Mike [mailto:mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 4:08 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
These speedtests are pure unscientific bs and I'd love to see them
called out on the carpet for it.
Mike-
[Plug alert]
For longer term monitoring, Project BISmark provides an easy-to-use
system. It's an open source, customizable OpenWRT-based home router that
runs periodic network measurements (latency, throughput, packetloss,
jitter, etc) to nearby MLab servers.
It uses netperf (single and multiple
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:29:40 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson said:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > RFC4989 TCP Extended Statistics MIB. M. Mathis, J. Heffner, R.
> > Raghunarayan. May 2007. (Format: TXT=153768 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
> > STANDARD)
> >
> > Looks like a
ell Hathcock [mailto:lor...@hathcock.org]
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:19 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Nathan Hathcock
Subject: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
All:
I am having some speedtest results that are difficult to interpret.
I am a small WISP multi-homed with Cogen
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
RFC4989 TCP Extended Statistics MIB. M. Mathis, J. Heffner, R.
Raghunarayan. May 2007. (Format: TXT=153768 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
STANDARD)
Looks like a taker to me. Also, see the work the Web10G group is doing for
Linux: http://www.
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:18:34 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson said:
> I have pitched the idea in the IETF to have TCP stacks themselves report
> IP performance indicators (aggregate) and that a standard for this to be
> standardised. No takers so far.
RFC4989 TCP Extended Statistics MIB. M. Mathis, J. H
It'd be nice to know if NDT was not accurate as well. Anyone tested it?
We've been using it for a few years. On my laptop that runs linux I get
fairly consistent results (around 935Mb/s up and down right now) over a
1Gig routed link (a couple routers and a firewall in between.) On the Windows
When is speed ever ensured past someone else's edge/border ?
You may pass through your upstream that fast but once you are out in the open
range you are free game to all the lions, tigers & bears..,
There is always going to be something eating you. Best off letting it be the
Spanish queasiness
On 04/03/2013 02:48 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:07:48 -0700, Mike said:
These speedtests are pure unscientific bs and I'd love to see them
called out on the carpet for it.
As far as I know, it's possible for the end-to-end reported values to be
lower than your im
The only reliable way to really test performance is to saturate the
pipe (Iperf) and have a sufficiently well provisioned target. NDT does
a good job using short non-saturation tests, but it is susceptible to
slow start and other challenges. In general, NDT results will be more
conservative than be
I have paid the ransom. Actually we pay it on a recurring basis even. ;)
As for what it peaks at, good question. The infrastructure we run it on is
going to be the problem at some point, although currently has not proven to
be a limiting factor to the best of my knowledge. Our customers see val
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
Telling people to get by with even less instrumentation then they have
already doesn't win you any friends. The solution to bad instruments is
better instruments not breaking flow meter off the well.
I have pitched the idea in the IETF to have TCP stack
message
From: Nick Hilliard
Date: 04/03/2013 3:04 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On 3 Apr 2013, at 22:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(If anybody's got evidence of it repo
om: Seth Mattinen
Date: 04/03/2013 6:13 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On 4/3/13 2:52 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
We host one of the gazillion speed test sites and for networks that are
close to us we find it "reasonab
e: 04/03/2013 6:36 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On 4/3/13 6:25 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
> I'm shocked Ookla hasn't been eaten by some major ISP. Speed tests are
> the root of most complaints. Your link is
On 4/3/13 6:25 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
> I'm shocked Ookla hasn't been eaten by some major ISP. Speed tests are
> the root of most complaints. Your link is congested (oversubed) and you
> then attempt to completely saturate your bandwidth to tell your provider
> what a suck job they are doing. I c
my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Seth Mattinen
Date: 04/03/2013 6:13 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On 4/3/13 2:52 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> We host one of the gazillion speed test sites and for net
(a) may be valid.
(b) is fishy
(a) may be valid because it may be that your ISP has a better set of peering
relationships towards your VPN server and your company's ISP has better
peering relationships towards the Speedtest server than your ISP has
towards the Speedtest server.
