mudmanc4

Hope your day is great my man

Hell I'll play it if you dont lol

What are you using for modem/ router , your on a DSL link, many times the router is within the modem, I would get in there and hard reset the thing , making sure to save the info you need to get back online before hand. Something within the firewall/router is tossing packets.Unless you have one or several machines NAT'd and QOS enabled for your mac's IP ?

Hmph , not look so good . Considering you say you should be getting 15 Mbps down. Give a deeper scan of what may be wrong between you and elsewhere NDT

I see. Post a couple test scores , one auto test , and one large test , say 50 MB or higher , I wouldnt mind seeing what those results are.

Thats a much better ping time and probably much closer as it should be. I don't think there's any (legal) way to get into the ISP's network, the closest thing we can do is from the first device in our network , as you have within your router. When i said firewall , I run pfsense after the modem. What if you can describe without giving any sensitive info out , was your first tracrt done on , the terribly latent trace.

Drastic differences , something is misconfigured on your first test , here is mine on osx terminal traceroute to testmy.net (174.120.187.140), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 pfsense.localdomain (10.10.2.10) 2313.279 ms 0.724 ms 5.369 ms 2 cpe-98-28-120-1.columbus.res.rr.com (98.28.120.1) 6.872 ms 7.380 ms 5.956 ms 3 network-024-029-163-073.woh.rr.com (24.29.163.73) 16.326 ms 14.423 ms 14.855 ms 4 tge2-0-2.clboh1-rtr0.mwrtn.rr.com (65.25.137.117) 31.502 ms 27.449 ms 24.337 ms 5 ae-4-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.68) 34.041 ms 33.682 ms 34.673 ms 6 ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.155) 35.821 ms 34.504 ms 33.787 ms 7 66.109.11.18 (66.109.11.18) 35.678 ms 35.289 ms 40.824 ms 8 xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.30.146) 34.024 ms 34.271 ms 33.570 ms 9 xe-2-0-0.cr2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.25.138) 60.511 ms 79.905 ms 59.108 ms 10 xe-1-1-0.er2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.26.214) 59.136 ms 61.996 ms 60.439 ms 11 xe-1-0-0.er1.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.27.77) 65.366 ms 59.626 ms 61.155 ms 12 64.125.199.94.t366.above.net (64.125.199.94) 66.889 ms 59.601 ms 58.213 ms 13 te2-2.dsr01.dllstx3.networklayer.com (70.87.255.26) 187.311 ms 130.658 ms te3-5.dsr02.dllstx3.networklayer.com (70.87.253.90) 140.171 ms 14 * * * 15 a.ff.5746.static.theplanet.com (70.87.255.10) 60.182 ms e.ff.5746.static.theplanet.com (70.87.255.14) 62.125 ms a.ff.5746.static.theplanet.com (70.87.255.10) 59.974 ms 16 8c.bb.78ae.static.theplanet.com (174.120.187.140) 59.208 ms 60.134 ms 58.025 ms [/html] Yes there is a difference due to the routing config, fw rues and snort [b]And one from the firewall[/b] [font=monospace][size=3][size=2][font=terminal][size=2]<pre> [xml] 1 cpe-98-28-120-1.columbus.res.rr.com (98.28.120.1) 8.203 ms 6.675 ms 7.467 ms 2 network-024-029-163-073.woh.rr.com (24.29.163.73) 14.197 ms 17.368 ms 14.382 ms 3 tge2-0-2.clboh1-rtr0.mwrtn.rr.com (65.25.137.117) 26.689 ms 25.004 ms 24.359 ms 4 ae-4-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.68) 33.958 ms ae-9-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (107.14.19.16) 33.529 ms ae-4-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.68) 34.023 ms 5 ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.155) 33.137 ms 33.554 ms 35.498 ms 6 66.109.11.18 (66.109.11.18) 33.351 ms 35.054 ms 34.428 ms 7 xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.30.146) 51.885 ms 33.961 ms 35.685 ms 8 xe-2-0-0.cr2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.25.138) 74.770 ms 59.544 ms 61.690 ms 9 xe-1-1-0.er2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.26.214) 59.145 ms 59.601 ms 58.524 ms 10 xe-1-0-0.er1.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.27.77) 57.957 ms 56.640 ms 57.760 ms 11 64.125.199.94.t366.above.net (64.125.199.94) 59.868 ms 58.486 ms 57.676 ms 12 te2-2.dsr02.dllstx3.networklayer.com (70.87.255.30) 116.864 ms 65.654 ms 65.942 ms 13 * * * 14 e.ff.5746.static.theplanet.com (70.87.255.14) 62.550 ms 59.027 ms 58.948 ms 15 8c.bb.78ae.static.theplanet.com (174.120.187.140) 60.404 ms 60.206 ms 60.972 ms[/xml]</pre>[/size][/font][/size][/size][/font] [b] This from the network utility in osx[/b] [html] 1 pfsense.localdomain (10.10.2.10) 7.017 ms 3.532 ms 0.446 ms 2 cpe-98-28-120-1.columbus.res.rr.com (98.28.120.1) 8.421 ms 6.436 ms 6.955 ms 3 network-024-029-163-073.woh.rr.com (24.29.163.73) 16.656 ms 15.015 ms 15.207 ms 4 tge2-0-2.clboh1-rtr0.mwrtn.rr.com (65.25.137.117) 24.097 ms 24.440 ms 23.491 ms 5 ae-9-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (107.14.19.16) 34.854 ms ae-4-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.68) 34.124 ms ae-9-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (107.14.19.16) 33.134 ms 6 ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.155) 33.546 ms 34.145 ms 33.495 ms 7 66.109.11.18 (66.109.11.18) 34.679 ms 34.521 ms 34.451 ms 8 xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.30.146) 53.423 ms 33.898 ms 37.700 ms 9 xe-2-0-0.cr2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.25.138) 58.258 ms 76.048 ms 60.150 ms 10 xe-1-1-0.er2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.26.214) 58.740 ms 89.648 ms 65.441 ms 11 xe-1-0-0.er1.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.27.77) 93.983 ms 58.405 ms 66.569 ms 12 64.125.199.94.t366.above.net (64.125.199.94) 65.078 ms 58.575 ms 59.138 ms 13 te9-1.dsr01.dllstx3.networklayer.com (70.87.253.6) 59.488 ms 58.525 ms te9-1.dsr02.dllstx3.networklayer.com (70.87.253.22) 58.029 ms 14 * * * 15 a.ff.5746.static.theplanet.com (70.87.255.10) 59.998 ms 59.389 ms e.ff.5746.static.theplanet.com (70.87.255.14) 66.043 ms 16 8c.bb.78ae.static.theplanet.com (174.120.187.140) 62.487 ms 59.891 ms 58.993 ms But all in all consistent , how did you take the tests ?

