justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 Billion BiPAC 7800N Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
4 edits
10 recommendations |
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-8 10:21 pm
FYI: for general feedback on the new speedtestUpdated: October 2017 Since the original announcement there have been a number of improvements most of them have been in the last month. * Tests can be run sequentially without having to reload the page any more * Nearly all errors are displayed in a pop-up window no longer do you have to hunt in the FAQ * More complete preferences, easier to understand preferences * Many more servers * Since there are too many servers now, there are buttons to auto-select by lowest latency (in preferences) * A lot more experience with gigabit to 5 gigabit connections means more reliable measurement * You can choose the download and upload duration * Less browser cpu usage means wider range of devices supported * See your recent results or see your results averaged over all time * Create custom start buttons each with its own preference setting and name * Tag any device - speed test history shows the tags * Take ownership of any anonymous tests you ran from the same device * Fixed under-measurement during upload where upload speed was much faster than download * Cancelling a test in progress no longer reloads the page * Option to run in the background while you change tabs to do something else * A much higher percentage of tests run to completion with a sane result, currently over 98% * Better detection of browser extensions and proxy servers that interfere with the test in various ways Original announcement text: Please put any feedback for the html5 speedtest in this topic! The news is: DSLR now has its own speed test that is bang up to date. The test is at dslreports.com/speedtest, it does not require flash or java, and should run on any contemporary browser. Although all feedback is good what we really want to know if you believe the final result is wrong (which usually means 'less than speedtest.net') or the test fails in some non obvious way in your browser. Also if you find anti-virus products that make things slow, please tell us. Please check back often, the test is evolving fast. If you use NO-SCRIPT you should disable it for the page. If you use desktop linux, or a browser with poor 2d canvas performance, go preferences and check "LO-FI" mode. On phones the test defaults to lo-fi mode. Speedtest April 2015
Common questions. Q When I tried it a while ago, didn't work, it did X or Y A As a result of feedback the test is modified almost every day. If you haven't tried it recently, try it again, then post. Q Does it work globally? A In most countries, yes. I would like to add a test location or two for for South America, and more in Aus/Pacific. USA, Canada, EU and South Asia is pretty well covered. Q Can I choose my own test server? A It is not necessary or recommended, however there is a preferences button in the test panel where you can do that and more. click here to see the locations potentially involved in testing your connection. Q Why is it so annoying to use with NOSCRIPT? A The test uses IP addresses and this is a question for the NOSCRIPT developers. If you elect to trust a page on the site, you should not have to individually trust IPs the page uses. Q Why is the latency shown higher than I am used to seeing? A The latency is not ping (ICMP) latency but instead the latency of an http fetch by the browser, so it is going to somewhat higher. This is called an http-ping. It does not make any difference to the result. Q Does it test Satellite correctly? A Yes. If you use it to test Satellite links please drop me a message with feedback. Q Why is it slower when I am on Wifi vs wired? A Unless you have the newest wifi standards, wifi might be a lot slower than your internet connection. Browser support* All current versions of: Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE etc * Android 4.2 onwards and related browsers * IOS 7.1 onwards and related browsers * IOS + Chrome - upload not measured due to chrome bug * IE10 and IE11 onwards * Firefox from 3.6 onwards * Safari from 6 onwards Confirmed device support* ipad, iphone (IOS 7.1 onwards) * kindle paperwhite or better * Any recent Android phone or tablet * Chromebook Unable..* NX browser (PS Vita etc) * Nintendo 3DS * Old browsers And the $64 question is, how fast will it go? I don't know. I've confirmed many results over 1gig symmetric. Ping test display
There is also a ping test. This is visible at http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest?radar=1It tries to show the difference between WORST ping and BEST ping and LAST ping, in a graphical representation. It is a work in progress. |
|
TDOG join:2000-04-30 Louisville, KY
1 recommendation |
TDOG
Member
2015-Mar-9 9:17 am
[mail] Re: FYI: for general feedback on the new speedtestHTML5 test in Mozilla never goes to upload test. IE 11 works correctly. Thanks |
|
1 recommendation |
golden anon to justin
Anon
2015-Mar-9 11:06 am
to justin
2nd attempt, test never stops, cannot stop |
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031
1 recommendation |
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-9 11:07 am
I had that issue! but I think it is gone now. said by golden anon :2nd attempt, test never stops, cannot stop |
