|
|
http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/ssltest.html
A new version of the speed test and would like to get a wider sample of devices, speeds and computers running it and thus be able to compare the normal versus the SSL based testing.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
the second test didn't run and clicking on view results page gave this
You are viewing someone else's speedtest result. Run your own speedtest now.
|
|
|
Yeap can see that two tests http://tbb.st/1441643778314923555 and http://tbb.st/1441643991551874355 both on http.
Not sure why the second did not run, when the first finished did you see the second test swap into the position of the first one? Its not a logic fault per se as its working for others with the same ISP and same browser.
It may be the mixed mode is being blocked by some settings you have, i.e. running a HTTPS embed on a HTTP page.
As the speed tests are NOT linked to your logged in profile they will always appear as someone else's result for now.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Did a couple of tests with no issues.
I can't get more than 3Meg from the connection as a faster sync rate causes instability.
The joys of a long EO line to a 20CN exchange 
plusnet user
|
|
|
|
Tried again
Works with Internet Explorer but not Firefox
|
|
|
It ran OK for me, but can't seem to work out how to post a link to it.
On BT FTTC, hardwired in to an iMac.
|
|
|
I've just run it twice (for good measure) with sensible results, no significant impact of SSL. Using Firefox.
Kevin
plusnet Unlimited Fibre - sync approx 65000/20000 at 450m - BQM
Using OpenDNS
Domains and web hosting with TSOHOST |
|
|
Post deleted by adslmax
Edited by adslmax (Mon 07-Sep-15 18:21:59)
|
|
|
Just ran sensibly for me from Chrome (Windows 10 laptop with wired connection) and gave the results I would expect.
The results page did say I was viewing someone else's results, but they looked exactly like mine.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14416...
Similar results on Firefox.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
--
Moved from PlusNet back to BT. Both gave decent service.
Edited by StephenTodd (Mon 07-Sep-15 18:28:20)
|
|
|
I've run a few from OS X 10.11 Beta 15A278b using Chrome browser and also run a couple from iPhone 5S iOS 8 using Safari Browser!
Couldn't see any issues! 
|
|
|
Ran both test work ok on my wifi fttc on firefox on my tablet
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
Edited by adslmax (Mon 07-Sep-15 18:31:41)
|
|
|
http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/ssltest.html
A new version of the speed test and would like to get a wider sample of devices, speeds and computers running it and thus be able to compare the normal versus the SSL based testing.
dont seam to have any probs
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
windows 10 desktop gbit Ethernet
that burst upload seams a bit dodgy though lol
<a href="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1401016123497593455"><img alt="My Broadband Speed Test" src="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/1401016123497593455-mini.png" /></a>
|
|
|
Burst may behave the way it does due to hardware buffering and AV software will handle SSL differently I expect, i.e. since its encrypted it cannot do much
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Click results page button and copy/paste URL
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
cant be AV software as i dont currently have any installed dont even have win defender enabled could be the SH AC buffering something maybe ?
<a href="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1401016123497593455"><img alt="My Broadband Speed Test" src="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/1401016123497593455-mini.png" /></a>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problems on my Win10 desktop (Core i7-4790) gigabit to Asus router. Firefox browser.
Both tests show speeds within 0.5 mbps of each other on download, and upload identical.
plusnet unlimited fibre 80/20 - Since 2 Jun 14 - Aug 15 Sync: 56575/9911 - G.INP download only 
16 years UK broadband (Since 1999 ntl:cable trial), Asus RT-AC68U & HG612 - BQM - Flash Speedtest - HTML Speedtest
|
|
|
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
iMac > ethernet to Billion > HG612 > FTTC
No problems seen other than UL seems to pump up and down a bit, speeds a little optimistic?
|
|
|
You don't actually need to post the results, I have a nice collection of them building up that I can pore over in my leisure
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
The burst on upload can be, due to buffering mechanisms, it could be artificially smoothed out but prefer to see raw rather than fiddled figures usually.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
So would it be fair to say this testing is part of preparing your site for a transition to SSL then?
|
|
|
It is about increasing options and making sure the speed test can operate in lots of environments.
