Broadband speed

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by David, Mar 31, 2006.

  1. David

    David Guest

    Just switched to 10Mbs/2Mbs cable & have run a few speed tests.

    Seems that do not often get over 1 - Mbs from overseas sites - not entirely
    surprising?

    However, the NZ results from http://www.speedtest.co.nz/ intrigued:

    At c. midday (similar results in several tests)
    6950.2 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    1809.1 k New Zealand - Auckland Ihug
    6045.5 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet

    At 1:56pm
    3365.3 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    213.1 k New Zealand - Auckland Ihug
    3722.3 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet

    At 1:56pm
    4387.2 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    459.0 k New Zealand - Auckland Ihug
    5296.7 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet

    In all tests run, the IHUG result is considerably slower than the Orcon
    results. Often even slower than results for the US sites.

    Any particular reason?

    Just the particular route from Paradise to IHUG, or is it an IHUG issue?

    David
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:04:35 +1200, David wrote:

    > Just switched to 10Mbs/2Mbs cable & have run a few speed tests.
    >
    > Seems that do not often get over 1 - Mbs from overseas sites - not entirely
    > surprising?


    Oops - lost a "2". Should read

    "do not often get over 1 - 2 Mbs from overseas sites"

    David
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David" <> wrote in message
    news:lrtuua8crd7.4p8ums8h241i$...
    > Just switched to 10Mbs/2Mbs cable & have run a few speed tests.
    >
    > Seems that do not often get over 1 - Mbs from overseas sites - not
    > entirely
    > surprising?
    >
    > However, the NZ results from http://www.speedtest.co.nz/ intrigued:
    >
    > At c. midday (similar results in several tests)
    > 6950.2 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    > 1809.1 k New Zealand - Auckland Ihug
    > 6045.5 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    >


    Try www.nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest

    I've found these are more reliable (except the main test has a bug sometimes
    the 1st time you run it it gives incorrect speed.

    And it will show previous test speeds as well

    Thanks
    Craig Whitmore
    http://www.nzdsl.co.nz
     
    Craig Whitmore, Mar 31, 2006
    #3
  4. David

    SNOman Guest

    Craig Whitmore wrote:
    > "David" <> wrote in message
    > news:lrtuua8crd7.4p8ums8h241i$...
    >> Just switched to 10Mbs/2Mbs cable & have run a few speed tests.
    >>
    >> Seems that do not often get over 1 - Mbs from overseas sites - not
    >> entirely
    >> surprising?
    >>
    >> However, the NZ results from http://www.speedtest.co.nz/ intrigued:
    >>
    >> At c. midday (similar results in several tests)
    >> 6950.2 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    >> 1809.1 k New Zealand - Auckland Ihug
    >> 6045.5 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    >>

    >
    > Try www.nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest
    >
    > I've found these are more reliable (except the main test has a bug sometimes
    > the 1st time you run it it gives incorrect speed.
    >
    > And it will show previous test speeds as well
    >
    > Thanks
    > Craig Whitmore
    > http://www.nzdsl.co.nz
    >
    >

    Your current bandwidth reading is:

    256.00 Mbps

    which means you can download at 32 MB/sec. from our servers.

    33.6K kbps 33.6K Dialup
    56 kbps 56K Dialup
    256 kbps 256K DSL
    1024 kbps 1M DSL
    2048 kbps 2M DSL
    262144 kbps YOU


    cool
     
    SNOman, Mar 31, 2006
    #4
  5. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:23:59 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:


    > Try www.nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest
    >
    > I've found these are more reliable (except the main test has a bug sometimes
    > the 1st time you run it it gives incorrect speed.
    >
    > And it will show previous test speeds as well
    >
    > Thanks
    > Craig Whitmore
    > http://www.nzdsl.co.nz


    Had tried it but the result seemed "suspect"

    Main test uses a very small file? First attempt gave a reading of c 25 Mbs
    (cf my 10Mbs cap). Assumed it was an anomoly due to the small file size.

    Anyway repeated all 3 tests, results as follows:

    Main test (file size? - very quick, so must be small?)
    March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7113.2 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7716.2 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7718.6 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7438.3 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7968.9 kbps


    First alt test (only 128kb file!)
    Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:40:01 GMT
    1st 128K took 100 ms = 1310720 Bytes/sec = approx 10905 kbits/sec
    2nd 128K took 30 ms = 4369067 Bytes/sec = approx 36351 kbits/sec
    3rd 128K took 40 ms = 3276800 Bytes/sec = approx 27263 kbits/sec
    4th 128K took 30 ms = 4369067 Bytes/sec = approx 36351 kbits/sec

    Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:41:05 GMT
    1st 128K took 111 ms = 1180829 Bytes/sec = approx 9824 kbits/sec
    2nd 128K took 120 ms = 1092267 Bytes/sec = approx 9088 kbits/sec
    3rd 128K took 200 ms = 655360 Bytes/sec = approx 5453 kbits/sec
    4th 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec

    Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:43:49 GMT
    1st 128K took 40 ms = 3276800 Bytes/sec = approx 27263 kbits/sec
    2nd 128K took 30 ms = 4369067 Bytes/sec = approx 36351 kbits/sec
    3rd 128K took 40 ms = 3276800 Bytes/sec = approx 27263 kbits/sec
    4th 128K took 40 ms = 3276800 Bytes/sec = approx 27263 kbits/sec

    Caching issues?


