j7n

For the past 15 years I have always used an air compressor...  60 gallons @ 175PSI set to 80 on the hose, never once has static been an issue.  I also don't bother with a dryer on the line, and yeah, I see moisture come out on short bursts, never once has it been an issue for me though I don't have droplets of water come out either. You are more liable to see static issues on plastic hose attachments with a vacuum cleaner and the attachment being that close to the machine for it to suck any decent amounts of dust away.  Chances of static jumping from the air in a compressor hose to your machine when you have the air tool ~24 inches away is pretty much non-existent.

What is bad is having the pressure too high when you are too close to the machine with the tool, and when you let the fans spin freely.  Gonna blow SMD's off or cook a bearing real fast.

The upload speed test currently doesn't show a "TiP" graph of the speed over time like the download test does. The curve of this graph could allow one to determine the presence and effectiveness of an advanced congestion control algorithm (ctcp, cubic). I would also like a precise readout of the Initial Congestion Window, which is essentially the first data point of the graph. This parameter is now configurable in modern OS, but it can be difficult to tell if the tweak has been correctly applied. In my opinion the upload graph is more useful, because in the opposite direction a TestMy server is always capable of uploading fast, while much more variety exists in residential connections and operating systems.
 
 
 
 
Although my browser does show the current upload speed of standard HTTP posts, the reading doesn't have good enough resolution.

The forum software is indeed slow. A number of forums have changed the engines within last one or two years, and become slower and more difficult to use. The owners would probably say that they had to update in order to have a "supported" version. I'm sure that the main reason for these updates is to make the sites look like Twitter and Google Plus - "flat", and with strange terms like "content" and "follow" in place of common words like post, thread and subscription. For similar reasons flat "metro" design exists, and applications like CCleaner are compelled to change. Several people complained about MSFN's change of the board engine, and the reduced flexibility of formatting. (It is not possible to access a BBCode view in most new forums to compose long posts with multiple quote elements.) And despite that a major purpose of that board is to support Windows 98/2000 (never mind XP), they went forward and updated the forum anyway. Their site is a higher profile one... Some small forums still exist in 2016, running on vBulletin or older phpBB.
 
Proponents of flat, metro, material, xaml and social media style UI's will still claim that they are faster to render, when the opposite is obviously the case.
 
Disabling of JavaScript is still very useful on the modern web, and it can improve the experience. Most sites are indeed dynamic and require it, even if they could have been faster and more accessible if they were designed [without scripting]. Every once in a while I come over a site that does the following: after a few seconds or when I scroll down, the site spawns a frame of text that obstructs half of the screen asking me to "register to continue reading" or "sign up to a newsletter"; if I have blocked advertisements, they might redirect me to another page or dim all text, or it might interfere with scrolling, or prevent selecting, copying or right-clicking. In Opera, I can press F12 and disable JavaScript or referrer sending as soon as the page has loaded, and enable it back on when I'm done – without accessing Settings or downloading extensions.
 
Maybe Opera should have changed their brand name when they released an entirely different product. "Opium" is more appropriate.
 
I can still input a plain text reply in Opera, but any formatting exercises my patience.

The upload speed test currently doesn't show a "TiP" graph of the speed over time like the download test does. The curve of this graph could allow one to determine the presence and effectiveness of an advanced congestion control algorithm (ctcp, cubic). I would also like a precise readout of the Initial Congestion Window, which is essentially the first data point of the graph. This parameter is now configurable in modern OS, but it can be difficult to tell if the tweak has been correctly applied. In my opinion the upload graph is more useful, because in the opposite direction a TestMy server is always capable of uploading fast, while much more variety exists in residential connections and operating systems.
 
 
 
 
Although my browser does show the current upload speed of standard HTTP posts, the reading doesn't have good enough resolution.

