Accurate Broadband Speed Tests

[Mike in Texas]

Hi all,

Can anyone suggest a fairly accurate program or site for broadband speed
testing. I'm currently using MySpeed PC Lite from

http://myspeed.visualware.com

which works well, but the numbers differ from (show higher numbers than)
web-based speed tests sites like cnet and such.

Any help is appreciated and thanks -

Mike

[Jeff Liebermann]

Mike in Texas <lydoss@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

>Can anyone suggest a fairly accurate program or site for broadband speed
>testing.

Are you testing your broadband ISP connection speed, or your wireless
device speed? The methods are quite different. Assuming the ISP
speed, it really depends on where you are located and who is your ISP.
The best test is usually a speed test server co-located at your ISP's
server farm. You want the fewest number of hops between the gateway
server and the test server.

Try these indexes:
<http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/speedtest/>
<http://nitro.ucsc.edu> (list of servers near bottom of page)
<http://www.dslreports.com/stest>

>I'm currently using MySpeed PC Lite from
>http://myspeed.visualware.com

That's what many ISP's use. They also have a nifty VoIP tester.
However, there's no need to have a client running on your machine
reporting the speed. The application can be delivered via Java or
Flash, without needing much more than a web browser. Howver, if you
want your very own speed testing client, I use IPerf:
<http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/>
There are a few IPerf servers available on the internet, but they're
primarily for the use of the ISP's customers.

>which works well, but the numbers differ from (show higher numbers than)
>web-based speed tests sites like cnet and such.

You will get variations no matter how you test or what tools you use.
The internet is a shared medium. In order to get repeatable results,
you'll need exclusive use of the bandwidth between your machine and
the speed test server. That's not going to happen once the packets
leave your ISP. It *MIGHT* happen if the test server is co-located at
your ISP's facilities.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <a8pls3ti6pton2te7uqr3u01hi2dmudfep@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Mike in Texas <lydoss@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
> >Can anyone suggest a fairly accurate program or site for broadband speed
> >testing.
>
> Are you testing your broadband ISP connection speed, or your wireless
> device speed? The methods are quite different. Assuming the ISP
> speed, it really depends on where you are located and who is your ISP.
> The best test is usually a speed test server co-located at your ISP's
> server farm. You want the fewest number of hops between the gateway
> server and the test server.
>
> Try these indexes:
> <http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/speedtest/>
> <http://nitro.ucsc.edu> (list of servers near bottom of page)
> <http://www.dslreports.com/stest>
>
>
I am using visual ware to check my Brighthouse/Earthlink Cable
modem connection. I get good speed, but I am getting consistently lousy
quality of service measurements (nothing over 65% and most approaching
30%). When I look at the route, it is always around 18-20 and the ones
with the most lag and packet loss are always the same 2-3. So, is this
really just measuring the QoS of the path and I might get VERY different
QoS measures at one of these others?

[Mike in Texas]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Mike in Texas <lydoss@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
>> Can anyone suggest a fairly accurate program or site for broadband speed
>> testing.
>
> Are you testing your broadband ISP connection speed, or your wireless
> device speed? The methods are quite different. Assuming the ISP
> speed, it really depends on where you are located and who is your ISP.
> The best test is usually a speed test server co-located at your ISP's
> server farm. You want the fewest number of hops between the gateway
> server and the test server.
>
> Try these indexes:
> <http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/speedtest/>
> <http://nitro.ucsc.edu> (list of servers near bottom of page)
> <http://www.dslreports.com/stest>
>
>> I'm currently using MySpeed PC Lite from
>> http://myspeed.visualware.com
>
> That's what many ISP's use. They also have a nifty VoIP tester.
> However, there's no need to have a client running on your machine
> reporting the speed. The application can be delivered via Java or
> Flash, without needing much more than a web browser. Howver, if you
> want your very own speed testing client, I use IPerf:
> <http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/>
> There are a few IPerf servers available on the internet, but they're
> primarily for the use of the ISP's customers.
>
>> which works well, but the numbers differ from (show higher numbers than)
>> web-based speed tests sites like cnet and such.
>
> You will get variations no matter how you test or what tools you use.
> The internet is a shared medium. In order to get repeatable results,
> you'll need exclusive use of the bandwidth between your machine and
> the speed test server. That's not going to happen once the packets
> leave your ISP. It *MIGHT* happen if the test server is co-located at
> your ISP's facilities.
>


Thanks for the great information!

