101–110 of 216 posts
Cloudflare: 697 down / 645 up
fast.com: 860 down / 440 up
Google: 760 down / 347 up
Ookla speedtest: 841 down / 827 up
Quite a large variability in upload speeds, which isn't all the surprising I guess. Network providers often don't really need to prioritise upload traffic...
Uff. Apparently gives correct readings mostly in Chrome only. I have a 500/500M connection and on the same computer Chrome gives 465/364 and Firefox has 311/303M. EDIT: this was on Linux/intel. On Mac M1Pro it Chrome/FF/Safari all get pretty much the same numbers. Both computers have wired ethernet.
I think this is likely to be related to the way different browsers implement time. In an effort to improve security, browsers reduce fidelity & accuracy on results from the `performance.now()` timer methods. If you attempt to call `performance.now()`, and then call it again within 100 microseconds, your second result isn't guaranteed to be in the future compared to the first result. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-U…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are decent alternatives for this. Fast.com is hosted by Netflix, making them an excellent speedtest to check for service throttling. Google has a speedtest as well (Google "speed test" and it'll show a button). The more of these tests start appearing, the better.
I've found Fast.com gamed sometimes when traveling in Asia/Europe, in the sense the ISP prioritizes Netflix traffic but normal traffic never gets within 20% of that Fast.com download speed or has much higher latency or something...? With Cloudflare I'm guessing it's a more balanced measure.
Great, one more speedtest site to pit against all the others. On my gigabyte fibre: Cloudflare: 697 down / 645 up fast.com: 860 down / 440 up Google: 760 down / 347 up Ookla speedtest: 841 down / 827 up Quite a large variability in upload speeds, which isn't all the surprising I guess. Network providers often don't really need to prioritise upload traffic...
*gigabit
Get it right already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you in London? My 1Gbps link gives 800-900Mbps in these speed tests, and I'm fine with that. It's a pitty that some of that is unused because I need to use a VPN. When I lived in a small town, my 500Mbps would give me >400Mbps consistently.
That 800-900Mbps doesn't include the bits needed for IP packet headers, does it?
Pretty much spot on for me. 2gig/1gig fiber internet and I got 1.95 Gbps/960 Mbps
Wow that’s fast. Genuine question: what’s it like having internet that fast? Because I get 40-50Mbps down and ~16 Mbps down on that tool, and I have fibre to the property (yay, Australia) and I’m so curious to know what’s it like to have a connection that’s actually good .
I tried this on my home wifi (fiber backend) and got scores in range with what I expect. Then I tried it again outside the house, a block away using a 5G connection and much to my surprise the bandwidth in downloading was MUCH better (almost 3x) and upload somewhat better (1.5x). The 5G connection had worse latency characteristics though, which is to be expected of course. Obviously this isn't an apples-to-apples com…
Then within a product cycle or two everyone's phones had it and it went back to normal. I'd expect a similar thing here enjoy it while it lasts I guess.
Supports IPv6 too. That's a nice surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, that's part of what motivated netflix to make fast.com.
is it possible for ISP to distinguish Netflix video streams from connections to Fast.com ? (and throttle them differently) PS: my latest ISP router doesn't let me change DNS to my local pi-hole. haven't explored all options yet - just got new one 2 days ago -- but currently my DNS queries are going to whatever is the default set by my ISP.
It's difficult because Netflix can respond to any such technique by taking steps to make it less obvious, so you just end up with one of these cat-and-mouse games.