Also looking to see if SSL has any unusual quirks that may be worth exploiting particularly in traffic management scenarios
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't actually need to post the results, I have a nice collection of them building up that I can pore over in my leisure
ok fair enough
|
|
|
non plusnet testers welcome? as this is in the plusnet forum.
|
|
|
non plusnet testers welcome? as this is in the plusnet forum.
I just did it on Zen so if not he's got some to filter out :/
No probs either here full speed using Chrome for both.
Edited by deleted (Mon 07-Sep-15 22:13:04)
|
|
|
Anyone is welcome and fastest is a Virgin Media user so far
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Anyone is welcome and fastest is a Virgin Media user so far
Due to the speed tests it would take, I guess a Hyperoptic person to come along and kill that..
|
|
|
Speed test result from VM152+ Connection :
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
Just the same as i get on the other speed test on Tbb 
|
|
|
Given it was a 260 Mbps result from what looks like the new 300/20 product then would need a Hyperoptic Gigabit user to wander along.
Usually have to hunt the Gigabit people down individually, or just pop on over to a 10 Gbps connection.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Given it was a 260 Mbps result from what looks like the new 300/20 product then would need a Hyperoptic Gigabit user to wander along.
Usually have to hunt the Gigabit people down individually, or just pop on over to a 10 Gbps connection.
Interesting is that - the speeds are out then i assume.
|
|
|
ok I ran 2 tests as you will see when looking.
The first I did in the middle of me doing work on the router and QoS was off during the time I did the test buffer bloat scores A down C up.
On the second test now after I configured QoS again, buffer bloat A both ways.
All 4 tests work fine for me.
Still no separate single/multi threaded tests?
Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 08-Sep-15 03:48:47)
|
|
|
Can do single and a test version is out there just not in test as standard
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
In a variety of test areas
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Given it was a 260 Mbps result from what looks like the new 300/20 product then would need a Hyperoptic Gigabit user to wander along.
Usually have to hunt the Gigabit people down individually, or just pop on over to a 10 Gbps connection.
Interesting is that - the speeds are out then i assume.
Trial basis only!
|
|
|
Anyone is welcome and fastest is a Virgin Media user so far
Who's the fastest upload???
|
|
|
|
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Damn... I thought I could of topped it using EE... Oh well...
I need to move to Kingston by the looks of it!
|
|
|
|
Results much the same as the old speed test...
|
|
|
Damn... I thought I could of topped it using EE... Oh well...
I need to move to Kingston by the looks of it!
Someone will come along on a Gb connection and blitz that I am sure. Still it's a [censored] KC do 100/100 and BT don't - that said it's a smaller and better network for KC and their own of course.
Even their 250mbps Unlimited product (which is probably symmetrical) at £69,99 a month looks good!
The 100 one has a 1.5TB cap - which wouldn't be good for me lol
Edited by deleted (Tue 08-Sep-15 12:06:13)
|
|
|
1.5Tb would be plenty for me... would be interesting to see if the 250/250 held up well though... actually saying that all the other packages look like they need some hell of a network to cope...
and considering that Hyperoptic is considerably smaller coverage than KC and they have some congestion like issues (last I heard) and I believe that BT isn't available in these parts so thats a busy network...
However I may be wrong, it could be quiet a network...
|
|
|
|
Seems fine here :
|
|
|
Andrew
I get a failure on Vista running IE9. using Wifi I will run wired in a few minutes
Works OK on the old test but fails with
"Welcome to the new version of the thinkbroadband speed test.
�� We encountered a problem
Error Code: 4134
Check you have an Internet connection and try again
Now tried wired but still fails but with error 4132 now, Old test still works.