Well, I was interested in ISP connection speed, but I would also like to
test my wireless device speed. Don't know how to do that.

I've made some changes to my old connections in the last couple of
weeks, including replacing a 25 ft. cable with a 6 ft. cable from jack
to modem, replacing my 8+ year old modem with a Motorolla SB5101
SurfBoard, adding a Linksys WRT350N router and a Linksys WMP300N PCI
card, and finally upgrading my service from 7Mbps to 10Mbps. My only
weakness is, I'm concluding, though not directly network related, is my
500Mhz processor. But - my wireless has been running very smoothly.

I'm getting consistent numbers with each type of test I conduct, but the
numbers vary with each test. Though I do get different speed results at
various times of the day and night.

I have roadrunner service. Using MySpeed PC Lite, I've gotten results
during different times of the day and evening between 2.8 and 9.1Mbps (4
in the morning) - with all network applications (that I know of) shut
down) and Zone Alarm off. With web-based speed tests, cnet
specifically, I usually get a steady 2.5 to maybe 5.0Mbps - not a great
of spread as MySpeed.

I'll check out their site for bandwidth testing, as well as the other
links you have suggested.

Thanks again -

Mike

[Bert Hyman]

In news:47cae375$0$17362$4c368faf@roadrunner.com Mike in Texas
<lydoss@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a fairly accurate program or site for broadband speed
> testing.

http://miranda.ctd.anl.gov:7123/
http://web100.rit.edu:7123/
http://jlab4.jlab.org:7123/
http://netspeed.stanford.edu/
http://ciseweb100.cise-nsf.gov:7123/
http://ndt.server.ufl.edu:7123/
http://speedtest.umflint.edu/


--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

[Jeff Liebermann]

Mike in Texas <lydoss@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

>Well, I was interested in ISP connection speed, but I would also like to
>test my wireless device speed. Don't know how to do that.

Well, the ISP speed test requires some kind of online speed testing
site. I listed a few but there are plenty others. Check with your
ISP if they have one running on their servers. Most do, but usually
don't advertise the URL.

Checking wireless speed is easy. It takes two computers. Unplug your
cable or DSL modem. Connect a fast computer to the WAN(internet) port
of your router. You may need a cross-over ethernet cable. This will
be the server. You'll need IPerf:
<http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/>
<http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/iperfdocs_1.7.0.php>
On the server, run:
iperf -s

The 2nd computer is your client. Start with an ethernet connection,
not wireless. Just plug into one of the router LAN ports. Run:
iperf -c ip_address_of_server
You should get a speed test report in one direction. For both
directions, run:
iperf -r -c ip_address_of_server
Lots more options to play with. See the docs.

For a sanity check, see the WAN->LAN performance charts at:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/>

Once you have the wired benchmarking working, switch to wireless.
Unplug the LAN ethernet cable from the client machine and connect via
wireless. Same command:
iperf -c ip_address_of_server
You should get about half the wireless connection speed. If you're
connected at 54Mbits/sec, you should get 25Mbits/sec thruput in both
directions.

>I've made some changes to my old connections in the last couple of
>weeks, including replacing a 25 ft. cable with a 6 ft. cable from jack
>to modem, replacing my 8+ year old modem with a Motorolla SB5101
>SurfBoard, adding a Linksys WRT350N router and a Linksys WMP300N PCI
>card, and finally upgrading my service from 7Mbps to 10Mbps. My only
>weakness is, I'm concluding, though not directly network related, is my
>500Mhz processor. But - my wireless has been running very smoothly.

Good selection of hardware. I don't think the 25ft of cable to the
modem is going to make much difference. Login to the modem at:
http://192.168.1.254
or:
http://192.168.100.1
and check the diagnostics for any RF issues.

