Astonishing Speeds!

[Firefoxx]

devil dog, I hope you're not just getting into this just for the fun of it.

As for the results, I think that 67k vs 54.6k is fairly accurate enough, given that it's not meant to be completely 100% accurate. A 10k difference in a test for broadband connections isn't that much. Also, I really cannot say how other ISPs treat their connections. Some may use transparent proxies, some may use other tricks.

I did say that it works for me, I rely on it to gauge my effective (real world) international speed. It's always been accurate enough, giving a good ballpark figure of what I could expect from my connection. Example, last sunday it was reading around 40-80kbits, and I was getting exactly that from my international downloads. Today it's reading 400-500kbits, and again I'm getting that from my downloads. I never get the same result twice, but at least it gives me a very good idea of how my connection is performing. I also do a double check on other sites, and they give similar (but of course, never the exact same) results.

If you get something ridiculous like 100mbits on a 56k line, of course it's probably because something is wrong or set incorrectly. At those times, the bandwidth test is not being used the way it's meant to be. What sniffdog is arguing is that it's *never* to be used, since he says it doesn't report correct (or even close) results, at all. I argue that it's a tool, and it will be useful if you use it properly, and so far it's worked well for me. Also, what sniffdog says is that *all* bandwidth test sites are baloney.

[sniffdog]

Firefoxx, perhaps you should take a management anger course and pull you're head out of the sand ....

I am not, in any way, try to start a flame. Your remarks about proxies, incompatible browser and wrong settings ... no idea where you get that from.

I tested with IE6, no proxy and settings, what settings .... Even if these tests were correct, they make very little use as True's speed is very wobbly.

Try 10 tests with 30 seconds interval and you will see the results will vary greatly. Also the reliability of these sites rely on the number of people and the Net weather.

After your McAfee test, make a test at DSLreports. You will see that the speed is much lower than McAfee.

Much more useful signs of your speed are the modem dialog and programs which test the download speed of Internet pages with stopwatches like DU meter in combi with Tweakmaster.

You may stick your head back in the sand now .... goodnight.

[Firefoxx]

Remarks like these (and the one made in the last thread) are what flame wars are about sniffdog. Not only that, trying to dig up an old subject to take a jab at someone is not exactly being nice. I always keep my remarks very civil, but I cannot say the same for you.

Remember, sniffdog, that you point you were making was that the tests were of no use whatsoever. Yet, you come out and say that the tests at mcafee vary because of True's wobbly speed. So, what have you found out? That your connection is wobbly. This is in comparison to my connection (which is True, but a more expensive package), which tests to be very stable. So, I have a very stable connection. Do the tests roughly reflect the effective throughput that you would get from servers in the US? Yes, that's what they're for: a rough indication of your effective speed to servers in the US. As for the DSL reports tests, you can see that they have the comments "busy" added on, and so I wouldn't expect them to be that reliable.

These tests in no way tell me exactly what speed I'll get. What they do tell me (along with other tools, such as the simple ctrl-alt-delete window) is whether my connection is running, whether it's smooth, and whether something is wrong with it.

Modem dialog? Remember 56k modems connecting at 115k? And did you know that many True subscribers ask for 512k, but get 2.5mbits? Or 8mbits? But their effective speed is, of course, 512k. 2.5mbits, as reported by the modem, is merely the line speed to the CO.

You're saying that the speed tests are less effective than DU meter. The speed tests measure speed from a server by dividing the amount transferred by the time. DU meter does the same, but the "server" can be anywhere, and there can be more than one. So if you get a True 4mbit connection, and use DU meter, and start downloading a game from a server in Thailand, you get 4mbits/sec. You're happy. What you don't know is if you load the same thing from somewhere in the US, you'll get around 40k/sec. Should I, like you, say that DU meter is therefore useless?

Sniffdog, I really want to let matters lie, and showed that by not responding to your last insult. If you can do the same, and desist from trying to make other jabs at me, then I'll never have a reason to respond to or write about you again. Agreed? This is a matter of opinion that's gotten too far, and I don't want to soil the board with any more rubbish. If you really want to have at me that badly, just PM me, and let others continue with their lives.

[yeti]

Hi,

I won't enter in this argument, just answer a point from sniff_dog:

for your P2P to work really well, there should be some way to users in thailand to transfer among themselfes.....

any coders here could shed light....

the answer to this is in this post.

[sniffdog]

Firefoxx, the whole idea is: what kind of use is there if you know that the connection at this moment is xxxkb/s? It's only from one point, one server.

With DU meter I can easily surf through a number of reference sites (CNN, Yahoo) and see what the avg throughput is. Then I have a good idea about the average speed over a number of time and compare it with my previous results.