The upload speed test currently doesn't show a "TiP" graph of the speed over time like the download test does. The curve of this graph could allow one to determine the presence and effectiveness of an advanced congestion control algorithm (ctcp, cubic). I would also like a precise readout of the Initial Congestion Window, which is essentially the first data point of the graph. This parameter is now configurable in modern OS, but it can be difficult to tell if the tweak has been correctly applied. In my opinion the upload graph is more useful, because in the opposite direction a TestMy server is always capable of uploading fast, while much more variety exists in residential connections and operating systems.
 
 
 
 
Although my browser does show the current upload speed of standard HTTP posts, the reading doesn't have good enough resolution.

i use an older version of  opera (presto) for reading mostly text & some images, and RSS feeds. i'm still pissed that opera removed most of its features when it jumped to webkit.

web... damn the javascript in tbhis new board code is madly slow in opera. and the reply box doesn't work with javascript turned off. wtf

---

^ i know it's bothersome but isn't that the point of permissions, to avoid misuse of files by hackers or other people who may be using your computer? although it is weird that an OS upgrade would make you lose your permissions if you usually login with admin/root privileges
 

 
No problem, glad to help.  Thank you too.
 
 
I sell advertising but try to not over do it.  Huge segments of TMN's traffic never even see an ad.
 
ISPs and other entities have offered to pay for analytics, many times.  Instead of just giving them what they want I'm building TMN to do it for me.  Instead of sharing the information with only those who pay for it TMN aims to share all of its collected information with everyone, for free.   (within the privacy policy guidelines of course) -- with help from those requests the information presented here will become more and more detailed in future versions.

looking good, keep visiting and tell your friends about this site 

you wanted me to explain what happend

the default TCP settings on win 98 and ME is basicly made for LAN connections with very low ping

if you have a low ping you wont need a big receivebuffer ( RWIN ) to get a fast transfer rate

here is a defenition of RWIN

"DefaultRcvWindow - This parameter determines the maximum TcpReceiveWindow size offered by the system. The receive window specifies the number of bytes a sender may transmit without receiving an acknowledgment. In general, larger receive windows will improve performance over high (delay * bandwidth ) networks. For highest efficiency, the receive window should be an even multiple of the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS)."

the RWIN can be calculated, if you know the MSS, latency and the Bandwidth your ISP offer

VanBuren

Mine reports lower too.  But if you take everything into account, from start to finish.. it adds up.
 
Sorry you're not getting the results you'd like to see.  If you think I'm wrong... use the other guys.
 
There are no lies going on here.  Calling it how I see it.  Others see it differently.  TMN isn't as easy.
 
If you show me actual evidence that proves that the numbers reported are incorrect I'll take the time to make it right.  But the only instance I've seen where it's not spot on (with the upload test) is when a client has over 300 Mbps upload speed.  The max 33MB upload test is too small for connections that fast.  I'm working to make it better.
 
Other tests out there are shooting to give you the best number so they do things like multithread and adjust the worst out of the result.  I feel my method is more realistic, it uploads files the same way you'd upload a file to any site and times the process.  Not much to go wrong.
 
If you want to know your best case scenario you're not in the right place.  I'm not here to stroke your ego.  If you want to be realistic and see numbers that represent what you can expect to really see, then TMN is the right test for you.
 
Like I said, I upload faster than my results show too.  But TMN is taking more than the middle of the result after it's rapped up into account, it's calculated from initiation to end.  From the moment that orange box disappears till the page changes.  If you're able to initiate the test faster, you'll score better.  Outside of the test I notice that I'll upload much faster at first then in time it will drop down closer to the reading that TMN shows.
 
Stream casters (e.g. twitch.tv users) love the upload test here because it represents their single thread speed to be expected, the real streamable bandwidth.  I've heard them say (in many how to stream tutorials across the net) that numbers from other speed tests like speedtest.net will cause their stream to lag and have issues because the numbers they report are higher than the connection can actually handle.  I read them saying, "only use TestMy.net."  -- and "as long as I set my stream quality slightly lower than TMN reports, no issues."