>I'm getting consistent numbers with each type of test I conduct, but the
>numbers vary with each test. Though I do get different speed results at
>various times of the day and night.

That's not suprising when testing over a cable modem connection. As I
mentioned, it's a shared medium. It's affected by what your neighbors
are doing. For example, if your netmask is:
255.255.254.0
then you can have up to 1024 users sharing your cable going back to
the DSLAM. It used to be possible to get better performance at night
when users are unlikely to be online. However, the prevalence of file
sharing, which can be run at any time, has made midnight performance
less spectacular.

The 500MHz processor will not be a problem for raw downloading. It
can easily handle a decent 100Mbit/sec ethernet card at wire speed.
However, it may have problems dealing with some of the online
applications that require substantial horsepower.

>I have roadrunner service. Using MySpeed PC Lite, I've gotten results
>during different times of the day and evening between 2.8 and 9.1Mbps (4
>in the morning) - with all network applications (that I know of) shut
>down) and Zone Alarm off.

Well, if you're paying for 10Mbit/sec service, getting 9.1Mbits/sec is
decent. However, you will not get that speed at any random time.

>With web-based speed tests, cnet
>specifically, I usually get a steady 2.5 to maybe 5.0Mbps - not a great
>of spread as MySpeed.

That's because the CNET bottleneck is not on your local cable
connection. It's somewhere along the backhaul, which is probably
constipated, throttled, or otherwise obstructed. You want the test
server to be as close as possible to your ISP, prefereably on your
ISP's servers.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann]

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

>I am using visual ware to check my Brighthouse/Earthlink Cable
>modem connection. I get good speed,

Numbers please? Your idea of good may not be the same as mine. Also,
what speed service does Brighthouse/Earthlink offer?

>but I am getting consistently lousy
>quality of service measurements (nothing over 65% and most approaching
>30%).

Pardon my igorance by I think service quality and QoS (Quality of
Service) are different animals. My guess(tm) is that your numbers are
a conglomeration of various imparement numbers, such as packet loss,
latency, jitter, and fragmentation.

>When I look at the route, it is always around 18-20 and the ones
>with the most lag and packet loss are always the same 2-3.

18-20 whats?
2-3 whats?
Packets, servers, hops, systems, etc?

>So, is this
>really just measuring the QoS of the path and I might get VERY different
>QoS measures at one of these others?

Sorry, no clue. I have never seen a numerical measurement for QoS.
The closest approximation are the various VoIP testers, which measure
the same things, but offer individual results instead of a
conglomerated metric.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <b6dms3tptnvanbloopec1530nop3hf05qq@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
> >I am using visual ware to check my Brighthouse/Earthlink Cable
> >modem connection. I get good speed,
>
> Numbers please? Your idea of good may not be the same as mine. Also,
> what speed service does Brighthouse/Earthlink offer?
>
It is a cable and I when I check it through Visual Ware it at least
what they say cable modem should be (around 4 Mbps) and occasionally up
around ethernet (10 Mbps).

> >but I am getting consistently lousy
> >quality of service measurements (nothing over 65% and most approaching
> >30%).
>
> Pardon my igorance by I think service quality and QoS (Quality of
> Service) are different animals. My guess(tm) is that your numbers are
> a conglomeration of various imparement numbers, such as packet loss,
> latency, jitter, and fragmentation.
Not sure what it is either (that is part of my question, I guess)
those are the numbers that Visual ware gives me.


>
> >When I look at the route, it is always around 18-20 and the ones
> >with the most lag and packet loss are always the same 2-3.
>
> 18-20 whats?
Sorry hops
> 2-3 whats?
Servers.

> Packets, servers, hops, systems, etc?
>
> >So, is this
> >really just measuring the QoS of the path and I might get VERY different
> >QoS measures at one of these others?
>
> Sorry, no clue. I have never seen a numerical measurement for QoS.
> The closest approximation are the various VoIP testers, which measure
> the same things, but offer individual results instead of a
> conglomerated metric.