|
lutful... of ideas Premium Member join:2005-06-16 Ottawa, ON
1 recommendation |
to justin
|
|
AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic Premium Member join:2001-07-16 Dartmouth, NS 2 edits
1 recommendation |
to justin
Seems to work first time, as expected results from Virginia are less than Bell FIbre Op direct. Location Nova Scotia Provider Bell Fibre OP rated speeds 75 down, 30 up Browser Chrome, Windows 7, older computer. Bell Test yields Latency: 8ms Jitter: 09 Speeds: 74.4 down, 29.4 up First attempt. DSL results ping test 30ms, speeds 70 Down 18 up. Second attempt samish..... » [Fiber Speed test: 70.91/18.46 31 ms] |
|
rfharThe World Sport, Played In Every Country Premium Member join:2001-03-26 Buicktown,Mi
1 recommendation |
to justin
This Morning, Monday, it runs continuously in both IE 36.0.1 and Chrome 41, both 64 bit. Download only. |
|
Asus RT-AC68 Ubiquiti NSM5
|
to justin
Looks nice, seems to work. I have 50/10 service from Comcast and get just over that from testing: » results.speedtest.comcas ··· 9024.pngThe beta test shows about 1/2 that, but understandable if it runs from San Francisco. » [Cable Speed test: 22.14/11.76 43 ms]That's with Firefox 36.0.1. |
|
1 edit |
to justin
Re: FYI: for general feedback on the new speedtestI'm traveling so can't do a proper test from home locations. In the hotel here in Tokyo, I believe that there is "plenty" of Internet capacity but the switch serving guest rooms is limited by 100 Mbps port. Five tests ranged from 88.9 Mbps (about what's expected) down to 40.9. Possibly, "bunched" packets triggered an 'abuse' limiter in the hospitality gateway and caused throttling. » [ Speed test: 88.89/22.67 47 ms]» [ Speed test: 40.90/23.09 42 ms]When I tested via a VPN hosted at a server in Los Angeles, one test picked an east coast server; I don't know where the extra delay may have been. » [ Speed test: 5.45/1.13 233 ms]I tried to beat on the SF server from three VPS accounts -- it seems to be plenty fast. Best result (speeds reported by wget are bytes per second): $ wget http://54.153.0.97/front/144000k
--2015-03-09 12:17:54-- http://54.153.0.97/front/144000k
Connecting to 54.153.0.97:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 147456000 (141M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: `144000k.6'
100%[======================================>] 147,456,000 81.7M/s in 1.7s
I have a fast connection in Paris (300 Mbps, soon to be 1 Gbps), but the netbook that I leave on (for home control / monitoring / security functions) has a lame Atom processor, and it's behind a 100 Mbps switch. So, this is as expected: PING 104.155.37.25 (104.155.37.25) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 104.155.37.25: icmp_req=1 ttl=44 time=8.60 ms
64 bytes from 104.155.37.25: icmp_req=2 ttl=44 time=7.74 ms
$ wget http://104.155.37.25/front/144000k
--2015-03-09 17:53:17-- http://104.155.37.25/front/144000k
Connecting to 104.155.37.25:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 147456000 (141M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: `144000k'
100%[======================================>] 147,456,000 10.3M/s in 14s
At home near Reno, it's a semi-rural area with no cable. I'm lucky to get 18 Mbps U-Verse (with bonded pairs). Connection saturated: wget http://54.153.0.97/front/144000k
--2015-03-09 10:32:58-- http://54.153.0.97/front/144000k
Connecting to 54.153.0.97:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 147456000 (141M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: `144000k.1'
100%[======================================>] 147,456,000 2.58M/s in 64s
2015-03-09 10:34:02 (2.21 MB/s) - `144000k.1' saved [147456000/147456000]
|
|
Sentinel Premium Member join:2001-02-07 Florida |
to justin
[mail] Re: FYI: for general feedback on the new speedtest» [Cable Speed test: 38.28/6.86 55 ms]Did not work with Firefox with NoScript enabled because it kept failing because the IP address would keep changing. So everytime I allowed it the page refreshed and, of course, got a new IP address so it failed again. After I allowed that IP the same thing happened and this went on and on until I just disabled NoScript. Test worked fine after disabling NoScript though. I assume these results are accurate. I'm in central FL on Cox Cable with preferred service. But I don't know what the speeds that I am supposed to be expecting are. |
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 |
to Stewart
you have an interesting set of bandwidth at yiur fingertips Are you an international cyber agrnt |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC
2 recommendations |
to justin
Sorry I use Firefox so I can use NoScript. I did finally take a chance and choose the noscript option Allow Scripts Globally (dangerous). The result was the Blue test worked but the Red did not show up and the Blue kept repeating. Since you listed noscript as a problem you may already know one reason it does not work is the IP location changes every time I try to run the program. If it would bring up the IP addresses and a user could lock into them with noscript for a run that might fix the problem. Thx for trying to do your update the example looks nice. |
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031
1 recommendation |
You can just "allow scripts on this page" if you are worried.
