mudmanc4

I looked through my old download installers I have saved.
I have the 4.08 installer that shows 2007 as the date I downloaded it.
 
I don't have CableNut installed on my computers any more.
 
I bet it is still on my mothballed IBM with Windows 98 SE on it.
It's probably been 3 or 4 years since I booted it.
It booted fine but surfed very poorly.
No web site likes even the latest version of a browser that Windows 98SE will run,
Which is some old FireFox portable.
 
I keep it so if I want to run some old program if I need to.
 

Hi
 
I only recently found testmy.net, and I'm actually blown away that this site isn't a subscription service or running ads. Can everybody stop for a minute and appreciate this? My account is only a couple hours old so I've only really just begun to use the app, but it is very clear to me the amazing value you are providing. I'm a software/web developer by trade and have enough familiarity (far from an expert but not a babe in the woods) with whats going on under the hood here to be impressed and grateful for a diagnostic tool of this scope.
 
I have some questions though. I hope you don't mind.
 
1) I was reading through the FAQs about speed test inflation from other services to benefit the ISP providers. I noticed the posts are dated 2012 so I'm curious about the current state of these matters. For instance, flash is dead. Surely, people can't still be using flash for speed tests can they? This is a big broad question, but what is the current landscape for speed tests and do you still see the type of collusion between tests and ISPs describe in the FAQ?
 
2) In tandem with the above: Since the time of those posts, have any other speed test tools come around that are reliable, in-depth, and don't inflate stats?
 
3) How is this site funded? With so many servers offered, an active user base eating up bandwidth with tests, server space for the database and software code, and the investment in maintaining this app costs are bound to stack up.
 
4) This question is a bit tangential to the above and outside of the expertise displayed by the tools here, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. Is it theoretically possible to create a testing tool for LTE equipment (4g/5g reliant devices) that diagnoses a device's connection to cell towers in an analogous manner to testmy.net's diagnosis of internet connectivity issues? I have been working with SIM card accepting routers, CAT 12 modems, Goldenob firmware, and parabolic antennas to connect to cell towers recently and I would kill the pope's brother for a comparable tool. Diagnosing connectivity between the hardware and the cell towers can be a face-shreddingly grueling process, sometimes lasting months. Even in the best cases its decently involved.
 
 
Judging by the forums, people aren't always happy you're telling them their connection is slower than they thought. So, thanks again for doing this sometimes thankless work.
 

Hello all,
 
My name is Davis and I'm just new here I'm from NY and I'm 28 years old.I hope I'm pretty much welcome though.

Yea, it is isn't it

Who remembers when this was made?

@29930130
 

 

The automatic speed test communicates with the server you have selected outside of its normal test sequence... it's testing your latency in the background.
 
When you're using this test, you shouldn't be surprised when my servers talk to you... it's how the test works.
 
If you think I'm doing anything malicious... don't use my program.  You always have control over turning it on and off.
 
Fact is, all my code does is try to help you improve your connection.  Dig apart the client-side code as much as you want... as with any good program it only does things you ask it to do.
 
I've been doing this for over 20 years, I respect my users and value their visiting and sharing my resources.  I wouldn't do anything to jeopardize my users or the trust and reputation I've built.  I wouldn't anyway, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
 
.... it may not have done that for you in the past because you weren't a member.  You have to be signed in for that feature.  If you think your wireshark is going nuts now you should see what I'm building.

I couldn't agree more. Everything was booming than though. Even the different ISP forums were pretty good. The "show your desktops" threads were good. "post your pic" was good. "where you from".  we had ALOt of good topics. I miss the days of activity lol.

Hi  xs1,
On looking at your earlier post You weren't that insulting.
Called Kiwegapawa  a novelist although I believe it implies fiction.
Then questioned whether an ISP would bother to do this to one person.
Probably the tin foil hat picture is what got the response.
 
I was also a moderator here at one time.
Remember the old site all gray with an alien or monster as the logo.
This site did really get busy a while after that.
 
The movie quote topic &  name the song  were so busy it was like playing a game.
 
Too bad it has slowed down so much.

Bad news @mudmanc4...teams take 10M PPD to turn Red. ☹️
 
 

 
 

Both of my Supermicro's are up.
 
