New DSLReports speedtester

[Tonydtiger]

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1316591

[Kushan]

Are you missing 50mbit or are you a lucky early upgrader?

[qasdfdsaq]

Damn students coming back and hogging all mah bandwidths.

Surprised a flat 500/800 isn't "A+" for speed or quality. My e-peen has been well and truly flaccided by that.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Tonydtiger

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1316591

Wow that is some serious downstream bufferbloat.

with router QoS - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1079282

without router QoS - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1289338

[roger skillin]

159.2 down and 12.39 up on mine
Bufferbloat C
Quality A
Speed B

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Wow that is some serious downstream bufferbloat.

with router QoS - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1079282

without router QoS - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1289338

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.

[Tonydtiger]

Not actually sure what bufferbloat is but here is a test from a minute ago



Another one a minute later

[Chrysalis]

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.

[sollp]

1326066.png

[Tonydtiger]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

Thank you for the info. Would you say my line needed looking at with a F,D,F grade from the 3 tests?

Here is my TBB monitor if needed.

Tested just now ;

[Chrysalis]

tony your graph looks normal for someone on cable, there is jitter due to how cable works.

It would seem the very high latency on your test is either down to the the router you are using or VM having a large buffer their side. Whether or not is a problem depends if having higher latency during downloads bothers you or not, I would expect if you had a download going at those speeds such as a steam download and you were web browsing at the same time with a 2000ms latency the browsing would feel very slow.

[Rexz]

Was actually really happy with mine. I am lucky to never have issues with oversubscribing in my area. I do use a firewall so was able to bring that bufferbloat down.


Rexz

[qasdfdsaq]

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.

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.

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]

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...

[Chrysalis]

something up with your system qas, is consistent here.

Also its a test probably aimed at consumer's not university connections? why are you using your work connection?