It might be worth your time to research OOKLA and how they measure throughput. OOKLA (Speedtest uses the OOKLA FLASH based speed test) drops out of the calculation the top and bottom 10% - claiming they represent outliers. Then they drop another 20% off the bottom - assuming those values represent ramp-up. That leaves the 30% to 90% group for the measurement. I find the testmy.net large file size test to provide the most representative evaluation of my service provider. I see the ramp-up, then the surge (that my provider utilizes) and then the leveling off at my paid for throughput rate. 
Aside from all that it seems bad form to begin a conversation by calling people liars. OOKLA is showing the speed during what they perceive as the optimum 60% of the throughput speed. I suspect you are comparing apples and oranges.

Although my LTE connection is limited to about 16Mbps up, it did make a noticeable difference here also:
 
Default (131072) and after (524288):

 
The Android Firefox does not seem to have this setting, however, I have noticed it has been producing faster upload results than Firefox on my PC, so it probably uses a larger send buffer by default.  It consistently produces faster upload results than the Chrome App, which seems to cap out about 12Mbps. 

I noticed that on my computer Firefox by default sets the TCP send buffer equal to 128 KB (about:config -> network.tcp.sendbuffer), which limits the result of a single thread upload test. System default receive buffer is used, so download speed isn't affected. This value is adequate for normal web browsing and uploading to geographically close servers, but cannot be used to measure the best possible performance of bulk file transfers across different applications. Usually software don't set custom buffer sizes, or if they do, they use extreme values (FileZilla uses 4 MB).
I observed the following throughput with FireFox - 128 KB:

384 KB:

512 KB:


 

I would add a few points to this case which has mostly been explained by other members already.

The peak throughput of a router is definitely finite and quite small relative to a desktop computer. It is a separate from the throughput and power of the wireless radio interface. I was able to find that this router has a 384 MHz CPU in the latest documented revision, and has been tested to deliver 60-80 Mbit over wireless. Wired performance, surprisingly, wasn't tested, but is at least 130 Mbit. Many people nowadays consider router to be synonymous to an access point, which is not at all the case.

I think the most bandwidth hungry devices should always be connected by a cable if at all possible. Several wired devices connected to a network switch can all transmit and receive at the same time. Only one device can transmit over wifi at any given time, similarly to how it was with Ethernet hubs, which are now obsolete.

The "extension channel" allows the radio to use more bandwidth with stations (laptops, computers) that support the mode. A regular channel is 20 MHz wide, and supports at most 55-60 Mbit of throughput under "N". With a chanel extended to 40 MHz, a throughput of about 110-120 Mbit can be reached. (gross air rate 300 Mbps what is getting quoted on packaging to make the device sound more impressive). The entire spectrum allocated to wifi is 80 MHz wide, and can fit 3-4 access points with 20 MHz channels with minimal interference between them, but only 2 using extension channels.

I always use manual channel selection. Most consumer routers do not allow full control over the channel in the 5 GHz band due to legally required "radar detect" function. They may hop to a different channel automatically. Professional devices do not have that restiction, but user is required to enable "radar detect" by law. There are certain applications that allow to scan the wifi spectrum and create a graph of other signals and interference. They're built into good routers, from Ubiquiti/UBNT and Mikrotik. In the 2.4 GHz there aren't that many channel choices. Staying on channels 1 or 11 is usually the smartest option to avoid users of chanel 6 and microwave ovens.

Channel 13 could be a good choice if all your computer support it. Since that channel is not allowed in the U.S., some wifi radios have it disabled. In order to enable it on my Atheros card, I had to download the driver that comes with CommView for WiFi and change the country code on the card. My first attempt locked up the system...

