Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
I suspect that's just a bugged result, the bufferbloat readings on that can be all over the place:
Not a bad speed though, considering I'm only paying for 250Mbps.
|
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.
Of course since it is a browser based test the local testing environment can also affect results such as the browser been under pressure for resources, or perhaps a cpu hitting a bottleneck.
Tony bufferbloat is basically a big buffer, the test is basically testing how your latency compares between idle and when downloading/uploading, things like pings get delayed waiting when is lots of buffers full of waiting packets.
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.