    Second alt test (only 128kb file!)
    # Estimated line speed: 7208.5 (kilobits/second)
    # Estimated line speed: 883.4 (kilobytes/second)

    # Estimated line speed: 10316.1 (kilobits/second)
    # Estimated line speed: 1264.2 (kilobytes/second)

    # Estimated line speed: 9588.7 (kilobits/second)
    # Estimated line speed: 1175.1 (kilobytes/second)


    By comparison

    dslreports.com speed test result on 2006-03-30 21:47:16 EST:
    Your download speed : 1972 kbps or 246.5 KB/sec.
    Your upload speed : 1296 kbps or 162 KB/sec.

    Interestingly several tests on this site registered upload speed at 1900 -
    2100 kbs, which is faster than I got from any NZ site.

    Cheers
    David
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #5
  6. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:54:50 +1200, David wrote:

    > Second alt test (only 128kb file!)


    The dangers of cut & paste - second test uses 1000kb file of course.

    D
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #6
  7. >
    > Anyway repeated all 3 tests, results as follows:
    >
    > Main test (file size? - very quick, so must be small?)
    > March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7113.2 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7716.2 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7718.6 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7438.3 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 2:38pm 7968.9 kbps


    This is more accurate in the tests I've found.. from the 10M connections
    I've tested it from (and larger speed), this looks
    correct. I guess you are testing this from a Windows machine.. (try applying
    the reg changes (reboot) and do a number of the tests again and you might
    find it gives more like 10M speeds) - let me know if it doesn't.
    >
    >
    > First alt test (only 128kb file!)
    > Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:40:01 GMT
    > 1st 128K took 100 ms = 1310720 Bytes/sec = approx 10905 kbits/sec
    > 2nd 128K took 30 ms = 4369067 Bytes/sec = approx 36351 kbits/sec
    > 3rd 128K took 40 ms = 3276800 Bytes/sec = approx 27263 kbits/sec
    > 4th 128K took 30 ms = 4369067 Bytes/sec = approx 36351 kbits/sec
    >


    This test doesn't seem to work well with high speed connections at all
    but seems to give good results with like 2M connections.

    Thanks for the input. Good to know these things so I can get them improved


    Thanks
    Craig
     
    Craig Whitmore, Mar 31, 2006
    #7
  8. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:07:16 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:

    ....

    > ... I guess you are testing this from a Windows machine..


    Correct.

    > .... (try applying the reg changes ...


    Later - tonight maybe


    Thanks
    David
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #8
  9. On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:04:35 +1200, someone purporting to be David didst
    scrawl:

    *SNIP*
    > In all tests run, the IHUG result is considerably slower than the Orcon
    > results. Often even slower than results for the US sites.
    >
    > Any particular reason?
    >
    > Just the particular route from Paradise to IHUG, or is it an IHUG issue?
    >

    Not surprising when you consider that Ihug have refused to buy into the
    extortion that is domestic transit, so traffic between the TCL network and
    Ihug must transit the international circuits of both companies. That's
    also why some international stuff is faster, since it's just a
    there-and-back scenario instead of a there-and-there-and-back one.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 31, 2006
    #9
  10. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:07:16 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:

    .....

    > This is more accurate in the tests I've found.. from the 10M connections
    > I've tested it from (and larger speed), this looks
    > correct. I guess you are testing this from a Windows machine.. (try applying
    > the reg changes (reboot) and do a number of the tests again and you might
    > find it gives more like 10M speeds) - let me know if it doesn't.


    Done and re-booted. Hard to tell if any effect as it is now post 5pm there
    may well be larger contention issues. As below, results currently quite
    variable.

    ### After re-boot ###
    March 31st, 2006 6:12pm 3846 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 6:12pm 6597.6 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 6:07pm 5112.5 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 5590.5 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 7814.3 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 7612.2 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 6291.9 kbps

    ### Before re-boot (after reg changes) ###
    March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 5788 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 5899.2 kbps
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #10
  11. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:13:33 +1200, David wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:07:16 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
    >
    > ....
    >
    >> This is more accurate in the tests I've found.. from the 10M connections
    >> I've tested it from (and larger speed), this looks
    >> correct. I guess you are testing this from a Windows machine.. (try applying
    >> the reg changes (reboot) and do a number of the tests again and you might
    >> find it gives more like 10M speeds) - let me know if it doesn't.

    >
    > Done and re-booted. Hard to tell if any effect as it is now post 5pm there
    > may well be larger contention issues. As below, results currently quite
    > variable.


