Pgoodwin1

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

Do some more testing here. Your last TMN results I see we’re in April. Compare it to the results above.

Reading the speed between their server and your computer is not really testing the internet speed. 
 
Doesn't matter how you connect.  You're not testing the Internet if you don't actually go out to the Internet.  Testing against your ISP's servers isn't going out to the Internet.  That's why TestMy.net is here.
 
Your ISP has control over the quality of peering and bandwidth in and out of their network.  
 
If your ISP is in the UK, then it should be a very quick hop over to my UK servers.  As long as your ISP is delivering that won't affect the final result.  There would be little to no difference if all the connections between are running with capacity available.  Any good ISP in that scenario would have at least multiple 10 GbE peers, meaning that the route between the ISP and TestMy.net should never be the weakest link... unless it's over capacity.
 
It's a red flag if an ISP tells you that only testing against their server's is accurate.  And like I said, it doesn't make sense in the first place.  Your ISP's servers are not the Internet, that's your host's network... before the Internet.  It's a part of the Internet but if that's your host, their network is your network.  A step above your local area network but we're not really out to the wider Internet.
 
TestMy.net is actually testing your connection out to the Internet.

ahhh, "My Average" is taking the last 25 results into consideration.  That's a direct copy of how it's currently done.
 
This also filters your results by identifier and host.  So when you're on Spectrum you'll get an average of only those results, when you're on Verizon you'll get an average of your Verizon results.  Same is true if you visit on a desktop, android or iOS.  You'll only compare similar results.
 
But that's only for "My Average" -- the ISP and location are taking into account all results and come from a continuous 15 minute average that runs for all databases.  Those numbers constantly fluctuate with the current average user's performance.

Yes and no... for right now.
 
For download it's enabled by default for upload it only works with multithread... until I push my next update. 
 
You may have already read this topic on it.  I got it fully working just last night.
 
 
As soon as the linear upload test is available in the beta, it will be the default option.  When you toggle the multithread option it will affect both upload and download tests.

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.

Much appreciated

When the auto speed test was first designed in 2010/2011, phones were still figuring things out.
 
Always, my goal with design is to make ONE thing that works with all browsers and devices.  So I've always avoided apps.  TestMy.net has never had an Android of iPhone app.
 
Now it's 2024, phones are a different breed.  They are full fledged gaming PCs that make the desktop computers from 2010 look like a joke.  In 2010 average RAM was 3-4GB.  Now, our phones are coming out with 8-12GB!
 
The philosophy remains, ONE thing for them all.
 
For the auto test to work on any machine, not just Android, make sure the power remains on and the test in focus.  On my S22 I normally have my display set to never turn off.  I'm now noticing that they must have recently updated... now you can't set anything higher than 10 minutes.
 
That's alright, there's an app for that.
 
Screen Alive on Android does the trick.  It's free with an option to donate to the developer.
 
Surprisingly, this isn't an issue on iOS.  I would have thought if anyone did this it would be Apple.  Android usually does things first but not things like this.  On iOS just go do Display & Brightness > Auto Lock > Never.
 
Once your phone's display doesn't sleep anymore you can plug it into power and start up the auto test.  Keep the browser in focus and it will do its thing.
 
Please let me know if this helps

According to hosts who've contacted me, there's an option for them to "adjust the drop off".  So they can cut off the top and bottom portions and shape the result to suit the narrative they want to paint.  I know this because they were asking me if I had those options!  Not just one or two by the way.  And they've stated that these options only exist on the higher level licenses.  So basically, if you pay them enough.  Exactly what you eluded to.
 
More reason why an unbiased third party opinion from TestMy.net is necessary.  All connections are tested under the same internal variables.  Any variable that can be controlled is controlled by YOU, the client... not your ISP.

There’s an Export button under the plots on the Results page

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.

Your TestMy.net results are very good too

My beta gives anyone the ability to run TMN on any computer they'd like.  Run it locally on a Docker images I've prepared for you or install it on any web sever, with or without SSL.  It only takes 2 files, a total of 1800 bytes of code on your end.  What speed will you see between two wired 1 GbE?   Exactly what you'd expect to see, watch for yourself.
 
tmn-on-my-server.mp4
The Mac and Windows machines are fairly distant, non-direct routes.  The connection traverses 2 switches, then the router, then another switch also adding in about 100 ft of cable before it arrives.  Not lab conditions, I wanted all of those real world variables. 
 
If you inspect I think you'll agree, TMN's results are pretty exact. 
 
tl&dr

 
So average 916 Mbps | 904 Mbps.  Adding 6% network overhead you get to 971 Mbps | 958 Mbps.  Which is right in line with what we see coming across the interface in reality.  
 
I did the same LAN testing when developing the current version (v18) you're using now, always do.  But now I'm giving the ability to do it yourself, super quick.  ... I've also done that before but not like this.  This is very different.  Cut and paste a few commands into Terminal or PowerShell and you're running local tests on all your devices in a few seconds.  You can also audit all of the code and understand the entire container in just a few seconds.
 