40 CPU Cores here, and 1 1080TI running.
 

@php Like @mudmanc4 said, I had to add 'client-type' 'advanced' to the expert options. This allows you to get the beta WU's. Estimated production for just my desktop is ~1.3 million PPD, just kicked everything off last night so I'm curious how it'll look over the weekend.
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

@phpI've been getting WU's steady now by using the 'client-type = beta' flag

php here, guest posting until I can figure out how to get back into my account ?
There have been so many people folding that it's really hard to get work units. I suppose that's a good problem? If you leave it running, you'll get something occasionally.

So, yeah. There have been so many people folding that it's really hard to get work units. I suppose that's a good problem? If you leave it running, you'll get something occasionally. The retry algorithm backs off exponentially, so it can take a while. This is a pretty common sight: 
 

Do some test my ping testing to the various test my test servers and post back with those results.
 
I do not know how stable you can expect your results to be using Ethernet in your house at this high ISP plan speeds.  If you’re not connected directly to the modem gateway then wiring length and quality may be coming into play. Outside your house, I don’t know how stable their system is either at those high speeds. My plan is a Charter (Time Warner) 200 Mbps plan and it varies about +/- 10 % typically Round 210 Mbps. That’s via wireless. The one computer I have that’s connected via Ethernet typically maxes out around 150 Mbps though. Not sure if that’s because my house cabling is CAT5E instead of CAT6.

Packet size effects throughput as well, due to the number of packets required. As well as payload size. Is n truly equatable outside of a proofing environment?

To convert 200 MB to kilobytes and then bytes you times by 1024, not 1000.  Bits scale is normal metric.
 
So 200 * 1024 * 1024 = 209,715,200
 
times 8 to convert to bits = 1677721600
 
divided by 1000 3X to arrive back at Gigabits = 1.68 Gbps
 
So if you have 1.68 Gbps, you can transfer 200 MB in 1 second.
 
But yes, there is overhead.
 
To calculate overhead in windows you can do this.
 
make sure network activity is quiet during this test from the command prompt type    netstat -e take note of the current the number of "Bytes Received" and "Bytes Sent" type the following using the IP of one of TestMy.net's servers ttcp -t -h0 -D -l1 -n10 -p9 xxx.xx.xx.xx -- this will send 10 bytes to the target. example to get the IP, type ping dallas.testmy.net -- the IP for that server right now is 45.32.203.96 so the command would be ttcp -t -h0 -D -l1 -n10 -p9 45.32.203.96 netstat -e again and subtract "Bytes Received" and "Bytes Sent" from the previous numbers then add them together to get the total bytes transferred, also subtract the 10 bytes you sent... the remaining number is your overhead.  
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/calculating-overhead-with-netstat-2
 
Been a while since I've tried this, just tried in Windows 10 and it says ttcp command not found... guess I need to read up on that again.
 
But really, as a consumer... I feel you really don't need to be concerned about network overhead.  
 
Here's an article from 2013 on network overhead but it's still relevant today https://packetpushers.net/tcp-over-ip-bandwidth-overhead/
 
Reality is that overhead really depends on the size of the transfer.  It's probably in the neighborhood of 3-7%... more likely on the lower end.  Meaning that 1.73 - 1.8 Gbps would be needed instead of 1.68 Gbps in the scenario above.  So you might lose 50 to 120 Mbps in overhead on such a fast connection but I feel that's pretty minimal in the grand scheme.  If you're pushing nearly 2 Gbps... do you really care about losing 0.05 to 0.12 Gbps of it?  ... I think I could manage.   

Reserved or special use ;
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3330
 

He's on or was on a class E network, either ISP doing something or someone toying.

Looks like a lot of people are sharing your pain, I did find this download to what several have said works.


I also read that windows update will fins an "old" driver, and it works. Fat chance , but worth a try.  If that linked download works not, then maybe go into device manager and uninstall / reboot ~ try it that way.

@OCR Montana is awesome!
Glad to hear Montana is not being sold to Canada

@Aalnius , We can find results by checking the header, where auto RT is performed to the users default server:
 

 
And as well on the test server selection page, just give it a minute to test on it's own and report back:
 
 

 

I'm with you on this. And I should have thought to come up with it, never crossed my mind.
Back some years ago, I did a lot of jobs in the middle of no where. New construction, no bath, no porta, nothing. So I'd dig a small hole somewhere inconspicuous and have at it. never went so smooth and easy. And never put one thought to it as to why.