    Just located http://www.world-net.co.nz/support/speedtest/

    Get following result for their "DSL Test"
    > ### After re-boot ###


    WorldNet Bandwidth Metre Results (4 separate tests at c 6:17pm)
    Your current bandwidth reading is: 8.15 Mbps
    Your current bandwidth reading is: 8.02 Mbps
    Your current bandwidth reading is: 8.05 Mbps
    Your current bandwidth reading is: 7.55 Mbps

    D
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #11
  12. David

    MarkH Guest

    "Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in
    news:442c9323$:

    > Try www.nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest
    >
    > I've found these are more reliable (except the main test has a bug
    > sometimes the 1st time you run it it gives incorrect speed.


    3400Kb/s, not bad on a 2Mb/s connection.

    On a retest it seemed more accurate with 1.93Mb/s.

    Orcon had been running a bit slow in peak times, but a couple of weeks back
    it improved immensely. Now I seem to be getting good speeds (200-230KB/S
    on one file, 240-255KB/S between 2 files).

    Alternative Speedtest 1:

    > 1st 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
    > 2nd 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
    > 3rd 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec
    > 4th 128K took 532 ms = 246376 Bytes/sec = approx 2050 kbits/sec


    Pretty nice results.




    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
     
    MarkH, Mar 31, 2006
    #12
  13. "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:LW3Xf.21015$...
    > "Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in
    > news:442c9323$:
    >
    >> Try www.nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest
    >>
    >> I've found these are more reliable (except the main test has a bug
    >> sometimes the 1st time you run it it gives incorrect speed.

    >
    > 3400Kb/s, not bad on a 2Mb/s connection.
    >
    > On a retest it seemed more accurate with 1.93Mb/s.
    >


    I should have this fixed in the next few days (the 1st try gives bad/wrong
    results)

    At the moment.. an estimate of on average about 80,000->100,000 tests are
    done each month at the moment on the speedtest websites with about 93% from
    NZers. 2 months ago it was averaging about 40,000 tests each month.

    Thanks
    Craig
     
    Craig Whitmore, Mar 31, 2006
    #13
  14. David

    David Guest

    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:13:33 +1200, David wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:07:16 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
    >
    > ....
    >
    >> This is more accurate in the tests I've found.. from the 10M connections
    >> I've tested it from (and larger speed), this looks
    >> correct. I guess you are testing this from a Windows machine.. (try applying
    >> the reg changes (reboot) and do a number of the tests again and you might
    >> find it gives more like 10M speeds) - let me know if it doesn't.

    >
    > Done and re-booted. Hard to tell if any effect as it is now post 5pm there
    > may well be larger contention issues. As below, results currently quite
    > variable.
    >
    > ### After re-boot ###
    > March 31st, 2006 6:12pm 3846 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 6:12pm 6597.6 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 6:07pm 5112.5 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 5590.5 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 7814.3 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 7612.2 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 6291.9 kbps
    >
    > ### Before re-boot (after reg changes) ###
    > March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 5788 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 5899.2 kbps


    Closer to theoretical now its approaching off-peak
    March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 9092.1 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 9351.6 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 8701 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 8179.7 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 8841.9 kbps
    March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 9514.5 kbps

    D
     
    David, Mar 31, 2006
    #14
  15. David

    ~misfit~ Guest

    David wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:13:33 +1200, David wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:07:16 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
    >>
    >> ....
    >>
    >>> This is more accurate in the tests I've found.. from the 10M
    >>> connections I've tested it from (and larger speed), this looks
    >>> correct. I guess you are testing this from a Windows machine.. (try
    >>> applying the reg changes (reboot) and do a number of the tests
    >>> again and you might find it gives more like 10M speeds) - let me
    >>> know if it doesn't.

    >>
    >> Done and re-booted. Hard to tell if any effect as it is now post
    >> 5pm there may well be larger contention issues. As below, results
    >> currently quite variable.
    >>
    >> ### After re-boot ###
    >> March 31st, 2006 6:12pm 3846 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 6:12pm 6597.6 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 6:07pm 5112.5 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 5590.5 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 7814.3 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 6:06pm 7612.2 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 6291.9 kbps
    >>
    >> ### Before re-boot (after reg changes) ###
    >> March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 5788 kbps
    >> March 31st, 2006 5:55pm 5899.2 kbps

    >
    > Closer to theoretical now its approaching off-peak
    > March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 9092.1 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 9351.6 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 8701 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 8179.7 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 8841.9 kbps
    > March 31st, 2006 11:48pm 9514.5 kbps


    All I can say is...... Wow!
    --
    ~Shaun~
     
    ~misfit~, Apr 1, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Antony Leather

    NTL broadband speed too low???

    Antony Leather, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    915
    SgtMinor
    Nov 6, 2003
  2. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,050
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  3. Ira Hayes

    Cable vs DSL broadband speed

    Ira Hayes, Feb 26, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    741
    Michel Derome
    Mar 2, 2005
  4. Broadband Speed

    , Apr 18, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,279
  5. Bill
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    754
    Nobody
    May 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page