Oops, yep, meant RAID 0

It was about 5 miles from the exchange and in a very rural area - the phone was entirely delivered by overhead cable and so no ducting in place.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Install cost (including all the routers) was just over £12k if I remember correctly. It used existing ducting and was classified as a brownfield site which helped keep the cable cost down (I think that part was a flat £1,000 in the end) but I remember when we were talking to the company installing it that BT said there'd be no charge for trench work anyway because they considered it an expansion of their local loop. Of course knowing BT it's possible they said that to look good knowing full well it was irrelevant

I was quoted £7k install and £1k a month for a 10Mbps symmetric fibre internet service in a remote county in north scotland. Locals ADSL was around 2Mbps on a old 20CN very high latency exchange.

Data was the biggest cost (quelle surprise). We took 40Mb/s and divided between four companies (presumably a single connection wouldn't have needed such expensive hardware). It came to nearly £1k a month in total. Roughly the same monthly cost (£250) as the dual bonded ADSL connection we'd been using before. So we went from 4.5Mb/s/1Mb/s to 10/10 for the same monthly cost.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Browsers often lie about download speeds, try a download manager, or command line wget.

A browser may lie, but I was timing it with my watch, not relying on what a browser was telling me.

Have downloaded file and windows says 1,073,741,824 bytes in size

But if the file is actual 1,024,000,000 in size then your 65839 sync speed holds up. I will start counting the bytes by hand now - I may be some time.

I used 1,073,741,824 bytes in my calculation as that is the size of the file - exactly a "binary" gigabyte. Even 1,024,000,000 would still work out at over 66000Mbps. 1,000,000,000 bytes would give 64516Mbps, which is still impossible with a sync speed of 65839, since that gives an IP profile of about 63725.

In reply to a post by kasg:

A browser may lie, but I was timing it with my watch, not relying on what a browser was telling me.

Good move.

I've just timed (Firefox on Win7, saving to SSD) and mine took 2minutes 54.9 seconds - or 174 seconds to download the 1,073,741,824 bytes. Given 8 bits in a byte, that's 8,589,934,592 bits in 174 seconds.

Or around 48,210 Kbps. My sync is 52,842 Kbps, so I probably have an overhead & profile hit of 4,632 Kbps, around 10% ??

Maybe some security software on your PC is doing something to affect the timing, or your ISP?

Edited by jchamier (Wed 12-Mar-14 21:49:33)

IP Profile is 0.9679 of sync.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Maybe some security software on your PC is doing something to affect the timing, or your ISP?

I don't see how that could make a download faster than was theoretically possible.

I have a slight concern about the accuracy of timing something with a watch, at 53Mbps. Even the reaction time within the watch becomes relevant. How did you control the start and stop of the watch and the start of the download, and how did you synchronise the starts?

What kind of watch is it, and how finely calibrated?