, unique tool... sounds like an interesting new benchmark.  One that will be hard to score well on unless you're connection is awesome. 
 
I think the most interesting part to me is that it's unknown.  I can kind of simulate what would happen but when it's actually a single process, I think it will yield interesting results.  A test whose results can only be compared to itself.
 
I'll let you know when it's ready to try.

Sorry for the inconvenience. 
 
I made a change to the code that should prevent that from happening again.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.
 
Happy Testing!
 

This beta started as a request for a multithread upload test.  Funny and ironic that the hardest part to implement in this version was the Linear (single thread) Upload.
 
The "Linear" option has been removed and you'll now see a "Multithread" toggle under Tune ☆.  Multithread and Linear now work with both test types.
 
Hope you find this useful.

sweet.
 
As soon as I posted my response to you on Wednesday I got into building the single thread upload test into the new version.  That inconsistency has been driving me nuts, that it's missing that super important element.  That's what makes TMN different.
 
It's been insanely hard to work that into the new test.  The new version was first built as a multithread test in proof of concept - @xs1 requested a multithread upload test.  Adding the single thread download test to that was simple, bing-bang-boom.  But the single thread upload test is at least 10 times as hard to program.  Even though it's already built... working it into the new program has been a challenge for sure.
 
Anyways, I did it.  It works really good too, graphing the results.  Stripped to the essential functions.  Tested it up to 500 MB... works awesome.  I'll publish the update soon. 
 
 
 
I'm stoked!
  

Hi Rod,
 
I'm happy to see that you're still visiting.
 
I was optimizing the query structure of the database search.  This presented a new problem because now certain calculations are done later in the process.  Not really an issue, we can work with that, especially given the performance gains of dropping 2/3 of the queries... except I can't tell if there should or shouldn't be a graph displayed early enough in the process to generate the page structure the way I wanted.  A problem easily solved if it was a single graph.
 
Instead of just making it work... I rebuilt it into a single graph.  Along the way I finally solved the x-axis / y-axis.  There are two separate y-axis for speed and then two x-axis for date.  The dates align with each other properly now on the x-axis no matter what the situation.
 
 
 
This update also makes DB search query much faster for members like you with over 100,000 results.  My testing saw no less than 2X increase in speed, some queries saw as much as 6X improvement.  Once I thought of how it could be done (early yesterday) it was mostly a matter of reorganizing.  Still a good 20-30 hours of programming, lol.
 
Numerous other bug fixes, more complex queries are possible.  Thank you @Pgoodwin1 for the suggestions, got the juices flowing.
 
Thank you @rrr10 -- sorry it took >5 years to program your suggestion.  It's a harder problem than I ever could have imagined.  No examples to go off of, very little documentation of this very specific use case.  I guess not very many people want to combine charts in this way... well, I like it.  I can see how it will help people understand results better.  I hope you like it too.  

As always, thank you for your excellent suggestion.
 
My plan is to basically duplicate what they do over at PassMark's site cpubenchmark.net
 
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5027vs5684vs5172vs2830/AMD-Ryzen-9-7900X-vs-Intel-i9-14900KF-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-7600-vs-Intel-Xeon-E5-2667-v4
 


 
Definitely won't be easy.  But comparison like that is extremely helpful.
 
Side note: pretty sure I'm going with the Ryzen 7900X on the new database server.  Currently running Dual E5-2667 v4.  The 7900X hits where I need it most (single thread) and a single CPU will blow the doors off what I'm running right now.  ... couple that with Ryzen's ECC memory support and then they say that the AM5 socket will be the platform until 2027 so upgrade options for many years. -- when you run a mysql database query, that's a single thread operation.  Excited to get it built and compare performance.
 
So imagine that comparison but with internet benchmarks.  Easy to understand and easy to use.

Pgoodwin1
Hi CA3LE. Got an odd bug you can maybe fix.
 
I go to DB/Fastest ISPs/Full Listing, I searched on Cincinnati Bell and Spectrum. I pulled up the Speed Test Logs for both - separate windows to compare
 
It defaults to All Identifiers in the Results tables. I set it to 1000 / page. OK.      I select the “Speed” column heading so that it shows the fastest. OK.   Everything’s fine.
 
The issue: In the Results Table, I can’t choose to display the fastest Speeds first in the Speed column when selecting an Identifier (other than All Identifiers)
 
If I select an Identifier (like Dallas, TX), the Speed column automatically reverts to the slowest Speed of the 1000. 

