Pgoodwin1

Interesting. Glad you found it. When I look in my test results, I can see exactly when the fix went in. I was a bit puzzled when the upload speed showed low but I didn't notice any performance hit. Because of that, I didn't push it with Time Warner. Their fix of the download speed wild variation due to the signal level made the performance right again.

Software bugs are tough. Before I retired I worked at GE Aircraft Engines in Evendale OH. I was an electronic engine control circuit designer. In the 1980s we transitioned from purely analog controls to digital controls. Each engine control had two independent channels of hardware running the same OS and AS. In those days there weren't very good software design and validation tools and standards. We were always terrified of the subtle software bugs that could lock up the Software and cause an engine shutdown. Commercial airlines always have a minimum of two engines and the ability to fly with one engine out. But both engines (4 control channels) run the same software. So there was always that small probability of a bug that would take out all of the engines at the same time. Miraculously (due to a lot of SW engineers checking code) it never happened. We had a couple of control channel shutdowns due to subtle software errors or hardwarevfailures over the years, but never a common mode one that took everything down. Back then the software was a lot simpler, and the engine controls had hydro mechanical backups. These days, there are no hydromechanical backups because they are very heavy, and the software is orders of magnitude more complex. But the design and validation process tools are also orders of magnitude more sophisticated.

But every time there is a new set of requirements that result in a software change, there's always the potential for something to slip by. Thankfully, a simple core of hardware and software safety nets that were developed that could be ported to new processors, memory, and control chips, and the wheel didn't have to be reinvented. Subtle software glitches are very tough to catch.

On Sun Aug 19 2012 @ 1:10:48 pm the world was right again.

Thanks so much. I'm both surprised and honored.

Yes, you are right, a true bug in one means that there's a bug in all. And as for it being a scary time to fly, amazingly, the reliability and safety of the aircraft is way better than in the old analog days. Mostly because the size and weight of those old systems wouldn't allow you to put redundancy everywhere you needed it. Now the probability of a catastrphic failure due to electronics or software failure is extremely low because with a redundant system, the probability is the product of the failure rates. So if one channel has a probability of catastrophic failure of 1.0 E-06 per flight hour, then the probability of having both channels go out is 1.0 E-12. These numbers are really small, but with thousands of aircraft flying all the time, they are racking up millions of hours a month, so the numbers have to be incredibly small or there'd be planes falling out of the sky regularly. The safety critical flight control systems on the planes are usually triple channel redundant. Engine systems are dual redundant because there are two engines. So as for is there too much redundancy, economics keeps it to a minimum, but as the number of aircraft flying increases, better safety numbers are always being sought.

As for the weight of that redundancy, it's all about gas mileage (making money). The aircraft design weight is set by competition amongs the plane manufacturers; each one wanting to earn more money with better mileage and lower ticket costs to steal sales away from the other guy. So in order to get the weight down with the added redundancy, smaller lighter electronics and new stronger lighter hardware in the control systems is required. It's usually more expensive. So redundancy usually only goes into the real safety critical systems. It's getting to be the same in cars.

Well enough rambling about the aircraft world. Thanks again for the promotion. I do test regularly using your tools, and check in the forums every week or two.

Well, I feel better knowing that there was an issue with your download speed as well... because this bug didn't effect the download test.

... dang, scary time to fly. I think I would have rather flown in an analog plane at that time. I guess having two redundant software systems only helps if one completely fails... not if there's a bug, because if there's a bug in one, there will be a bug in the other one too. Right?

Sometimes I wonder how much more a comercial airliner, for instance a 737, weighs due to it's redundancy... and how much extra fuel is spent each year for unnecessary redundant systems... systems only in place to make the consumer feel safer. You worked in that industry... do you feel that it's a little over redundant or do you think it's just right because of the nature of what's being dealt with. I mean... does everything really need a backup? Is it, to a point, being done to make consumers feel safer about airline travel?

In all fairness, you caught this bug before anyone else... I've promoted your account to sophist. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told Smith6612...



Cheers!
-D

I knew there was another topic on this I needed to reply to... I just lost track of where it was.

Actually, I hate to say it but there was in fact a bug that was discovered. Had had to do with the character set being misinterpreted. I should have caught it sooner.


https://testmy.net/ip...ad/#entry336113

It doesn't mean that you didn't have an issue... but it was definitely being exaggerated in the results because of the character set issue.

What actually helped to catch this bug was that the member who posted the topic above tested on old.testmy.net and compared the results. Which were out of line. That site is static and doesn't change... the main site however is constantly being developed and bugs are bound to happen during that process. This one was such a small thing but the impact was great. When you contacted me I wasn't expecting to see a bug because there no heavy development on the upload test since my last waiting period. I start and stop development on different sections and put them under a period of waiting so that any bugs can surface... in this way I can know, "okay... no bugs... keep building." or "I've got a bug, much be something to do with the last round I did on that script." -- I have a lot of code and I've found that's the way that works best for me... with the smallest impact on my users when there is a bug. ​I dismissed it as a problem with your connection because nobody else had said anything. The problem was that the character set wasn't being necessarily changed by the code... some kind of update to the apache server was fooling with it also. This was only effecting the upload test by the way. And I don't think it effected everyone... under some circumstances it may have been defaulting to the intended character set.

Apparently I had some reading to catch up on about some new standards that were coming down the pipe regarding character sets... programming is constantly evolving and adjustments need to be made, this is why I can never stop building. Other websites out there wouldn't have big a problem with this issue, they might have a few characters on the page show up incorrectly but not really a big deal. Only hackers and geeks use 8bit characters when they type. But because of the nature of what TMN is doing to your browser during the test something like that had a big impact in this situation. The cumulative difference of all the characters of the test information being misinterpreted by your browser obviously impacted results. This is now being basically hardwired into the configuration via .htaccess so it can never happen again... unless I accidentally delete that file, but trust me... if that happened the whole site would be messed up and it would be a very obvious problem.

