The server is located in a datacenter in Atlanta. And yes I'm in Florida as are half our staff and over half our registered membership. We also have an admin that's in Seattle, Wa.
And your point is?
Last edited:
I found a better speed test for satellite internet
- Thread starter bwporker
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 35K
The server is located in a datacenter in Atlanta. And yes I'm in Florida as are half our staff and over half our registered membership. We also have an admin that's in Seattle, Wa.
And your point is?
<sigh>
I can run a thousand tracerts to our server (both of those ip's) and so can anyone else without it triggering an alert. You obviously did something you shouldn't. I suppose I could dig a little and pull up exactly what you did beyond the logs I posted but it's pointless (kinda like banging your head against the sidewalk).
I'm going to say this one time. The only way you would get the unlicensed message is if you attempted to run the applet locally from your box or webserver without our authorization.
Now back to the actual thread topic. Do you anything else constructive to add Greg?
Well, I guess what it boils down to is that you're on a site full of satellite pros, attempting to promote "a better speed test for satellite". Whereas you may not care for my delivery, I've offered technically sound advice - which seems to have been perfunctorily ignored.
So for all your bluster, I think you're still taking giant steps sideways. And you're right, both IP addresses are responding now. You obviously had both of them in some kind of maintenance mode during the attempts I just mentioned - for reasons you obviously care not to disclose.
//greg//
You've offered nothing but a hard time, harrassing not only others in this thread but also myself. I came here to clear up an obvious mistake post made by bwporker and all you've done since is be a royal pain in the ass. I'm not trying to promote anything. I personally don't care if you use the tools or not. None of us at the site made the changes for YOU Greg. We made them because there appeared to be a need. If you think we're going to make any changes or stop trying to help because God Greg has spoken you are sadly mistaken. Now kindly stop polluting the thread and get lost. Let other people get some posts in and lets see what develops.
You're big on generalities, but seem to be falling a bit shy on substantive responses, not to mention actual results. Not for any lack of me or Tobi trying to point you in the right direction either. I'm just having a hard time swallowing that bit about your just being here to clear up a mistake "somebody else" made. That was about a week ago now, wasn't it?
So anyway, ok - you'll get your wish. Since you seem convinced of being able to provide this "better speed test for satellite internet", I'm gonna kick back and see just how many folks you can actually fool here.
//greg//
So anyway, ok - you'll get your wish. Since you seem convinced of being able to provide this "better speed test for satellite internet", I'm gonna kick back and see just how many folks you can actually fool here.
//greg//
Tobi I would appreciate knowing what your results on TCP and SPEED tests as they are now and also how the overall summary rating of your results was. Remember to use the Satellite ISP Tools option instead. Thank you.
Just for fun
Here is the test with my turbo page disabled. (Note this is not how the normal person would run the test) But, this way in clearly shows the firewall in Las Vegas and my current iP. But does not make it past the firewall. With the turbo page on ( the normal method of use) it does not show the firewall nor does it show my currently assigned IP. it just stops at one of the NOC servers.
The map still shows the trace going to Germantown Maryland. This would totally confuse the average user and cause them to think that they were going thru the Germantown NOC which is not the case as my NOC is in Las Vegas.
And just for the heck a trace from me to the mystery server in Atlanta.
Here is the test with my turbo page disabled. (Note this is not how the normal person would run the test) But, this way in clearly shows the firewall in Las Vegas and my current iP. But does not make it past the firewall. With the turbo page on ( the normal method of use) it does not show the firewall nor does it show my currently assigned IP. it just stops at one of the NOC servers.
The map still shows the trace going to Germantown Maryland. This would totally confuse the average user and cause them to think that they were going thru the Germantown NOC which is not the case as my NOC is in Las Vegas.
And just for the heck a trace from me to the mystery server in Atlanta.
Attachments
And there are others who don't understand speed test also.
[Speed] Speed tests vary by type & location - dslreports.com
[Speed] Speed tests vary by type & location - dslreports.com
Enough with the bickering like little kids. Are you guys really arguing over a speed test?
Stay on topic or do not post. Thank you.
Stay on topic or do not post. Thank you.
Very true. Bwporker proves this by his original post. I take some responsibility because the tests were poorly described and usage instructions were lacking a bit, actually a lot. We've seen the problem before. I still stand behind the results of both the TCP and Speed/Cap Tests and they should be a reasonable benchmark for those who know how to use the tests. The Route Quality may be pretty useless for you guys however as it's served from the server outward. BUT BUT BUT there is another way around this problem. I'm going to pm you a link where you can download run an applet that will essentially run the route test in reverse. You game? If so I'll prepare it tonight and have it to you by tomorrow mid day. I'm spent and need to get some work done.
Last edited:
Im game I got time to play.
I don't really understand the purpose of the Speed/Cap test
What good to me is it to know the max capacity of the satellite link or what ever gets measured if my subscription plan has no where close to that capacity. Here is one I ran today , But it really does not tell me anything useful to me that I can tell.
