Single/Multithreaded hybrid test

[On_fire]

I was just thinking that it would be really cool if the default tests tested both single-threaded and multi-threaded results. I feel like that would make it easy to show in the results when shaping is limiting the speed of individual connections. I know you can already run the tests separately, but a lot of less technical people don't realize that the multi-threaded test is even there, let alone what the test results being different actually means. Also, I feel like this would be helping to explain why a lot of other tests aren't accurate.

 

Just my thoughts. 

[mudmanc4]

Sometimes adding data creates complexity if not for the very reason you explained. Something to be said about keeping it simple, and allowing the user to investigate. Yes? 

 

Although I cannot entirely disagree with you, chances of questions regarding the multi test feature would likely skyrocket out of misunderstanding. Not to mention the multi test is in my opinion a much more representative reflection of the realities involved in general browsing, which many times gets the butt-hurt going quick like. 

[nanobot]

Personally, I think the multi-stream test is very representative of server speeds as well. Typically, if a server has high traffic, the likelihood of all the traffic coming from one location is minimal. This also helps create a more real estimate of the performance of a server. Can it really handle multiple streams at once?

About the only thing I can think of that would make it better is if it would test each stream separately (obviously an option) and then report the speeds of each stream.

Thanks,

EBrown

[On_fire]

While I absolutely agree that more data can make things harder to understand, it's all about how the data is presented. From what I have seen, there already seem to be a lot of people asking why the results are so different from other speed tests that default to multiple connections. And if there are a lot of people asking, there are a lot more who won't bother. I think if both tests are run, and the results are displayed with a simple explanation of what they mean, that will help people understand why their results are so different.

It could be as simple as:

Single connection:

These are the results of doing one thing at a time, such as downloading a file. Ideally they should be fairly close to what you see from multiple connections.

[Graph and results]

Multiple connections:

These are the results of doing many things at the same time, such as loading all of the parts of a web page. If there is a large difference between both results, your connection may not be optimal. Click here for more information.

[Graph and results]

Easy to understand, if slightly simplistic, it gives a much better picture of the health of a connection then just one or the other testing methodology. And since they are run at very close to the same time, they are more accurate then trying to run both tests separately.

Also, Joe Blow that comes here just wanting to see if his ISP is providing what they say they are, isn't going to bother learning the difference between the tests. He is going to go to one of the first links in a search result, and run the first test he finds and if his provider is limiting speeds per connection, he is going to be very confused.

[CA3LE]

I was just thinking that it would be really cool if the default tests tested both single-threaded and multi-threaded results. I feel like that would make it easy to show in the results when shaping is limiting the speed of individual connections. I know you can already run the tests separately, but a lot of less technical people don't realize that the multi-threaded test is even there, let alone what the test results being different actually means. Also, I feel like this would be helping to explain why a lot of other tests aren't accurate.

 

Just my thoughts. 

 

I love the idea, in fact I'm working on it.

 

The reason it wasn't implemented like that in the first place is because the multithread test came many years after the classic test.  It needed it to prove itself and we needed to better understand how it worked before it could be pushed out front.  I wrote every line of it but that doesn't mean I fully understand it.  Obviously I understand what's behind it but it's taken time to understand it's interactions and how it arrives to reflect the users performance.  Very hard to explain.  It's not just about bandwidth.

 

I'm very confident in the multithread test.  I was confident in its ability when it was released too... but now it's proven itself over time.  The data it presents is far more valuable when combined with the linear test (need to put a name up to a vote... linear, classic, single thread... then stick to one name) results.  The information is so valuable, they need to be combined (obviously the user will have a choice).  In my experience a computer and Internet connection combination that can run similar high values in both tests is always going to run better than one that produces a skewed results.  That's valuable information to know and hardly anyone even knows about the multithread test right now (or this whole site for that matter).  And I bet many who do are confused by it.  Sorry to anyone who's confused, kinda making this stuff up over here.    I don't know the right or wrong way to lay it out because I don't have anything to go off of.  I work on functionality first, presentation last.  

 

Thank you so much for the suggestion.  This thread helps a lot.  You're absolutely right, the information must be presented correctly.  There's already too much information for most people... which is why I intend on releasing another version of TMN.  Same core, ultra basic output.  Not for you, you're an obvious 2%'er... it'll be for the other 98% of the population that look at this site and don't get it. 

 

Keep up the great thoughts and suggestions.  Very much appreciated.

 

Very nice...