For bandwith testing purposes I like to use the free FileZilla FTP Server. I have installed it on all my Windows computers to do file transfers, which also conveniently allows me to perform speed tests between any pair of computers. I can choose to send 1 file or do a few simultaneous file transfers. Paired with FileZilla (client) the program can saturate any connection. Other clients may have lower performance, and Windows SMB/Network Neighborhood is usually slower and more difficult to troubleshoot and tweak. (You can't swap out to a different version of SMB client/server without reinstalling Windows.)

I found this good article explaining wi-fi settings like channels and transmit power. They are not specific to DD-WRT.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Atheros/ath_wireless_settings

About spectrum outside the unlicensed band and wifi devices that support using it:

http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/modify.html

There are utilities, such as iperf, that you can use to check the network performance between two computers. You could use that to diagnose your WLAN speed from your laptop to your other machine. This would remove the unknown and unpredictable variations in your WAN connection speed. I use iperf extensively, but there are plenty of others available in Windows land.

I am somewhat educated about computers, however netwoks both ineterst and confuse me. I have cableone as ISP and am paying a bit extra for speeds "up to" 60 Mbps. I have NEVER had a test come back daster than 28 Mbps and typically see results between 18 and 22, My position with Cableone is that this is unacceptable whilst they repeatedly use the phrase "up to." I realize that expecting results of @ 60 Mbps is not realistice, but think my results are bs.
 
I just purchased my own Motorola SB 6141 and have a Belkin F5D 8235-4 which to my chagrin is a N standard but not dual channel. I have an X box one, and 360 hooke to a wired connection as well as an old XP desktop. Wireless is a Toshibe Win 8.1 laptop, an old RCA N standard streaming box to tv, and couple of android telephones.
 
I am trying to educate myself as to these issues prior to any further arguments with Cableone as aithout further knowledge I am at huge disadvantage lol.  I purchased the cable modem to save $$ but as important to me is speeding up and making system as effeicient as possible
 
Is the 18 - 22 test reults okay, or is that slow ?
 
Any basic tips as to setup of equipment for me ?.
 
Does the speed of my router effect the speed tests, i.e. if i upgraded to a dueal channel N, or better yet an AC router, would my numbers go up.  I am interested in upgrading router.
 
Thanks for any help or feed back. I have looked ALL over the internet and this is by far the best site AND testing I have found by FAR.
 
BELOW IS MOST RECENT AND TYPICAL SPEED TEST:
Download :: 26.9 Mbps 3.4 MB/s

Personally... I always manually select.  ...always have fast speed with tons of interference from other devices and networks near by.
 
All are taken in my office 75 ft from router.
 
Wired Cat-5e

 
Wireless 802.11 AC (channel 160)

(lol, exactly the same)
 
Wireless 802.11 N (channel 9)

 
This isn't always typical.  Sometimes AC performs better, other times to get the best performance I find myself manually selecting the 2.4GHz (b/g/n) band instead of 5 GHz (a/ac/n).  So AC isn't always best.  The 5 GHz band seems to be more finicky.  Right now though, in this test across my house through distance and walls... it's on par with Cat5e.
 
Repeat with the office door closed, which has windows on it. .....
 
802.11 N

 
802.11 AC

 
Some windows (especially double pane and solar insulated) will destroy wifi.  Not much of a difference in this case.
 
The results are predictably repeatable.  Meaning you can retest immediately and predict a speed within 5%+- of the previous... AC performs nearly 30% faster every time in this scenario.
 
You need to make sure that your connection isn't fluctuating itself before you try to tune your wifi.  If the connection itself is unstable it will be impossible to know when the wifi is slow or the connection itself is slow.  Test directly to the computer, wired, without the router if possible and make sure that you have predictable results first.  Then you can reach for those baselines in your wifi tuning.
 
If I had a slower connection, it too would perform better... and I would expect about the same percentage increase.
 
... and now }}CLICK{{ back to Cat5e.  Always wire it if you can.

This is my microwave oven about 18 feet away, and a couple bursts of neighbor's wlan. I switched the oven off towards the end of the spectrogram. Now -60 dBm would be a very usable signal in the absence of this interference. Lowest usable for around 10 mbit throughput is -80 dBm.