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 5032200 bps
Download packets per second: 629
Upload capacity: 22408 bps
Upload packets per second: 2
Quality of service: 55 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes
I have run the tsp speed test a few times it seems to be consistant with the Hughes speed test. I kinda like the speed display that shows the comparison with other services.
peed test statistics
---------------------
Single TCP Session Download speed: 960784 bps
Single TCP Session Upload speed: 127344 bps
Download quality of service: 89 %
Upload quality of service: 8 %
Download test type: socket
Upload test type: socket
Maximum TCP delay: 549 ms
Average download pause: 13 ms
Minimum round trip time to server: 2688 ms
Average round trip time to server: 3091 ms
Your estimated available download bandwidth: 17600000bps
Route concurrency: 18.318373
Download TCP forced idle: 99 %
Maximum route speed: --
All my test are on your logs under beau.
I'll do my best to explain the differences.
The speed/cap test is designed to measure the data capacity limit of a connection and reports the maximum data throughput for download and upload transfers while eliminating any throughput reductions invoked as a result of TCP overhead.
During the test it sends multiple streams of data simultaneously until it fills the available bandwidth for a given connection. It does this primarily because it does not care about the distance travelled, the packet order or even the packets that get lost because of the increased contention.
The test simply reports the capacity speed of the connection based on the volume of data that survives the journey and arrives at the destination. The speed/cap application can take this approach primarily because it does not care about the distance travelled, the packet order or even the packets that get lost because of the increased contention. As the speed/cap application does not care about the order of the data or the trip time for a connection, it can deliver an incorrect and/or misleading result.
The TCP Speed Test
Tests and measures the data speed and flow between remote you and our server, unlike the Speed/Cap Test this test sends only one stream of data, takes into account packet order, loss, etc in formulating the results.
Both tests should be used together when formulating an overall rating for your connection.
As an example my TCP Speed from my home system gives me about 8.6 mbps per second on a consistent basis with a "available bandwidth of about 33 to 36mpbs) and the Speed/Cap shows a consistent 35mpbs which is exactly where I should be. Funny thing is when I run my laptop via wireless at home my TCP speed increases to almost 14mbps and my Speed/Cap drops to about 33mbps consistently.
What it boils down to is that the main pc routes differently within my home network (and I also have some issues with the hardline nic and cabling that I'm already aware of).
Just for reference a normal TCP Speed test rating for MY home network should be between 10-15 mbps (with an approximate available bandwidth of about 33mpbs to 37mbps) depending on network conditions at the moment provided I have no loss or other issues and I see exactly those results with the wireless connection and other pc's within the house.
Each test has it's merits and when combined together you will get a very good view into the health of your network and external broadband connection. The trick is learning how to interpret the results. On each of our tests we've included a description and how to interpret the data, unfortunately most people never read it.
I hope this explains it a little better.
I am sorry Bandwith but I am just a dumb helicopter pilot. I did not understand any of that.
I ran the route test a couple of more times and on one test it looked like it actually made it past the NAT router and across to my modem. At least it showed it and the time was 1600ms which would be pretty close to correct. Unfortunately I did not screen copy it. I can not get it to do it again and it currently stops at the NOC.
But something from your severer is making it to my firewall not sure what all this is.
If I did not have some idea of where it was coming from I would be loking things down tighter.
I ran the route test a couple of more times and on one test it looked like it actually made it past the NAT router and across to my modem. At least it showed it and the time was 1600ms which would be pretty close to correct. Unfortunately I did not screen copy it. I can not get it to do it again and it currently stops at the NOC.
But something from your severer is making it to my firewall not sure what all this is.
If I did not have some idea of where it was coming from I would be loking things down tighter.
Attachments
Last edited:
The above wasn't referring to the Route Test. I may have a fix for your Route issue in just a bit. In the meantime I would like you to run the following
(removed the remote agent access as it serves no purpose at this time)
Give it a try and lets see if that maps everything from your location outward. No promises but it never hurts to try. Just enter your SID, click download, then run and run. THIS INSTALLS NO SOFTWARE - JUST A RUNTIME REMOTE AGENT and it terminates the minute the test is done.
Last edited:
I ran it two times with turbo page on and two times with turbo page off.
I don't see it in my log file.
I don't see it in my log file.
I was afraid of that Tobi. Several people did run the remote agent and the results were unfortunately unsatisfactory, actually the agent was useless. I experienced similar results with a similar test on a different network as well. It was a great idea, just didn't turn out the way I'd hoped.
I'll complete the other tests by weeks end and I'm pretty sure we'll keep the route test for network issues outside your providers network, it's still valuable there especially when we open up the route to be traced. Right now it's to our server only, soon options will be available to trace to any destination.
The other tests should perform decently for their intended purpose and they will also remain.
I'll complete the other tests by weeks end and I'm pretty sure we'll keep the route test for network issues outside your providers network, it's still valuable there especially when we open up the route to be traced. Right now it's to our server only, soon options will be available to trace to any destination.
The other tests should perform decently for their intended purpose and they will also remain.
Last edited:
