Sean Posted September 30, 2015 CID Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) I noticed recently while running speed tests, the upload test tends to complete right after the initial 96KB test without going on to test larger blocks. The results below show an example where it did this four times in a row (the '96MB' should be '96KB'), run on Firefox with Windows 10. In the four highlighted results below, the upload test completed within a fraction of a second and displayed the result based on the 96KB block size: In the '2.1MB' test above, I did the Express test, so this gives an idea of what the uplink should be at the place I'm visiting in California, whereas the 96KB tests (shown as 96MB) are out due to the tests completing nearly instantly after I start the test. Edited September 30, 2015 by editorsean CA3LE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted September 30, 2015 CID Share Posted September 30, 2015 Both issues have been resolved. Can you test to confirm that you're forwarding correctly please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted September 30, 2015 Author CID Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately, it's still intermittently completing after the 96KB test, even after clearing my Firefox cache. However, one difference this time is that it no longer records the test result when it does not go on to larger block sizes. For example, I ran a download & upload test. The download test continued on to larger blocks and completed with a 48.14Mbps result. The upload test completed right after the 96KB test with the following result: In the results page, it just recorded the 48.14Mbps Download result: When the upload does proceed to larger block sizes, the result does get recorded after it completes, such as the 3.19Mbps and 2.26Mbps results above. The two ConnectIDs here are basically the Wi-Fi in the place I'm staying and the public free Wi-Fi in the area that I pick up here also. Edited September 30, 2015 by editorsean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted October 1, 2015 CID Share Posted October 1, 2015 Try now, should be resolved. https://testmy.net/ul-96 Hopefully I got it this time... thank you for being so great at illustrating what you're seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted October 1, 2015 Author CID Share Posted October 1, 2015 As far as I can tell, this is now fixed. I tried a handful of upload tests here as well as remotely on my home PC and the upload progressed to larger block sizes until it took at least 5 seconds to complete. Going off topic - I think the forum reply smiley choice has lost some of its smileys. CA3LE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted October 1, 2015 CID Share Posted October 1, 2015 Awesome, glad to hear that it's working good for you. The smileys are still there. You just have to click a couple extra times to see them all. I'll take time soon to go over the emoticons, remove duplicates and include some new ones. Thanks as always! -- you're awesome! Sean 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted October 1, 2015 Author CID Share Posted October 1, 2015 That's great - I didn't notice the dropdown option earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted October 8, 2015 Author CID Share Posted October 8, 2015 Although pretty much every speed test proceeds to larger block sizes, I've actually had at least two tests were the block size went backwards! For example, on one test, I'm fairly sure it displayed something like "Be patient, uploading -146KB of random data" before displaying the following message: I couldn't get it to repeat this as I sure would love to have taken a screenshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted October 8, 2015 Author CID Share Posted October 8, 2015 It took a bit of patience, but after repeating the upload test a fair number of times with a screen recorder running, I finally caught it on video: Frame with the negative block size: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted October 8, 2015 CID Share Posted October 8, 2015 I think I see where it might be able to do that. An adjustment has been made, can you confirm that it's not doing that anymore. Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted October 8, 2015 Author CID Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) I'll keep an eye out for it. My fixed wireless ISP's uplink intermittently went fast earlier and it was during that time when this bug crept up. At the moment, it's back down to a snails crawl of 20kbps from just over 9Mbps earlier. In fact, the ISPs preferred test site Speedtest.net can't even measure the uplink when it's that slow - It just gets stuck! I thought I was in luck of getting a faster Internet connection earlier when a sales person from the major telecom provider Eir came to our house claiming to offer "Next generation consistent broadband". So I went on to ask him what about the speed and he said you'll get a consistent 4Mbps guaranteed, no buffering and so on. I tried explaining that this is what I'm currently getting on DSL, but he really tried to say Eir's 4Mbps connection will be considerably quicker than what I currently have! As I'm already stuck in an 18 month contract, I mentioned and he finally went away. Edited October 8, 2015 by editorsean coknuck and CA3LE 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted October 21, 2015 Author CID Share Posted October 21, 2015 Just to update on this, I think the fix for the negative block size has also fixed an issue I was having running speed tests on my mobile. Up until a few weeks ago, I was getting "Network Error (tcp_error)" on roughly 1 in 3 speed tests I did on my mobile right after the 96KB test. So far I haven't seen that error since then. So I suspect when it tried fetching a negative block size, it was triggering a different issue when running over the mobile network or at least with the mobile theme. I kept forgetting to report that issue, but it seems like it's also gone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted October 22, 2015 CID Share Posted October 22, 2015 I know what you're talking about, unrelated issue. That was an issue with apache. Seems to be all good now, let me know if you have any more problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts