Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I think their test is reliable as I can get consistent results and manipulate them in certain ways, remember VM are known for buffer bloat.
|
I get anywhere from A to F repeating the test several times on the same symmetric gigabit line. My transmit buffer is set to 20ms yet the the test simultaneously measures upload buffer to be 150ms +/-75ms (very inaccurate in itself) and 540ms +/- 250ms, aka all over the place. I wouldn't trust anything that thinks my latency is 75m and 750ms at the same time.
On another note VM may be known for bufferbloat but I have
never seen downstream buffers of anywhere near 1800ms on VM. The highest I've seen is 150-600ms, and the latter only in extreme conditions.
The latency test also swings pretty wildly, probably just very inaccurate timing used in some browsers.
Quote:
Whilst qasi may have those speeds which are probably only useful for warez, I wouldnt be too happy with latency measuring in the seconds whilst uploading.
Also usually downstream has minimal effect on latency providing the downloading isnt too agressive. Thats why I mentioned the VM test as it unusually had very high latency during the test. Poor bufferbloat on a upload test is not unusual without any QoS.
|
His latency is 1.8 seconds while
downloading and 0.2 seconds while
uploading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
or VM having a large buffer their side.
|
Absolutely not.
---------- Post added at 17:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------
[Edit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I think their test is reliable as I can get consistent results
|
Yeah, definitely not what I would call consistent results.
IE ---
Test 1: FAIL - Upload too fast
Test 2: ERROR - Log too long
Test 3: FAIL - Upload too fast
Test 4:
Chrome ---
Test 1:
Test 2: ERROR - Your connection appears to be faster than 1 gig (with 830Mbps shown on the test status?!)
Test 3:
And yesterday:
I mean come on, 1020Mbps? Yeah, right...