If I see 80kbs on McAfee site, I am disappointed. However, if I surf the reference sites with DU meter and see that the average throughput is 36Kbs I am quite satisfied. But of course, there are often large differences in the results.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modem dialog? Remember 56k modems connecting at 115k? And did you know that many True subscribers ask for 512k, but get 2.5mbits? Or 8mbits? But their effective speed is, of course, 512k. 2.5mbits, as reported by the modem, is merely the line speed to the CO.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I know I have a 512kbits connection and I don't see the bar going past the 512 limit, then I won't have a problem. On the contrary, I will be satisfied. It's exactly what True has promised me. My modem dialog is 2.5mbs and my connection is 2.5 mbs. I see often the bar hit the edge ... (eg Apple). So that's a good indication to me.

Even if you know it's not running well on a blue monday, what do you do with it?

And I am truly sorry if you find my remarks insulting ... it's maybe because I am a very active member of another Thai forum which considers this as no problem and we usually 'play' with each other. Apparently you are not up to that.

Yeti,

Are you the anchorman of Thai Visa? I really can't remember I posted this, but your answer is well known to most posters. Have you ever tried it, though? If you did, you would understand that your reply was not an appopriate answer.

[Firefoxx]

No, I'm not up to being called insulting names, and I pretty much doubt that other members of this forum are. I really don't know what forum you're into, but many of your comments, to me or others, have not been exactly civil. If you haven't noticed, in this forum we keep it straight and civil. Most posts here are questions, and it would be rather strange if we were all rude to each other.

Anyways, I tire of this, and hence will not reply to your stated points, since it will only generate other pointless replies. Besides, all the points have been addressed before, at one time or another.

Do we stop, or not?

Edited February 25, 2005 by Firefoxx

[yeti]

Sorry it was devil_dog.

[sajal]

hello firefox.

im not gettin into it just for fun.

just saying that the speed tests are just a test of download from that particular server hosting the test to your machine. it may/maynot be an indication of thailands international bandwidth.

Take a look at http://iir.ngi.nectec.or.th/internet/map/2...201-800x600.gif

you will c that there are many routes which constitute the international bandwidth. maybe the route to the speed test is faster/slower than other routes.

route to your speed test hosted in US may be congested and still u r able to download from korea (true has 45 mbps direct link)...

tonite will look for some speed test frm korea n compare to the us ones....

and yeti thanks a ton for the link...exactly what i was lookin for...

[sniffdog]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

since it will only generate other pointless replies

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, who's to decide if the replies are pointless ..... you?

BTW The forum I referred to was Bangkok Tonight. You might participate

on that board to develop some skin.

Edited February 26, 2005 by sniffdog

[Firefoxx]

I see there is no point (yes, pointless) in talking sensibly with you. I have asked you repeatedly if you will cease and desist your snide remarks. I still have no answer, and the repeated jabs at me seem to indicate that you will not let this matter go. Never mind then, I myself will stop responding. Do what you want, the members of this forum know me well enough to come to their own conclusion.

No, I will not participate in another forum just to develop the "skin" and crassness required to carry a converstion with you. This is a civil forum, and by participating in it you agree to abide by its rules. If you're unsure of what forum you're in, please take a look at the forum title and read the forum rules.

[Firefoxx]

A separate reply, in response to devildog:

I do know these facts, since I've been using and following the growth of internet in Thailand since its infancy in the universities. Since I'm a network engineer, I realize that a packet may take several different routes. However, as I have repeatedly stated, I have found that the tests have always been a good rough indication of real world speeds I would get through True from the US. Of course, a test in the US would not tell me anything about speeds in Thailand, or Singapore, or Korea. However, since most international traffic does go to the US, it's most sensible to test with sites in the US. Also, I cannot say that the tests are accurate for other ISPs, but I do know that it's fairly accurate for True users.

Nobody really knows how True utilizes the different routes that it has. So, what you say may not be necessarily true. However, again, I state that the Mcafee test (and other site tests) are useful in diagnosing your link. True's own test, although useless in gauging international speed, does tell you whether you're getting the ADSL speed you paid for. The Mcafee test (and other tests in the US) are good for gauging speeds you will *generally* get from sites in the US. Yes, there will be exceptions, but an standardized test is better than chaos.

If you expect test results accurate to the KB, you're expecting too much. If you expect one test to tell you all, you're expecting too much. If you expect one test fits all, you're expecting too much. Even if the test fails on you or gives bogus results, it still tells you that your ISP/settings won't work with that test. No test is perfect, and no test is completely useless.

Sorry I've had to repeat a lot of things I've said before, but that was in another thread, and I know that you didn't read that thread.

[autonomous_unit]

Hey, not to go off-topic and talk about the astonishing speed of True ADSL service

but we were having very very slow service again the other day. Once again, I got fed up and forced my modem/router to release its DHCP address from True and get a new one. That immediately resolved the performance problem. Our 1024/512 service returned from the great beyond where it was performing worse than AIS GPRS ever did on its worst day for me.