I'm not saying tha
On 4/3/13 2:52 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> We host one of the gazillion speed test sites and for networks that are
> close to us we find it "reasonably accurate" .. a good benchmark at least ..
>
The speedtest.net that's hosted on one of my directly connected transits
is consistently wrong, which
--- n...@foobar.org wrote:
From: Nick Hilliard
>> They may do some magic with bandwidth delay products.. If that was the case,
>> they may have written it for a standard latency versus something that is
>> unreasonable by interweb standards.
I don't know how they calculate bandwidth, but I
I can run two speedtest.net session side by side on my home network on one
laptop, and over VPN to my employer's Long Island locale on a second,
pointed at the same speedtest server, over the same wifi and ADSL and have
the VPN connection report speeds that are (a) 50% better on VPN than not;
and,
> To: Warren Bailey
> Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu,nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
>
>
> On 3 Apr 2013, at 23:20, Warren Bailey
> wrote:
>> Try it with upwards of 900ms of variable latency.
>
> The la
/2013 3:35 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Warren Bailey
Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu,nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On 3 Apr 2013, at 23:20, Warren Bailey
mailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com>>
wrote:
Try it with upwards of 900ms of va
---
> From: Nick Hilliard
> Date: 04/03/2013 3:04 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
>
>
> On 3 Apr 2013, at 22:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > (I
Try it with upwards of 900ms of variable latency.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Nick Hilliard
Date: 04/03/2013 3:04 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth
On 3 Apr 2013, at 22:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> (If anybody's got evidence of it reporting more than the link is technically
> capable of, feel free to correct me...)
I've seen speedtest.net give results significantly greater than the physical bw
of the client's network link.
Nick
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:48:00PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:07:48 -0700, Mike said:
>
> > These speedtests are pure unscientific bs and I'd love to see them
> > called out on the carpet for it.
>
> As far as I know, it's possible for the end-to-end reported v
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: April-03-13 5:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:07:48 -0700, Mike said:
> These speedtests are pure unscientific bs and I'd love to s
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:07:48 -0700, Mike said:
> These speedtests are pure unscientific bs and I'd love to see them
> called out on the carpet for it.
As far as I know, it's possible for the end-to-end reported values to be
lower than your immediate upstream due to issues further upstream.
But i
On 04/02/2013 10:13 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/2/13 2:24 PM, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
You might want to consider putting up a speedtest server internal to your
network. I know there is a fee but well worth it I believe. You will
still need to take the results with a grain a salt but you will
On 4/2/13 2:24 PM, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
> You might want to consider putting up a speedtest server internal to your
> network. I know there is a fee but well worth it I believe. You will
> still need to take the results with a grain a salt but you will have the
> best results as well.
>
The s
The speedtest.net site has a free mini edition
(http://www.speedtest.net/mini.php) you can download and extract to
some http available path (asp, php, jsp all supported). It's a flash
applet, easy to wrap into your own page. Transfers one of ten large
JPG files of random noise (largest is 31MB). II
You might want to consider putting up a speedtest server internal to your
network. I know there is a fee but well worth it I believe. You will
I would consider NDT as well: www.internet2.edu/performance/ndt
Last I checked, about 3 years ago,
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
-Original Message-
From: Lorell Hathcock
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:54 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: RE: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik band
.
Thanks again!
Lorell
-Original Message-
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 7:27 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
> I am having s
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
I am having some speedtest results that are difficult to interpret.
Some of my customers have begun complaining that they are not getting the
proper speeds. They are using speedtest.net and/or speakeasy.net to test
the results.
Take the speedtest re
All:
I am having some speedtest results that are difficult to interpret.
I am a small WISP multi-homed with Cogent and Level 3 in Houston, TX. I am
running BGP with each with 100 Mbps+ on each link.
Some of my customers have begun complaining that they are not getting the
proper speeds
37 matches
Mail list logo