When I select the Speed column heading to make it show fastest first, the Identifier automatically reverts to “All Identifiers”. When I reselect Dallas TX, it automatically displays the slowest Speed first again.
 
haha - an endless cycle of despair

Pgoodwin1
BTW:  My personal test results “My Results” table doesn’t behave that way. You can select an Identifier then sort on the fastest speed without it reverting to All Identifiers

Pgoodwin1
@CA3LE just wondered if you had a chance to look into this. If you don’t plan to, that’s OK too.
 
CA3LE
I'll fix this for you and hit you back.  

Pgoodwin1
😁
Great

CA3LE
Did some updates to the database query.  It should now work the way you were expecting.
 
Let me know if it's querying correctly now.
 

Pgoodwin1
It’s working perfect now. Thanks. That’s a very cool tool.
 
maybe in the future you could add the date range field like our personal results page has. That way you could look at the ISPs performance over a specific period.
 
one suggestion on our date range in our personal results: make it so you don’t have to scroll through the Calendar. When you want the start date to be 3 years prior to today’s date, it takes a long time to get there. Maybe use two boxes, one for start date, one for end date, and let the user be able to type in the date as an option. More error prone that way though, but if it showed the date format, us idiots should be able to get it right.
 
i don’t want much. HAHA🤗

CA3LE
  14 hours ago, Pgoodwin1 said:
maybe in the future
 
The future is now.  You can now search hosts and locations by date range.
 
Currently this pulls data from a table where the old results are purged.  So will be limited to about the last 45K results per host.  Within those results you can now perform more fine grained searches.
 
I'm working on a super server upgrade that will cut down query times on my larger tables.  This should enable us to run queries like never before on the larger datasets.
 
I have what I think is going to be a very interesting topic on the subject.  Where I'm going to detail my build process.  All of my servers are custom built but this new server is going to be my most custom build ever.
 
Basically, found that enterprise grade hardware (that I've been using) isn't the way for TestMy.net moving forward.
 
I was able to beat TestMy.net's current Dual Xeon E5-2667 v4 w/ Optane setup using a single Optane and an old i7 10700K.  Not by a little either.  It seems core performance is the bottleneck.
 
The 13th and 14th gen Intel chips have oxidation and voltage issues so I think I'm going to end up going with AMD.  Also Ryzen supports ECC memory.  I'm basically building a Ryzen gaming PC inside of a 2U rack mount chassis.  Also building a piKVM v2 into it to basically give the machine IPMI.  Be able to remotely see the display, control input, mount ISOs... control it like I'm there.
 
I've got the build coming in right now at less than $1K.  That's about what I paid for just the CPU's and Optane drive in the master server.  And I got them used, 1/6 the original price.  
 
After testing I'm convinced, my dream server is a gaming PC.  Enterprise hardware, even the most recent CPUs... right there with basic consumer CPUs.  They support more memory, have more cache but the performance per core where it counts most is far, far lower.  My concern with hosting TestMy.net is usually focused on single thread performance.  Similar to how I focus on single thread performance in my tests but this is talking about CPU threads.  More threads is definitely helpful and nessesary but the speed of each thread is the most important variable.
 
The single thread performance I'll get out of any AM5 Ryzen will absolutely crush any of the Xeon CPUs in my price range.  The ones I'm looking at out perform or are at par with even the latest enterprise CPUs.  At the end of the day I can build servers cheaper with the latest chips.  All working together in my proxmox cluster so hardware failure is tolerable... but I imagine they'll be just as stable, under volting the CPUs and run them through extra stability testing before production.
 
There's so much competition in the gaming PC performance arena which leads to less expensive consumer chips being faster.
 
And yes, better database structure solves problems.  But so does adding more power.  It's far easier for me to give my cluster more power than to restructure databases.  Things I've built recently and going forward are better planned but there's all the databases and tables prior.
 
If you don't mind, I'd like to share this thread as a topic.

Pgoodwin1
Wow. That sounds really good. It does totally amaze me what you can get in processing power these days. Consumer grade machines can be so fast and not that expensive.
 
“If you don't mind, I'd like to share this thread as a topic.”  Certainly go ahead and share it as a topic
 
thanks for the upgrade with the date range. That tool is awesome now for comparing ISPs. I’ve been looking at maybe changing from Spectrum to AltaFiber (which is Cincinnati Bell). That change you made just adding the date range makes it very easy to compare apples to apples - different test servers, 
 
No problem, thank you for the suggestion.
 
