RCN in Boston here:
7021 K download
210 K upload
Optimum Online (Cablevision), Long Island, NY:
5418 kbps down, 895 kbps up (Speakeasy)
Cox Cable out of DC
Download Speed: 14774 kbps (1846.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 1667 kbps (208.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
If all you’re going to do is surf the web the differences between the load times of most web pages will be measured in fractions of a second.
RCN/Starpower in DC:
Download: 6803
Upload: 677
Rogers Cable generic middle-of-the-road 3-megabit-nominal-per-second service in Toronto ($48.10 per month): tested at 2689 kb/s download, 373 kb/s upload. My bittorrent client reported about 280 kB/s (that’s kilobytes per sec) download when I grabbed the latest OpenOffice release last week.
The tweak test asks for “speed (advertised)” in kbit/s. I’ve got a cheap cable connection ($19/mo) that advertises 1.5 Mbps down and 128 Kps. up. So what should I input for the advertised speed? (It’s very embarrassing having to ask this)
I get 100 mbs and the first test above says it’s about 1/10 that speed. I’m quite sure the speed I actually get is close to the 100 mbs as when I download or transfer files, it’s done lickety-split.
I would think 1500 would be close enough. I don’t know if it actually uses that for anything important. I think it’s just for statistics on advertised vs. real throughput that it keeps You can look up your ISP and see what results other people have been getting.
I don’t know about the speakeasy tests, but I think I read something on broadbandreports that their tests were only accurate up to a certain speed.
Also, the tests are affected by what the test server’s speed is and the connection between you and the test server. If somewhere between you and the server, or at teh server itself, there’s a connection slower than your total bandwidth, your only going to get a score as fast as that connection.
Thanks. But the reason I asked is the suggested RWIN changes dramatically depending on what speed you enter.
I guess it does. Use 1500 then. I just tried it using 1500 and 2000. While the limits changed, they did overlap. I’d use 1500 and set it at the high end.
If you read the FAQ topic mentioned, it tells you how to calculate the best RQWIN yourself. Doing that versus just picking the high limit didn’t make a noticeable change for me.
Optimum Online in Joisey: 8310 down/916 up
Interesting
4027 Download
502 Upload
I have Cox cable and I figure with my neighbors, few are using the service so not sucking up the bandwidth.
I ran the speed test then changed the TCP recieve to about double (what was recommended) and it increase my speed by a third. It went from ~3000 to 4000 kbps. It’ didn’t do jack for the upload speed.
I’m using Cox cable and out here I believe they have 3, 5 and 7 meg service available. I think I got 5 so that’s what I put in.
As far as other servers latency affecting the test, they ought to be able to factor that into the test. They’d’ have to run a trace route, figure out the latency then factor that into the actual speed. I wouldn’t think it would be that hard but I don’t know if they do that or not.
Slee
Eh? Are you confusing the speed of your ethernet connection with the speed of your internet connection? If not, then please let the rest of the world know how you go about obtaining a 100,000 Kbps internet connection.
All I know is that my ISP advertises itself as 100 mbs. Maybe that’s just in Korea, but I know that when I download stuff from overseas, it’s done incredibly fast.
He’s in Korea, home of the superfast connection.
Me, I get 3Mbps down, 256kbps down.
That’s only 1 bit every 10 seconds! Now, 100Mbps would be pretty fast.
If one wants to get really pedantic, then the terms kibi, mebi and gibi should be used instead of kilo, mega and giga when referring to numbers defined in base 2 instead of base 10. In decimal:
kilo=1000; kibi=1024
mega=1 000 000; mebi=1 048 576
giga=1 000 000 000; gibi=1 073 741 824
…and so on.
The base 10 symbols are k, M, and G respectively. The base 2 symbols are K, M and G.
…except that data transmission speeds are in millions of bits per second (IOW, ‘true’ megabits per second, not mebibits), aren’t they?
Strictly speaking they should be, but I guess it depends on the ISPs marketing department. In the case of Monty’s ISP, their boast of 100 milli-bits per second is an unambiguous 0.1 bps. I’ve seen similar instances of electric power stations boasting a feeble 200mW output, and it is a continuing annoyance to me that my doctor prescribes drug quantites in megagravities instead of milligrammes.
The terminology for memory storage capacity and other binary quantities has been defined (against stiff resistance by some) in lovely SI units. Addendum to my previous post - symbols for kibi, mebi and gibi are properly Ki, Mi and Gi, but K, M and G are more commonly (and ambiguously) used.
Back in the days of 8-bit computers it wasn’t so much of a problem. k=1000, and K=1024 - nice and simple. A whole megabyte was the stuff of a madman’s dreams, and would probably be expressed in full decimal notation for dramatic effect.
This Uk based bandwidth online test gives me a result today of 1236.4Kbps for my 1MHz broadband cable connection. Do they mean 1236.4 kbps or (taking 1K=1024) 1266.1kbps? I have no way of knowing, for they don’t specify. Note, though, that they rate anything above 2.5Mbps as “off the chart”, which most proper broadband users would scoff at. Up until recently in the UK, anything over and including ISDN speeds (100Kbps) has been marketed as broadband. Rather cheekily, I feel. But the infrastructure is coming on nicely now, and speeds are going up and prices down.