I'm really sorry if the results confused you or caused you any trouble. I make mistakes sometimes but I always learn from them.

I was getting intermittent web page loads. What bothers me is that when you test the connection with their SpeedTest.ohio.rr test, you can watch the analog meter wander around between 0.4 and 1 Mbps upload during the speed test, and even when the need stabilizes at about 0.5 Mbps for the last 1/2 of the test or so, the digital readout at the end indicates 0.97 Mbps. There should be a class action lawsuit against them for that BS.

The TMN upload test was presenting a reasonable result showing about 0.4 and at time much worse than that. I tried 3 other speed test sites, and the only one that displayed the Upload speed being low was SpeedTest.org (showed about 0.5 Mbps). All the rest of them showed some distorted result that made the system appear good at 1Mbps.

Thanks TMN for having a good test system.

You can close this thread. Or if I can, how do I close it?

Glad you figured it out... nothing changed on this end.

... at least you know that my tests do what they're intended to do.

Oops missed the thread , sorry about that.

You can record your mouse movements keystrokes and mouse clicks ect. So play around a little bit, the system will mimic whatever you tell it to do, including resetting your modem on a schedule.

your modem and router need to be on the same subnet or....your router needs to have a bridged subnet of the modem (much more difficult) at which point you can access the modems configuration page and click the reset button to soft reset the modem

you can probably find the modem config at http://192.168.100.1

If you have a DOCSIS 2.0 modem ( and i should remember because you have said it here before ), then chances are just a modem swap should do it. If you upgrade.

On another note, you could work it a little , and grab there highest package for a month to test it out, and if your not satisfied , then just call them up and switch back. In that case however , you would have at your disposal , a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Which would clear up any issues you might have with the modem. If any.

You can actually grab cisco network assistant from there site if you must, it's a java controlled application that can be used to admin the device though any browser of today and be golden with very little previous knowledge. If you want to get into administering the thing properly then yea, you'll need a "cisco cable " , or console cable , which is really just a RJ45 on a RS232 ( serial ) , along with the RJ45 to a shell , or putty through tFTP. Iv'e even used the above in concert with a RS232 to USB in a few cases.
Basic clearing instructions with none of the above will set the switch to " dummy mode " , or make it simply a non managed switch for use outside of any router which supports DHCP.

Just amuse me and I'll go away with it all

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16833124091

cisco makes great stuff

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16833704123

i have a few tp link products they are just so-so

edit: another thought. you could always get one of the wireless routers that are Gbit and just disable the wireless

Mudman-I'll try that to see if it's periodic.

a faster router in general might help a little, routers have ram, and cpus so a more up to date router with a faster CPU and more ram will be able to handle more simultanious connections at a single time easier you may not notice a speed increase but if you have any sort of network slowdown when lots of requests from multiple computers go out or come in then you will surely see improvement there. also if you do go with a Gbit router/switch you will a significant increase in local file transfer speeds although that won't really show in your real world connection because as you said its limited by the modem

~ Mark

The slowdown around 1500 hrs is across the board , all the kids get home from school and start twitting each other , torrenting and spilling cheetos and root beer on the keyboard from laughing at some dink on youtube puking when he breaks his arm trying to skate over a roof top

RyanS. I too had the same compromised experience with my iPhone. It was great, but at the same time frustrating. the iPad is the perfect solution. No more pinching and stretching and hitting links. It's size, weight,, everything about it is pretty much perfect. I've never tried an Android tablet so I can't talk to it's strengths and weaknesses. I literally use it all the time. My phone is a phone again with email and a camera which it's great at.

I don't blame Apple for not dealing with flash , it's all but dead , almost anything you can do with flash , can be done with html5 . Why intentionally cause all that computing power to be wasted and promote something of the past.

Just bumping the topic to let you know were listening , I'm certain ca3le will reply soon

Why not get this going again? LOL the endless discussion.


Choose the PC if you have a significant PC software investment or you want it to be your gaming platform. Or you use software that is critical to your needs and is PC-only. Or if you are on a really tight budget and don't need much in terms of hardware and software. Apple doesn't even attempt to compete in the low budget low profit high volume computer market.

Choose a Mac otherwise. When you look at the life-cycle cost of a Mac, it's not all that different than a PC when you consider all of the hardware and software costs of both. The Mac OS is Unix based and is rock stable. I haven't had a virus on a Mac since 1991, and haven't purchased or installed any virus protection software since 1993 or so. Hardware quality is very high. I've had closed to 20 Macs between our personal ones since 1988 and the only failure I've ever had was a hard drive in the 1988 model after 5 years.

Also consider the cost of obsolescence. Regardless of which platform you buy, if you pay a little more up front for the better hardware, the machine will still be performing well for a longer time in terms of processing power, and graphics. My last 2002 Flat Panel iMac was still performing well after 7 years. By 2010, the more complex web page load times and the inability to run HQ video real time finally forced me to buy a new one - mostly because the grand kids complained about the websites they used that were "too slow grandpa". The 2003 G4 tower we have is still doing pretty well performance wise. So buying one machine rather than two over a period of 6 yrs or more is a significant savings. Mac HD and memory costs are the same as a PC-they use the same hardware, so upgrade costs are a wash.

I prefer the Mac because of it's quality, ease of use, virus-free operation, their great displays, and Apple's overall tightly integrated hardware-software environment. Both hardware platforms are remarkable machines.

Thanks for all the welcomes.

Welcome to testmy.net Pgoodwin1!