If there are microwaves around, we have not three but only two wi-fi channels on the either side of the microwave peak.

Outside of the unlicensed band, there is nothing. Those channels look very attractive for point to point links between buldings between devices supporting it. The lower frequencies also go through walls well. (Let's hope the FCC isn't reading this.)

It should be full duplex, sending and receiving at the same time. I have not seen such speeds in practice myself until today. I use free FileZilla Server for file sharing across the LAN. FZ was miles ahead of Windows file sharing before they added SMB2. It is very fast on any computer, and can connect obsolete Windows to modern easily.

There is one gigabit switch between the machines and the other machine has a Realtek NIC.

Simultaneous up/down.


Single transfer.


I'm always defending the old and proven. Not meaning to offend anybody, just sharing my experience.

http://gizmodo.com/5629814/giz-explains-why-everything-wireless-is-24ghz

Thanks,
EBrown

I just noticed my Woreless mouse uses 2.4 Ghz connection also.
That is insane, I have 2.4 Ghz Phone, Heard Microwaves can transmit 2.4 Ghz, my Mouse is 2.4 Ghz and one of the ways I can connect wirelessly is 2.4 Ghz not to mention both my SOny streaming media player and my Sony Blu-Ray DVD is 2.4 Ghz.
Dang seems 2.4 Ghz spectrum is quite crowded maybe this is some cause for slow internet at times.

You guys will love this:

I was farting around with my network just now, and I was testing my Gigabit throughput between my desktop and server, and I have some pretty good evidence of having achieved MORE than 1Gbps on the link. (Not in one direction - mind you.)

The actual throughput (send + receive) was stable between 550Mbps (each) to 750Mbps (each). Essentially, I achieved up to 1.5Gbps total throughput.

As is evident in the images, the speeds exceeded 1Gbps total. (And not just by a tiny bit - either.)

Thanks,
EBrown

That's because some guy was blowing 100 Mbps+ upload results recently (in relation to your query). Look on the stats page on the right under the graph. It's considering the last 50 of each type. You can change that. The results page is averaging more than the last 50, currently set at 250 (haven't changed that in years but it may in the future).

The results page is lagged a little from the actual stats pages (which are live). The results page can be switched to live mode and I'll definitely make that an option in the next versions (which will have an options control panel). A long while back I made a program that runs through every couple minutes and pre-runs all the numbers so when people load the results page it doesn't actually have to do the calculations every time for everyone. Made results load much faster... but to be honest on this server I can switch it to live mode and barely tell a difference. Where the difference matters is on scale. If it were the old way when the massive amount of reddit traffic hit I think the server would have overloaded under half the traffic it handled. Those calculations add up. But thinking about it, I can make it an option people could toggle. As long as the wide scale is on the more optimized version it's all good. I just looked at the code and it's just a simple variable to switch it to the old live version. ...why not let people access that? :-/

So to answer your question... it's both. Both are right, the question asked is what changed. --- but also realize because the results page stats run a couple minutes behind so even if you set the stats page to 250 results it won't match. You'd have to refresh the page at the exact time the compiler program comes around to run calculation on the corresponding database. Pretty much impossible timing. Less popular stats pages will match because less changes over the period of time.

Overseas
 
 

 

 
 
To germany mirror
 

 
 

 

 
 

I may not have a 1Gb connection, but I have a *dedicated 100Mb connection that I don't have to share with my neighbors and my ping is better. Almost spring!  /knock on wood
 
In other words, I'm kind of jelly. You getting that 10Gb service for $400/month?
 
*Not truly dedicated, but the ISP provisions bandwidth such that all customers can run at 100% at the same time without overloading the GPON port. My fiber is actually dedicated all the way back to the CO. They use a flat network design, 1 hop for me to get to Level 3.
 

 


 
Now I just need to figure out how to get testmy.net to play well with my system.