This is what Visualware gives me when I do the VoIP testers.
The just say it is a measure of whether the connection is able to
produce a constant stream of data.
Well thanks for the time. I was hoping that these numbers were
a standard and would make sense to you, I guess they don't and aren't. I
appreciate the efforts.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

> Not sure what it is either (that is part of my question, I guess)
>those are the numbers that Visual ware gives me.

The Visualware tests explanation the various numbers.
<http://www.myspeed.com/whitepapers/benchmarks.html>
<http://myvoipspeed.visualware.com>

>> 18-20 whats?
>Sorry hops

Too many hops. You will not get an accurate speed test with that many
hops. However, the VoIP latency, packet loss, and jitter test (QoS)
is a good example of the voice quality you'll see running VoIP
telephony. You'll find that it's quite different with a wired
ethernet connection and a wireless connection. The wireless
connection will have some packet loss (due to interference,
reflections, and weak signals) which will increase the latency and
jitter.

>> 2-3 whats?
> Servers.

Well yes, there has to be a bottleneck somewhere. As I mumbled, it's
usually on the backbone(s) between server farms.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> hath wroth:

I left out some details.

Both IPerf server and IPerf client should have a static IP address
assigned. The WAN interface of the router should also be setup with a
static IP address. Do NOT use the same subnet for both the WAN and
LAN sides as this drives some routers nuts.

The first test should be with both the server and client plugged into
the ethernet LAN ports and running at 100Mbit/sec (100baseT). You
should get at least 70Mbits/sec in both directions. If not, something
is broken. I've seen ethernet switches in some cheapo routers do
weird things, so be prepared for some suprises.

The 2nd test should be with the server plugged into the WAN port. The
static IP address of the server will need to change. The WAN->LAN
performance tends to be insipid and much less than wire speed. It
depends on the router processor speed, and the number of features,
filters, and rules setup in the router.

The 3rd test is to replace the client ethernet connection with a
wireless connection.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann]

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

>In article <b6dms3tptnvanbloopec1530nop3hf05qq@4ax.com>,

>> Pardon my igorance by I think service quality and QoS (Quality of
>> Service) are different animals. My guess(tm) is that your numbers are
>> a conglomeration of various imparement numbers, such as packet loss,
>> latency, jitter, and fragmentation.

> Not sure what it is either (that is part of my question, I guess)
>those are the numbers that Visual ware gives me.

Here's what my report for my home Cruzio 1500/384 DSL line looks like:
<http://mssjc.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=848370>

Note the packet loss at about 6.5 seconds into the test, which
resulted in a huge latency value. I'm not sure what caused this
hickup, but it's probably one of a half dozen assorted daemons I have
running that eat CPU cycles and suck bandwidth (Skype, GizmoProject,
Pidgin, NTP, etc). This hickup later caused the QoS percentage to
drop well below 100%. The values much be constant to get a good QoS
value. Nice test.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <n1pms39i23gat74d0i88o681dll3kiglnj@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
> > Not sure what it is either (that is part of my question, I guess)
> >those are the numbers that Visual ware gives me.
>
> The Visualware tests explanation the various numbers.
> <http://www.myspeed.com/whitepapers/benchmarks.html>
> <http://myvoipspeed.visualware.com>
Thanks. now all I gotta do is figure out what all that means (g).

>

[Bill Kearney]

> Thanks. now all I gotta do is figure out what all that means (g).

It's pretty simple, you can't get accurate speed measurements when you're
dealing with multiple networking paths. Wireless adds to the complications
because it can't guarantee as reliable and predictable a connection as you'd
get with a wired one. Interference or other wifi traffic makes testing it
difficult.

Simple web-based "speed tests" can't show you bottlenecks between your
computer and the web server hosting the test.

When you're testing you want to measure the speed of your local network, the
speed to the ISP and then the speed out of the ISP. The speed TO the ISP
is what your service provides. But it's useless to have a fast connection
to the ISP if their upstream connections out to other hosts are swamped (aka
cable companies).