Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speed Test

speed.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: Speed Test

#211

Post by dtaht »

sinak wrote: post #150
p1mrx wrote: post #148

Nice. Every speed test should have a "latency under load" graph, because we can't fight bufferbloat if we can't see it. DSLReports had the first bufferbloat test I'm aware of, but it's broken now. Another example is https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat Ideally this problem should be fixed by ISPs and modem manufacturers, but individuals can use OpenWrt with luci-app-sqm, at least when the connection has a predi…

Ah the Waveform test is ours! I've been meaning to post it properly to HN since we launched it. It's far from being a perfect bufferbloat/latency under load test, and there's lots of room to improve it, but we built it when DSL Reports seemed to be running a little unreliably. We actually use Cloudflare and Fastly on the backend for latency/speed testing. We built and host the test for free mostly because I wanted it…

In some cases, the upload portion of the waveform test appears to be broken, btw. I worry that underneath it has switched from cubic to BBR and is thus understanding what a normal user actually experiences.

Otherwise I still feel yours is the best web based latency under load test out there! Thank you for creating it and keeping it going so long! (Can I have you add preseem, libreqos, etc, to the FAQ?)

Re: Speed Test

#212

Post by dtaht »

For detailed bufferbloat related statistics, I helped create the flent.org tool, many years ago. It shows details that the web tests cannot.

I keep hoping more folk will see networks with single digit latency under load stats, like what we get from a good cake or fq_codel installation at the CPE, or with libreqos.io, preseem, etc at the ISP.

Re: Speed Test

#213

Post by dtaht »

dom96 wrote: post #175
p1mrx wrote: post #148

Nice. Every speed test should have a "latency under load" graph, because we can't fight bufferbloat if we can't see it. DSLReports had the first bufferbloat test I'm aware of, but it's broken now. Another example is https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat Ideally this problem should be fixed by ISPs and modem manufacturers, but individuals can use OpenWrt with luci-app-sqm, at least when the connection has a predi…

Wow, +500ms latency under upload load for me with Hyperoptic. Incredibly poor. https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=8205ec7e-...

yep. You can fix it for yourself with a SQM-enabled router...

Or encourage your ISP to put in a better packet shaping solution in the first place. There are now a whole bunch of these - Preseem, Cambium, Paraqum, and my own libreqos. Cost is about 30 cents of CAPEX per subscriber.

Re: Speed Test

#214

Post by dtaht »

jnsaff2 wrote: post #27

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 have tried to produce bufferbloat-related tools that measure things far more accurately and in more detail. https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/flaws_in_flent/

Re: Speed Test

#215

Post by dtaht »

Pxtl wrote: post #85
moffkalast wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've ran it multiple times in Chrome only and got vastly different results just there, from 200 to 600 down on a 500 connection. Must be heavily dependant on moment-to-moment network conditions I guess, to the point where it's nigh useless.

Yes, the bandwidth test is so short that I'm not surprised it gets inconsistent results. I'd wager the speedtest.net being longer was not decided for fun, but to get more consistent results. edit: Now I realize that the later tiny-small-medium filesize downloads also add to your above-the-fold download performance, so the results of the initial warm-up test are discarded later.

In general, none of the web based tests run for long enough. Some are configurable to run longer.

Re: Speed Test

#216

Post by trendal »

sinak wrote: post #150
p1mrx wrote: post #148

Nice. Every speed test should have a "latency under load" graph, because we can't fight bufferbloat if we can't see it. DSLReports had the first bufferbloat test I'm aware of, but it's broken now. Another example is https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat Ideally this problem should be fixed by ISPs and modem manufacturers, but individuals can use OpenWrt with luci-app-sqm, at least when the connection has a predi…

Ah the Waveform test is ours! I've been meaning to post it properly to HN since we launched it. It's far from being a perfect bufferbloat/latency under load test, and there's lots of room to improve it, but we built it when DSL Reports seemed to be running a little unreliably. We actually use Cloudflare and Fastly on the backend for latency/speed testing. We built and host the test for free mostly because I wanted it…

Hey, I love that tool. Use it all the time at our Wisp installs. And it's easy to point clients to it and have them send me the results. If you need donations to keep it going please reach out.
Post reply on HN