Pretty excited to share that with you all.  Curious how people will use it.

Looks like they're in Pakistan.
 
blackcobracatcher's Speed Test Results
 
If your only seeing 2-8 Mbps here at TestMy.net then chances are you don't really have 500 Mbps.  You may see great speed nearby but the internet tends to be everywhere. 🤔
 
Imagine this, I'm in Pakistan and I setup a 10 Gbps network in my neighborhood and get all of my 200+ neighbors to sign up.  They're all super excited because after I get them connected I show them they're getting 10 Gbps using my speed test (testing against servers hosted over at my house... shhh, don't tell them that).  Imagine I have 4 connections out, a few 10 Gbps connections that connect me to other local/regional ISPs but I only have 1x10 Gbps that peers well internationally.  Depending on the routing, time of day and what the other neighbors are doing a customer might get 10 Gbps but may also hit the bottleneck of those connections out of the network.
 
This is the same thing ISPs do all over the world.  They oversell network capacity. 
 
You're always going to lose speed at distance but higher quality hosts/connections will take better, more direct routes and have higher capacity.  You definitely shouldn't drop to 2% of the connection speed.  And if that's what TestMy.net is showing you, that's what you're really getting.  At least to and from the location you have selected (Florida).
 
Here's my connection speed nearby, I'm in Colorado Springs - testing Colorado Springs
TestMy.net Test ID : 2h874_xfA.hbMDDdqXt
 
And here's to my hardest to reach locale, India.
TestMy.net Test ID : L5axksd8f.xOMgtA8Sl
 
So I'm running at 28% Download and 47% Upload
 
I usually get my worst connection speeds to India.  Testing against UK, still international and about 5000 miles I get better results. 
TestMy.net Test ID : ZwxVufpxD.lJx2Jf4FV
 
50% Download and 69% Upload.
 
And I usually see better results than that.
?t=u&l=50&z=65&q=CA3LE's Speed Test Results
 
This is my consumer home connection, using commercial connections gives much better results at distance.
 
You're hitting a bottleneck somewhere.
 
Other speed tests may paint a different picture.  You should probably stop using them.  Those other tests are often made by entities who have an interest in showing you a better result.  I don't.  I really don't care how you score.  I only care to show you the truth in the best way I know.  When you test at TestMy.net the servers are hosted under the most popular VPS hosts, currently Vultr is carrying the majority of my bandwidth (unbiased hosting).  Where other speed tests are reported to remove certain portions of the result and highlight others; which often makes things appear faster, TestMy.net always calculates your result simply and transparently using size/time = speed.
 
Let me put it this way, I wish everyone could see and understand the code behind TestMy.net.  If you did you'd know that it's actually impossible for it to show you 8 Mbps unless you actually have 8 Mbps.  The test wants to run full throttle, unless it's being restricted in some way.  So it HAS to be restricted to get the results you're seeing.  My guess is a bottleneck coming out of your ISP and Pakistan but it could be a number of issues that other tests for some reason never seem to notice.  But if it's slowing down TestMy.net, you're being slowed down.  Other speed tests obviously have different goals than TestMy.net.
 
As @xs1 said, try selecting different mirrors.  You may get better results on a server closer to you but you still shouldn't be getting such a poor result to Florida.  Run some tests against IN, UK and DE to see what your results look like.  Let me know when you're done and I'll post your results here in the forum for you.

The upload test results don’t normally show a plot like download after a combined upload/download test. The two tests are different type tests.
 
if you want to see plots containing download test points, go to the My Results page. The upload and download both plot on that page because it’s showing results from multiple tests over the date range selected - assuming you have test data for both for the date range you select

Currently the multithread option only works on download tests.
 
The new beta multithreads upload, https://testmy.net/ipb/topic/34612-beta-testers-welcome/.  Hasn't been released yet but I'm getting it ready.
 
I suspect you may get faster speed in the multithread upload test.  Other speed tests multithread by default.
 
So you may be able to get > 300 Mbps upload but that's when combining multiple uploads together.  You'll probably only be able to upload a single file at the speed TMN is showing you. 
 
It's all in how you look at it, I'd personally call that 52 Mbps not 300 Mbps.  My new test will help you see the difference.  Most people just want to see the big number but depending on the circumstance the same device can have a faster result either way.  I see the linear test blow away multithread on my 4G connections sometimes, other times it's the other way around or it's even.  Sometimes the extra connections help and sometimes they can hurt.  So I think it's always best to test both ways.
 
52 or 300 Mbps, actually both awesome results in that test in my opinion.  You'll definitely score much higher with the new test.  Vote on that topic and I'll send you an invite when it's ready.
 
I believe your ISP should deliver 300 Mbps in a single upload.  If you're showing 52 Mbps then it's safer to say that you have 52 Mbps.  You can stream up to that level, not 300 Mbps.   If you see this across all computers on your network it may be a limitation of your ISP.  Can also point to local network issues, we've even seen modem swaps fix issues like this.  People will get like 10 Mbps upload on TMN but normal speed on all other tests.... they swap out the cable modem and TMN reports normal speed again, back in line with the other tests.
 