CA3LE
No problem, thank you for the suggestion.
 
The limitation on the host and location queries has needed that correction for a long time.  Once I know someone is trying to query in a broken way, it's motivation to make it work the way you expect.

It may have been a routing issue.  Has it cleared up yet?
 
If I saw something like that happen as @xs1 said, I'd run traceroute and compare to a known working machine.
 
As for getting it fixed.  Depends on where the issue is, could be on your provider's end, my provider's end or one of their peers in between.  Usually, these kinds of problems resolve on their own.
 
It may be that there was only an issue going to and from that specific datacenter.  As long as you're testing good across the greater majority, I wouldn't worry about it too much.  Unless it starts affecting the real communication that you do.
 
Important thing... we know it's not unique or localized to your computer or network.  You've proven this by testing across multiple networks and showing greater results.  

Id try a traceroute from the affected machine vs one that is working properly. 
 

@ ha05ger,
Unfortunately both  Roco & tommie gorman have passed away.
If either post from the other side I would love to see it.
 

Here's a photo I took yesterday.
 
We had 77% coverage where I'm at.
 

 
A Sun spot made it look kinda like Pac Man for a little bit.  (the sun spot was visible in other photos so I know it wasn't an artifact)

 
Taken on an S22 Ultra, using the 10X lens through solar filter glasses, manual focus and exposure.

Where are you seeing this?
 
I do need to redesign the ranking to be more user friendly.  Definitely can be done better.
 
Here's the ranking, after filtering out some of the less popular locales.  I manually do a minimum test count of 45100 because every day the host database tables that the host averages are calculated from are trimmed, to 45000.  This isn't the right way to do this because it's dependent on the time of day. 
 
I have some additional logic I'm adding to that.  Where that part of the program will be made aware of the actual recent popularity.  It will default to filtering out the less popular locations to build a better list.
 
Sorting by download speed
https://testmy.net/rank/countrycode.down/45100
 
 
Sorting by upload speed
https://testmy.net/rank/countrycode.up/45100

 
It will look different using the defaults.  It also may have been different when you looked, because of the time of day.  The tables might have just trimmed and then it happened that a bunch of tests were taking place in the locations you mentioned above.  That tool was designed before I started trimming those tables.  It was easier to sort them by popularity before they started being trimmed... after time the majority of the tables are over 45K rows making that variable unreliable.
 
Going way beyond the topic...
 
Keep in mind, I built TestMy.net with really no prior programming knowledge... starting in 1996 before it was even TestMy.net.  I then dropped out of high school in 1999, the useless information and repetition... I learn way more, much faster by DOING so I decided to focus on that.   Building this taught me and I'm always learning.  I've definitely made a lot of programming mistakes but they've all lead to a better understanding and better future designs. 
 
 
I'm a lone wolf programmer.  All of the frontend, all of the backend.  I even built the physical servers and infrastructure by hand.
 
BTW, I was like 1 or 2 credits from graduating.  Didn't really want their paper.  What does it prove?  Got hired at one of the largest telecommunication giants, quit school the next day.  Worked for them for 5 years.  Working my way up from the warehouse, within 1 year my pay increased over 6X.  That company was good to me but TestMy.net was calling, I've pursued it full time ever since.
 
Side note, if anyone actually reads this: That company had a strict policy and would have fired me if they knew I didn't have at least a GED.  No matter what my performance was in the company.  People high up (like extremely high up) told me it would be an open shut case and to keep quiet about it, "Just go get your GED dude!".  Some told me it wouldn't matter even if I got it because I should have never been hired in the first place. That attitude was actually the reason I left them.  With my own company nobody could hang anything over my head.  Yes, I probably could have just got a GED.  But why?  I don't want that.  They assumed I graduated because I had college credits, never lied to them.  Thankfully it never became an issue and I resigned on top.  Great company, they taught me a lot too.

All this would do would eat significantly more bandwidth...  5 min. minimum is pretty generous imo; 

Hey, if it works it works 👌🥸

Social tariff they do, it's fine for what I need. 🙂

Welcome!
 
If you go to My Settings you can add an identifier. 
 

 
Select something like "Location 1" when you're connected to router #1... then "Location 2" for the second.  You can then filter your results by identifier under My Results.
 
Let me know if this helps.

I like it. Both are good. After a lot of testing and tweaking I've got the maximum speed out of my connection: about 10% more than the plan (a $10/month one) is supposed to supply. testmy.net was a big help. It might be slow for a lot of people, but it suits my needs. Thanks