DalyCityMikeM Posted February 28, 2023 CID Share Posted February 28, 2023 Been wonderfully consistent and mostly trouble free. xs1 and CA3LE 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted February 28, 2023 CID Share Posted February 28, 2023 Wow! I'll have to hit you up to try my new test when I put it in beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xs1 Posted March 1, 2023 CID Share Posted March 1, 2023 14 hours ago, DalyCityMikeM said: Been wonderfully consistent and mostly trouble free. Damn son. That's awesome! although those test sizes seem kinda small? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xs1 Posted March 1, 2023 CID Share Posted March 1, 2023 hmm that may be in error.. my sizes dont result correctly either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalyCityMikeM Posted March 1, 2023 Author CID Share Posted March 1, 2023 Yeah, the test sizes were 200 Megabytes for the Download, 100 Megabytes for the upload. not sure why the generated image shows such a small upload size. 🤷🏼♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA3LE Posted March 1, 2023 CID Share Posted March 1, 2023 Was a bug, displaying correctly now. The program that draws those images is ancient. The database it draws from is ancient (2005)... it's never been altered. It quickly grew too large to easily alter. This was my first attempt at databasing anything so mistakes were made. Over the years I needed to alter it. But instead I've worked some tricks to maintain the original database. I now have other databases working together with smarter layouts. But that old tool is tied to the root database. The reason it's come up just now is because usually multithread is tagged internally as "TX", it now tags as the individual locales. That share image program was looking for that as a signal to change the size calculation... because (in that specific database) the size is stored differently depending on the situation. This was done to overcome a character limitation design flaw in the database structure. So basically in the same field 200 can mean 200 MB or 200 kB... lol. I could have just deleted the database but didn't want people to lose results. Could've done a very time consuming import/export. Altering would have crashed my servers, I just wasn't set up to alter a database table that large at the time. There are ways I can do it now but I don't think it's necessary. "If it ain't broke..." Max test size when that was first designed was 12 MB. Of course I knew it would grow but I was naive with databasing. Didn't know about int vs smallint values yet. --- once I knew, my correction was to work around what I already had. 18 years later, your results are still saved. My first logged result xs1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalyCityMikeM Posted March 1, 2023 Author CID Share Posted March 1, 2023 A totally reasonable strategy..... and it doesn't really affect the results, just the image generated for tests. Sincerely appreciate this site -- I've used it more than once to convince a stubborn tech that it really was "their problem" that they needed to fix. And it's great to be able to see the evolution of speeds over the years. xs1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.