Cases like those prove that other speed tests are a waste of your time.  They've proven over and over that you really can't trust them to help you.
 
My goal is to help you.
 

Hello,
 
Today, I performed a multi-thread speed test on Speedtest and received a notification. I have a 10,000 Mbps download and upload connection, and I am curious if there is a way to verify this speed. One thing I would greatly appreciate is the possibility to increase the manual test size for a more accurate assessment.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the creators and contributors of this website, as it has been incredibly helpful for me. The dedication and expertise of everyone involved have made it an excellent resource for users like myself who need to test their internet speeds.
In conclusion, I would like to extend my warmest thanks and greetings from the capital of Switzerland.
 
 

I would be willing to contest your statement sir  My avg. Down is 4.6 Mbps and my Up is a dismal 467Kbps.
 
Oh BTW I am in N.W. GA. Right smack in the middle of nothing. Some call it the Butt-crack of the Bible-belt. Anyone else from GA here?

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

Welcome!
 
Yes, all of my tools are designed to work in any modern web browser. 
 
Just open testmy.net in your phone's browser and test away.

@japlah I'm sorry I didn't see this when you posted it. I may have been programming.
 
@charles leclair thank you for finding this topic.
 
I think a random interval is a great idea for an automatic speed test option. I'll get that implemented and hit you back on this topic. I'll try to get to it sometime today or tomorrow. I'm going to think about it a little bit first.
 
- D

Sent by TestMy.net member m1g
 
m1g's Speed Test Results
 
 
200 MB is a lot of data. It's taking you over 20 seconds to run those tests.
 
If your tests are completing in a couple of seconds, then an increase in size may help.
 
When running the tests using default options (e.g. go to https://testmy.net/download and select "Test My Download Speed") it's possible to exceed 200 MB of data in a test. As it runs through to determine the proper size, it's ramping your connection up for the final test... of 200 MB if needed. 
 
When I ran mine just now it starts at 96 kB, then 3.1 MB, then 75.5 MB and finally 200 MB. So in reality that was a 279 MB test. A faster connection might end up running over 300 MB. But it's logged as 200 MB because that was the final test size.
 
It does help to get the connection going before the test. But with your current speed you will probably end up with a smaller test size because the program knows how much it needs to see to make a determination.
 
The amount of time the test runs is more important than the amount of data. TestMy.net will serve you more data if it feels like it needs more time. But it's not going to use time or bandwidth that isn't necessary, unless you tell it to.
 
Your distance from Venezuela to Florida (3000 km) may play a role, depending on the connections between your ISP and the US.
 
Here's my result nearby
TestMy.net Test ID : CjBU5ycOa
 
And here's my connection testing against Singapore (over 14,000 km)
TestMy.net Test ID : u3QVZnr-z
 
A similar distance for me is actually testing on the same server in Florida. (3000 km) -- you and I have very similar ping to that server ~50ms.
 
TestMy.net Test ID : 0ypc_y5nf
 
My speed to Florida was actually a little faster it just wasn't as clean so it ended up slower. That was testing with only 85 MB but again remember there were tests preceding that one.
 
When I select 200 MB I get a lower result because it takes time to ramp up the connection. Time that's calculated in the final result. Where before that was done before the final test loads.
TestMy.net Test ID : OnAU3G9PT
 
I still hit 333 Mbps but all things considered it was slower.
 
And if I enable multithread to Florida and run the same SmarTest (we haven't called it that in a long time but that's its name) I get a much higher result. And the way it ran through the test sizes my connection used over 300 MB of data to produce the 200 MB final test.
 
TestMy.net Test ID : Qj0D50paR
In other words, I think the 200 MB max is sufficient for your connection and most out there. The program can scale the test sizes to any size it's just being restricted. In the future I plan to open that up.
 
 
Thank you, I'm happy you found us here. Unfortunately most don't. Please spread the word.

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.   

I have a new program I'd like to start beta testing very soon.
 
I've been running it myself nonstop for well over a year now. It's reliably been keeping track of my home connection's uptime / downtime. It's also helped me make TMN's services more reliable and redundant in the process because the server-side needs to be highly available for the program to make sense. Can't be sending false alarms because of server-side hiccups.
 
I really just want to open it up to people in its current state, there are minor bugs I need to address but none of them have to do with the functionality, usefulness or stability of the program. More aesthetics. I feel like it's a new concept so it will need to find it's design along the way as I get feedback. The core functionality is pretty sweet already. I'm just unsure if people will get what it's all about at first glance.
 
In your case, it does exactly what you're looking for. It passively monitors your connection every second then notifies you when your connection goes down and when it's back online. It has an interesting, unique and reliable method of operation. Designed specifically to be able to run indefinitely on unstable connections and always recover itself back into a ready state, using minimal resources.
 
Give me a few days to button this new program up, I'll send you a message and update this thread.