Now tested using firefox and works correctly. So looks like IE9 failure. Similar results to Flash test on IE9
Edited by kitcat (Tue 08-Sep-15 22:25:55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It does and tester normally works, but tweaks to support IE9 may have confused the browser.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
1.5Tb would be plenty for me... would be interesting to see if the 250/250 held up well though... actually saying that all the other packages look like they need some hell of a network to cope...
and considering that Hyperoptic is considerably smaller coverage than KC and they have some congestion like issues (last I heard) and I believe that BT isn't available in these parts so thats a busy network...
However I may be wrong, it could be quiet a network...
You are right the reason KC exists is because there is no BT presence in Hull, Never has been, Probably never will be.
|
|
|
|
Andrew
Test one worked tonight but didn't appear to run test 2. Download and Upload are upside down on the graphs.
|
|
|
MS IE9 - second person to report issues with the SSL version
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
Was this the first time? I don't understand the upside down comment
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Just tried the test again using IE11 for a change but didn't get far this time:-
http://s11.postimg.org/nvdsvcfqb/tbb_error_code_usin...
EDIT > Just tried the test again using FF 40.0.3 and no problems at all.
plusnet user
Edited by Apprentice (Wed 09-Sep-15 21:53:04)
|
|
|
Damn... I thought I could of topped it using EE... Oh well...
I need to move to Kingston by the looks of it!
KCom cover Hull and surrounds so belay that thought.
|
|
|
Damn... I thought I could of topped it using EE... Oh well...
I need to move to Kingston by the looks of it!
KCom cover Hull and surrounds so belay that thought.
Kingston upon Hull to give its full title 😃
plusnet unlimited fibre 80/20 - Since 2 Jun 14 - Aug 15 Sync: 56575/9911 - G.INP download only
16 years UK broadband (Since 1999 ntl:cable trial), Asus RT-AC68U & HG612 - BQM - Flash Speedtest - HTML Speedtest
|
|
|
Issue with Old Opera 12.17 gives me speeds I wish I could get
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
vs the old tester Opera 12.7
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
On waterfox which is my backup browser when I have problems like this, it works normally
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
|
|
|
|
I got that when I used Tunnelbear via my browser. So maybe your IE was using a proxy also?
|
|
|
No VPNs in use AFAIK
plusnet user
|
|
|
This error is thrown when we have seen too few samples in the test.
If the normal non-SSL tester is fine and the SSL is not, suggests poor SSL performance on a device and it may be that IE9 is less than perfect, plus IE9 will generally be present on older slower machines.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
I get around .7 less when using the SSL (which I think is the bottom one) but .3 better upload than normal
|
|
|
The bottom one is ssl hence badge under graph area
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
Ah thanks. my screen is playing up I don't see that badge. Probably something in Chrome blocking it (abp)
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking both tests run without any problems for me and the results agree pretty much with the flash test but I have noticed that my latency is very often reported as roughly twice the value of that on the flash test i.e. ~15ms on the flash test as compared to ~31ms.
|
|
|
Packet size is not identical so you can see some variation in the latency measure between the testers.
There will be another test for latency for people to play with in the future.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
I just tried it and it only did the first test.. Just letting you know.
|
|
|
Have changed nothing and both tests run here and for others with same browser as you it runs as well http://tbb.st/1442044880852961455
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Fair enough I will try it again now for you
|
|
|
Overall results the same as the Flash tester. Nice to see I can run this in my normal browser though. Shows 'D' for bufferbloat. Oh and the graphs of the test look a lot more 'rough' - does the Flash tester do some kind of smoothing?
---
Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK
|
|
|
Flash does have a small amount of smoothing. Prefer to run new ine with none as I get better feedback of issues rather than masking them or interpolating data points as some testers do
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Rather a strange result this morning:
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14421...
Bufferbloat is now 'F' in the downstream.
For comparison:
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14421...
---
Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK
Edited by Andrue (Sun 13-Sep-15 09:16:48)
|
|
|
Your av suite (Kaspersky) is playing around and its HTTP inspection may be causing buffering artefacts
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
deleted