Jump to content

Daily Average


Recommended Posts

Since im overseas im not really a fan of SmarTest, because of very low burst on higher delay (ping).

But the idea is cool, but maby he can do it for another test size, see what size ppl prefer to test with...

In SmarTest, I never get "bumped up" to the 3 MB test even tho it give me faster speed.

Below i found great info explaining some of this

quote from http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm

"So what is the TCP window size thing?

The TCP window is the amount of unacknowledged data in flight between the sender and the receiver. Data is sent by TCP in segments that are typically 1460 bytes in length. If the sender is permitted a window size of only 1 segment, the sender transmits a single segment, and waits for an acknowledgement from the receiver. If the transmission delay between sender and receiver is long, this means very low throughput (very few segments transferred per unit time). Both sender and receiver spend most of their time waiting for messages to be transmitted from one end of the connection to the other.

In order to improve throughput, the sender transmits multiple segments without waiting for the next acknowledgement from the receiver. The TCP window is an estimate of the upper bound on the number of segments that will fit in the length of the pipe between sender and receiver. The window size is increased during a TCP transfer until the end-to-end path becomes too full (indicated by a segment being dropped somewhere in the network), then the size is backed off and then increased slowly again until the limit is reached. This cycle of shrinking and slowly expanding window size continues throughout the TCP connection. In this way, TCP tries to optimize the transmit window to maximize throughput over the lifetime of the connection. The receiver advertises his maximum window size to give the sender an idea of how much buffer space the receiver has available. This puts a hard limit on size of the window, even if more bandwidth is available in the network.

If the pipe is pretty big, and the round-trip delay is long, a lot of segments will fit in the network between the sender and receiver.

The window size needs to be pretty big in a long, fat network. How big?

window size = bandwidth * delay

For 10 Mbps bandwidth and a round-trip delay of 0.010 sec, this gives a window size of about 12 KB (or nine 1460-byte segments). This should yield maximal throughput on a 10 Mbps LAN, even if the delay is as high as 10 ms -- most LANs have round-trip delay of less than a few milliseconds. When bandwidth is lower, more delay can be tolerated for the same fixed window size, so a window size of 12 KB works well at lower speeds, too.

For a fixed window size, large increases in bandwidth mean that small increases in round-trip delay will have a significant effect on throughput. If the end-to-end bandwidth is 100 Mbps, a 12 KB window size implies that no more than 1.05 ms of delay is tolerable if TCP throughput near 100 Mbps is desired -- that's a pretty tight bound, even for a LAN.

The default maximum TCP window size in Win2000 is 17520 bytes (12 segments). This should work nicely in LANs -- even at 100 Mbps -- assuming that end-to-end delay is not much more than 2 ms. The default window size should yield TCP throughput of around 70 Mbps on a 100 Mbps LAN, assuming congestion is minimal. This default max TCP window size is also large enough for round trip delays of 70 ms and end-to-end bandwidth of up to 2 Mbps. That's no coincidence; most entities on the Internet have access pipes that are T1 (1.5 Mbps) or E1 (2 Mbps) and the nominal round-trip delay coast-to-coast in the U.S. is about 70 ms. So, as a first cut at a reasonable default setting for the TCP max window size, this ain't too bad.

But what if you have a WAN connection with nominal 10 Mbps bandwidth available, and you're downloading from a distant, well-connected server. Perhaps you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will get on that soon, as always... I welcome suggestions.

By the way, the SmarTest works pretty damn good for most people (from the logs I have pulled) ---

if any of you have been to PCPitstop you can actually see how they got their idea for how they run their test now from me. check it out

Back in December '03 PCPitstop per the web archive

http://web.archive.org/web/20030608083656/www1.pcpitstop.com/internet/Bandwidth.asp

If you notice they are listing amny different test sizes...

TestMy.net December '03

http://web.archive.org/web/20031206163341/http://www.testmy.net/

SmarTest was invented a little before this log... but this is proof that I was the first. ;-)

If you pull up PCPitstop.com you will notice now that they ONLY have the option for a 'smartest' type test

This is not the first time my testing ideas have been used (PcPitstop i respect though) -- but the following site I don't -- they have used too many of my ideas and it makes me a little bitter, for instance.. the hosted tests that I invented... they also do... check it out

http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/about/updates.php

If you notice, November 21st 2003 says "Nov. 21, 2003 New: Hosted test - Add a branded speed test to your website."

For instance, (and this isn't even going back as far as when I invented this test type) in February 2003 here is the web archive...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030203121358/http://www.testmy.net/

If you notice the link "Custom Testing" --- yea they stole that idea from me along with many other ideas... the thing that PISSES me off is that they were more sucessful at it than me, because I didn't (at the time) have the money to invest in hosting (december 2003 is when I got my first dedicated server) so I got banned from many hosts because I used WAAAAAAY excessive bandwidth, so much transfer that none of them suspended my account.. they just deleted me and sent me an email that said sorry, we can't afford to host you. But Bandwidthplace had money from other avenues so they advertised and had a dedicated server and never had to worry about bandwidth, but they STILL stole my ideas, I even called them on the phone once and the so-called scripter hung up on me when I confronted him on the issue..... I beleive with the webarchive cache that I actually have enough evidence to sue them... but I figure what's the point, I'm not in this for money... I just love to script. But I have promised myself that if they make a test similar to smartest I am going to sue them because that would be the last straw.

I hate them so much that up until this point you could not even type their website name in this forum, I just lifted that resriction though so I can post this .......... sorry guys I am venting, I don't even know what reminded me of this now.

:lol: --- stupid ass plagiarists --- I hope they go bankrupt! :haha:

GO DAMN IT -- and they charge a monthly fee to use their test.. and they STILL limit to 1000 tests per month --- I could take them for their entire business! Just makes me mad that they get more traffic than me... only because their site didn't go down because they had money... assholes

god damn, they don't even have an upload test (they did but they could never get it right so they took it down)

Okay I'm done. :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...