User comments on ISPs
  >> Virgin Media (Cable)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | 5 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User smurf46
(committed) Tue 16-May-17 11:20:56
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
I too always get bufferbloat reported on the new test.

But my main question which I'll tag on here is whether there is an obvious reason why the new test for my connection always reports half the download and upload speeds reported for the old test done for comparison? So for instance just now New test: x1 10-12 download, upload 1-3 55ms latency; Old test x1 22-24 x6 24-26 down 5.5 up and 14ms latency. The old test is far closer to what I expect for my 35/6.5Mbps synch on an uninmpacted line and the actual performance of my service. (And to the latency reported by my TBBQM). It's the same difference tried on a different PC and whether on a wired or wifi connection.

Any other download measurement is also out of kilter with the new test, though not the old one. Strange.

We see things not as they are, but as we are .
- Anais Nin

Edited by smurf46 (Tue 16-May-17 13:08:02)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 12:41:13
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: smurf46] [link to this post]
 
So of all the speed tests that exist we are the only one reporting such a low speed?

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 12:50:14
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Firefox 47.0.2 - https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14949350878...

Hitting the connection limits, so question is how popular is the variant of firefox that you use, and what are they doing different compared to standard firefox

http://tbb.st/1494055466705404555 same browser and looks to be hitting maximum for VDSL2

Edited by MrSaffron (Tue 16-May-17 12:51:37)

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Tue 16-May-17 13:00:10
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
keep as is, if you do make a change make it stricter and harder to get the best grade.

There will always be some people unhappy.

i consider tbb and dslreports the only two proper speedtesters on the net.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 16-May-17 13:00:34)

Standard User smurf46
(committed) Tue 16-May-17 13:17:47
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Firefox 47.0.2 - https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14949350878...

Hitting the connection limits, so question is how popular is the variant of firefox that you use, and what are they doing different compared to standard firefox

http://tbb.st/1494055466705404555 same browser and looks to be hitting maximum for VDSL2


Thanks. It could be that, it's Pale Moon because of its sync with mobile where it uses less memory than standard Firefox. Though it's only testing on PCs that have the problem, not on the mobile as far as I can tell. Perhaps it' memory hungry on the PC though - could be as there are occasional (perhaps every few weeks or so) reboots whilst using the browser. I'm not worried about it, was just curious as the old "flash" test came out as expected. DSL Reports doesn't have the issue just for info.

We see things not as they are, but as we are .
- Anais Nin
Standard User 4M2
(knowledge is power) Tue 16-May-17 13:26:52
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Just to add:

With Firefox 53.0.2 (64-bit) on ubuntu 14.04 the new speed tester is fine regarding downstream and upstream throughput on ADSL - not sure about latency though, usually gives a higher reading than your Traceroute, e.g. ~80ms rather than 31ms (64-8 interleave depth.)
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 15:20:50
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: 4M2] [link to this post]
 
A good reason we call it latency, its a small TCP packet latency, so ping/traceroute values will be lower

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 16-May-17 15:23:14
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: smurf46] [link to this post]
 
That fits as of the few running it most were on mobile - though that PlusNet test if I recall was windows 7

With Flash you were reliant more on Adobe code which was a little more consistent (usually) but with new version quirks of browsers are much more common, for the large browsers a lot of time has gone into addressing them. Currently waiting to see how long for competitors to catch up on some recent changes too.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Daemon66
(member) Wed 17-May-17 09:34:19
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
A good reason we call it latency, its a small TCP packet latency, so ping/traceroute values will be lower
A very interesting statement! So for your test I assume you mean that you send several KB of data and see how long that takes? (Even on a basic 10Mbps connection the transmission time difference between a full TCP packet of 1400 bytes and a ICMP packet of 74 bytes will be a less than a mllisecond.)
Standard User 4M2
(knowledge is power) Wed 17-May-17 13:52:21
Print Post

Re: Bufferbloat?


[re: Daemon66] [link to this post]
 
Interesting stuff smile

Compare this:

~$ ping -s 1464 -c1 distrowatch.com
PING distrowatch.com (82.103.136.226) 1464(1492) bytes of data.
1472 bytes from e82-103-136-226s.easyspeedy.com (82.103.136.226): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=66.5 ms

--- distrowatch.com ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 66.525/66.525/66.525/0.000 ms

and


~$ mtr distrowatch.com --report
Start: Wed May 17 13:23:52 2017
HOST: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Loss% Sent Last Avg Best Wrst StDev


12.|-- e82-103-136-226s.easyspee 0.0% 10 52.1 52.9 51.4 61.9 3.1
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | 5 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to