So, if you are experiencing problems I suggest changing addresses early and often... the problem

may be True's routing for that particular address, rather than overall congestion in your area or the country as a whole.

[Firefoxx]

There was actually one time, quite long ago, when True was still TA, that this occurred quite often. I would get on the net, and get really slow speeds, about 1/5 normal. If I reconnected, and got an IP address from another IP group (totally different), the speeds would be fine. This happened for several people. Nobody got a straight answer from TA about why this happened, but I never experienced it again after TA changed to True. I guess that it was probably some bad router config/glitch.

However, it made me add "disconnect and reconnect and speedtest several times" to my diagnosis routine before calling True.

[melus]

However, again, I state that the Mcafee test (and other site tests) are useful in diagnosing your link.

I've found the Mcafee test very useful. It's probably the most accurate in gauging "roughly" what your international speed is at any particular moment since the site has plenty of bandwidth. It's confirmed to me on many occasions what I had already surmised about the True's inernational speed. I should mention that even True's technitions now use this test (as well as the one on their website) as a guage of your connection speed when they come out to your business to troubleshoot.

Let me just add that I value Firefoxx's advice and comments on on a variety of posts in this forum. I've learned a lot.

[sniffdog]

Boy, was I wrong ... I was inclined to believe that you, Melus, also had your doubts about the accuracy of test sites (in particular) McAfee with your 326 Mbs result.

As said, I've witnessed many 'impossible' results on McAfee as the one with 'Indefinite'. Can you tell the 'wrong' from the 'right' ones. And the fact, as

I reiterate, that it's only a snapshot. It might be different 10 seconds later.

Also, I might have a 2.5mbs result, but streaming video or downloads are a 'bag of <deleted>'. It all depends on the internet weather, the state of certain sites and the likes to determine your today in luck or not ....

[melus]

Well, to get the 300+ Mbps results on McAfee is quite easy to do. From the site, just click on the Home button, then the Back button, and there you go - an astonishing speed. However, if used as it's designed to be used, I find that on the average, McAfee is quite accurate.

[melus]

If there are still those of you who don't trust the test at McAfee, here's another one I regularly use:

http://myspeed.streamguys.com/myspeed/

You'll need Java to use this one, though.

[sniffdog]

So, you tricked ....

My (very high unreliable) results I got by clicking on the link at adslthailand.com.

No tricks were used .... no proxies, IE.

[kreon]

and my speed now is 80 bps, <deleted>

true dsl 512/1024

[sniffdog]

Well, the link Melus gave me it probably more reliable.

I tested four times in 10 minutes interval and the results were steady (all around 1.70mbs) on a 2.5mbs connection. Only the upload is very low 88 something kbs.

But that seems to be ok if I look at my modem dialog at the same time.

Unlike McAfee where I get 3.26mbs one second and 80kbs the next ....

Edited February 27, 2005 by sniffdog

[melus]

I suspect that the big swing in your results using McAfee is due to the "jurkiness" of your True connection. You're on the 2,560/512, right? For me, the results are very stable - probably because I'm on the 2,048/512 SME package, which is "smoother". Just a thought.

[Firefoxx]

Melus, how much is that package per month? And what do you normally get with mcafee?

[melus]

When I signed up for it, it was 2,500 - now it's gone up to 2,900 (per month). Who knows why I'm still getting billed the old price. I rarely (except for last Sunday) get less than 60% of the speed I pay for. I listen to a lot of 128Kbps Internet radio, and the thing I hate the most is when it starts skipping - which almost never happens with the 2048/512 package. A sure sign True is congested is when it does, however.

[Firefoxx]

You always get billed the same price that you signed up for, and it's effective for one year. Usually, this goes for both price increases and price decreases.

I think I'll change to that... I'm already paying nearly that much for only 512k. If you always get 60% of 2.5MB, then it's already twice what I get at 100%. I usually get 80-90%, with very few exceptions, but recently during the weekends, it would drop somewhat (like last week, and today).

[sniffdog]

Yes, I am on the 2560/512 home package.

I don't understand why the 'speedguys' test delivers steady results (around 1.7mbs, with one low at 1.3mbs) while McAfee delivers this wobbly results.

Who am I to trust .....

If these results from 'speedguys' are reliable, I think I can't complain. However, I have my doubts. Downloads at RealArcade vary from 200+kB to 50kB at different times, but 'speedguys' deliver the same speed.

[sajal]

<deleted>???

im tryin http://myspeed.streamguys.com/myspeed/

im using true 1024/512 or 1024/256 package, im not sure.

streem guys :-

MySpeed Results

Download 19,720 bps

Upload 78,320 bps

QOS 9%

RTT 15 ms

MaxPause 6259 ms

mcafee :-

File Size: 150.005 KB

Time Elapsed: 24.264 seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.44 Kbps

(6.18 KBps)

should i switch to dial up ;-)...

is it just me or its true in general.