Were glad you decided to join testmy.net , please take a moment and say Hi

My thoughts exactly. As I don't attach personal accomplishments with what speed I can use the net. And anytime imo we can see a greater detailed reporting gauge of bandwidth is better.

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.

Hi ajb627787 , I;m not sure if I fully understand the question , as it sounds as if you are trying to convert more then one video at a time, which I'm sure your aware that this is hardware intensive with only one conversion, or am I all wrong ?

Hey scooter , I noticed that the bandwidth you currently have is rather small , is this what you believe you should be getting ? As at these speeds , chances are that you won'y get very good VOIP to begin with. If we can determine what you are paying for , and if there are any issue that can be straightened out , we might be able to do something about it .

Pleeeze , dont stop, the phone warz are the shitz !!!! Love it

Sorry about that, sometimes it takes a little longer then they should for various reasons. If you have any other issues, please PM one of the staff . Welcome to testmy.net

I agree with everyone else, too add, depending on the specific server your connecting to, and the QOS / IP , you may or may not have set up within the config of the router.

Hey now, don't be hatin on the glasses and the pocket protector

You've got a point there.

Nice , just at the very moment in time I am gathering information about AT&T as a new ISP : /

Yup , trying to stop the ravages of time on our bodies is futile, the mind may be young but the body suffers. BTW, your outdoor space is phenomenal , Love it !!!!!

nice cajuntek !

Great feature , and it wasn't that long ago that we familiarized ourselves with that dial up sound. Well , maybe it was lol

Sounds like a good idea to me, i tell you why , many people don't get to see how they are ranked as a whole , sure they do as there ISp goes , but in the lower ranking speeds , it would be beneficial most definitively . Not only that , I think your on to something larger. As time goes , maybe you could implement something such as regions , states , countries ect , yes / Maybe ? Anyhow , my vote is yes

Yea I know , I had a neuron pulsating this morning , no worries , it went out like the light in the hall, back to sleep it is

Actually tdawn is correct , people tend to read / equate items as there written , not as the writer intended , as the human mind as a collective hasn't quite worked out that pesky little thing called mental telepathy . /jocularity You can complicate anything to make it harder for a script to solve , but then you lose 90% of the human population . Since the(simple brackets) were not in place in the original to define the variables, or the expression correct me if I'm wrong but notation is 100% of math explenation, one should assume the simplest answer is likely the most correct , for a simple equation. So the above is how it was written and would be solved by the majority. Hey , either way , good fun ! But not correct lol EDIT >>>>>>> I went to the wife with this , why , I dunno lol the short time i have this morning turned into wasting several sides of blank paper , one busted pencil tip , and one sided philosophical discussion for a simple explanation of the complexity of reasoning and turning on the scientific calculator....... huh ? yea anyhow , to show my point in notation , you could say 14 - (12 * 2) = -10 or (2 * 12) - 14 = 10 or even +14-12*2 blah blah either way , the above are nothing more then a3 + b3 = (a + b)(a2 – ab + b2) correct ? Wrong Notation matters. But the best way I think might be something like this one........ well that'll have to wait , I have to shower to be continued .................. maybe lol

I'm thinking ca3le is currently working on something just like that