The repeating thing is fixed, how long ago did you run it? |
|
|
to justin
» [Fiber Speed test: 77.72/78.34 45 ms]Looks good. Thanks. I will check a few more machines and locations. |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to justin
Works in Win 8.1 w/IE11 but I have a 100/4 connection and the download speed was measured very slow (~3Mbps down, ~3Mbps up). To make sure it's not just me, I ran a speed test using NYC Optimum's server (which should theoretically be similar a similar distance to this site's servers from STL): » www.speedtest.net/result ··· 0936.png |
|
rradina |
Ran it again and this time it looks to have chosen a different site (Ohio instead of Michigan). Much better speeds but still somewhat slow given my connection speed. I tried it a third time and it chose Michigan again which is a turkey for me so I stopped that test before it completed.
2015-03-09 19:51:21 79.786 4.069 36 Ohio, USA 2015-03-09 19:44:21 3.333 4.214 28 Michigan, USA |
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 Billion BiPAC 7800N Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
|
said by rradina:Ran it again and this time it looks to have chosen a different site (Ohio instead of Michigan). Much better speeds but still somewhat slow given my connection speed. I tried it a third time and it chose Michigan again which is a turkey for me so I stopped that test before it completed. That "turkey" you are talking about is this site. That is the Michigan server in the list. The test would be real, try downloading this file, from here (dslr webserver). » /front/72000kBut I know the server, site and data-center is fast so clearly the link between liquid web and your ISP sucks! at least right now. the final test will allow you to opt to pick a location and skip the measurement of nearest. |
|
Tonice2007 Premium Member join:2005-12-20 Brooklyn, NY |
to justin
|
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 |
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-9 11:53 pm
Ok yeah, as you are in tri-state area, using windows, going to Amazon Virginia (sorry to keep harping on about the OS side) vs speedtest.net with a time warner server in NYC doing effectively a torrent test, it is apples vs Orangutans ! |
|
Kathy_9 Premium Member join:2005-05-15 Cloud 9 |
to justin
Like others have mentioned I got no where with Firefox w/NoScript so I tried IE.
#76813 25.8 down 11.82 up 19.5ms |
|
tdumaine Premium Member join:2004-03-14 Seattle, WA |
to justin
I dunno if the pool has been limited (ip's and noscript) but after allowing one new ip it ran fine this pass (tried earlier and it took 4 ip's being allowed before it would run). Still a little slow, comcast 110/10 line » [Cable Speed test: 76.38/10.38 38 ms] |
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031
1 recommendation |
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-11 1:53 am
try » /speed ··· rallel=1see if you max that download.. but you will have to disable noscript "for the page". |
|
tdumaine Premium Member join:2004-03-14 Seattle, WA |
tdumaine
Premium Member
2015-Mar-11 6:13 am
|
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 Billion BiPAC 7800N Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
|
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-11 6:31 am
that result of 80 mbit is with 8 parallel downloads from 2 servers and 2 port numbers, from Google Ohio and Virgina (Amazon), which are the only remotes locations I've enabled for parallel.
Since you are in Seattle(?) I just enabled the SF server for parallel. Maybe that will put you over the edge. |
|
norwegian Premium Member join:2005-02-15 Outback |
norwegian
Premium Member
2015-Mar-11 10:15 am
IE11 and the fox both fails after 13.5 is reached.
|
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 Billion BiPAC 7800N Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
|
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-11 11:40 am
said by norwegian:IE11 and the fox both fails after 13.5 is reached. Can you be a bit more specific, as there is no record of any result from your account today. I ran it on waterfox and IE11 just now, both work. 13.5 seconds is about when it switches from download to upload. What is in the console, if anything? |
|
Kathy_9 Premium Member join:2005-05-15 Cloud 9 |
to justin
I was able to get this result with FF and NoScript disabled on the page.
#79549 66.5 down 9.25 up 33.5ms |
|
tdumaine Premium Member join:2004-03-14 Seattle, WA |
to justin
said by justin:that result of 80 mbit is with 8 parallel downloads from 2 servers and 2 port numbers, from Google Ohio and Virgina (Amazon), which are the only remotes locations I've enabled for parallel.
Since you are in Seattle(?) I just enabled the SF server for parallel. Maybe that will put you over the edge. Yep, about 10 miles south of seattle (seatac airport is a few miles away). It behaves well with no script as some bonus info for you. It error'd of course but had 4 ip's to whitelist, then one for the new ip im assuming, then it ran with no issues (im always trying with noscript so if you see the error tests just previous to this one, thats why). » [Cable Speed test: 86.71 down, 0 ms] |
|
tdumaine |
to justin
For giggles i ran one in internet exploder (11.0.9600.17691) and got the following: » [Cable Speed test: 78.86/11.87 44 ms]Note it did the upload and shows ping |
|
justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 Billion BiPAC 7800N Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
|
justin
Mod
2015-Mar-11 7:40 pm
you ran the non-parallel one on IE11 The parallel one requires you to be logged in it isn't public. |
|
|