iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to NetAdmin1
Re: Old data and biased source - the CWA who hate telecom mgt Customers' IPs wouldn't change while they're shopping servers for a better result.
Also, I said *some* normalization, not *total* normalization.
About SpeedMatters, 300 Mbit to one server and 45 to the other are NOT enough to give accurate speed test results, particularly if the servers are only homed into one network, and I'm betting that the 45 Mbit server was. Compare this with places like Data393 where they have multi-gigabit links available and you'll see that Speedmatters will have an obvious bias to the lower end on speeds.
Also, if Speedmatters had only two servers for speed tests overall, versus a few dozen that speedtest.net has (through various providers) then if they had enough tests to get "accurate" results the servers woul be too overloaded to give accurate results.
Also, are you saying that no trends can be taken from 400 MILLION tests, a lot of which are in the US, and that Speedmatters' number of tests is valuable for trending information though the same number of tests is taken by Speedtest.net every 1.5 hours or so? I don't buy it.
How about using BBR's speed test results, does that work better for ya? |
|
|
|
| said by iansltx:Customers' IPs wouldn't change while they're shopping servers for a better result. You are basing that statement on what? When an IP lease or PPPoE session expires, it expires.
About SpeedMatters, 300 Mbit to one server and 45 to the other are NOT enough to give accurate speed test results, particularly if the servers are only homed into one network, and I'm betting that the 45 Mbit server was. Considering you don't know the Speedmatters setup, trying to make arguments like this one is pointless.
Compare this with places like Data393 where they have multi-gigabit links available and you'll see that Speedmatters will have an obvious bias to the lower end on speeds. Actually, you can't make that assumption based on the information you have. There are far too many assumptions that have to be made.
Also, if Speedmatters had only two servers for speed tests overall, versus a few dozen that speedtest.net has (through various providers) then if they had enough tests to get "accurate" results the servers woul be too overloaded to give accurate results. How many is enough tests? You assume that you have to have enough tests that Speedmatters servers would be overloaded. Statistics says otherwise.
Also, are you saying that no trends can be taken from 400 MILLION tests, a lot of which are in the US, and that Speedmatters' number of tests is valuable for trending information though the same number of tests is taken by Speedtest.net every 1.5 hours or so? I don't buy it. You don't buy it because you don't know how to digest, process and interpret the data that is being present by either Speedmatters OR Speedtest.net. Neither dataset it very good, period. Trends can be taken, but because of the lack of control that Speedtest.net has over test servers, sites and the connectivity (there is no standard setup), their data has more issues. The Speedmatters setup is uniform and is less affected by site variability. If that concept escapes you, there is no reason to proceed since you've already made your mind up and won't change it, regardless of the data and reasons presented.
How about using BBR's speed test results, does that work better for ya? Even that data is suspect since the connectivity and setup for each server varies. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Okay, here's the reason I won't take SpeedMatters' results, and this has been discussed at length in other posts: server overcrowding, such that an accurate speed test cannot be taken. Any connection faster than a few megabits is capped off artificially by the fact that the server can only handle a few hundred megabits of data pouring in at the same time...or 45 in the case of the west coast server.
Also, even if the SpeedMatters results WERE accurate, they were from a year-plus ago. I know my ISP has increased speeds by a third since then, as have a lot of other providers.
Go flame somewhere else. Maybe take a look at an XKCD comic or two. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to NetAdmin1
Oh, and Data393 DOES have multiple gigabits of connectivity to the internet. Their website says so. Seeing as how they're a colocation\server facility I wouldn't be one to doubt that. So no, that "assumption" is not borne out. On several occasions (using a college link) I've gotten 75 Mbit/s both ways on the Data393 Speedtest.net server, an order of manitude more than SpeedMatters would likely support. Don't worry though,Speedtest.net filters university results out of their equation when it comes t internet speeds. |
|
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Go flame somewhere else. Maybe take a look at an XKCD comic or two. Clearly you need to learn what a flame is...  |
|
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Oh, and Data393 DOES have multiple gigabits of connectivity to the internet. Their website says so. Seeing as how they're a colocation\server facility I wouldn't be one to doubt that. So no, that "assumption" is not borne out. Actually, yes there are still plenty of assumptions... What connectivity to their providers core network does the server have? What types of tweaks have been performed to Apache to improve performance that affect the validity of speedtests have been made? And those are just two you have to know before you can trust the reliability of the data you are presented with.
You can believe that the Speedtest.net tests are somehow more scientific or better than Speedmatters, but that is anything but true. The fact is, Speedtest.net data is based on non-uniform setups that aren't controlled by one group of people, ergo are not better than a server that may be overloaded. Period. |
|
