30MB just installed, poor performance. Perhaps worse?

Hi Folks,

I hope I can get some advice regarding my recent Virgin Media upgrade from 20MB to a 30MB line. I'm fairly technical at work but here i'm a noob.

It does work at speeds approach my old 20Mb line but it doesn't seem like an upgrade, if anything it's worse.
And even worse, the fare usage policy throttler appeared to kick in even sooner then usual!!! (Is this possibly because i'm on the 50MB network now?).

- I'm just across the road from the cabinet.
- I was provided a new SuperHub.
- The engineer was well meaning and disabled IP Flood Detection and the Firewall service suggesting he had seen up to 75% packet lose with them enabled.
- The engineer did seems puzzled with the dB power when he was here.

- Previously 16.5Mb on the 20Mb line.
- I have now scored as low as 6.5Mb repeatedly on the new 30Mb line but this afternoon i scored 14.9. TB Speed snapshot: http://goo.gl/1849C

- Power levels seem to be refereed to a lot on the orum, SuperHub Connection stats snapshot: http://goo.gl/T17er
Modulation Channel ID Max Raw Bit Rate Frequency Power SNR Docsis
QAM256 96 55616000 Kbits/sec 298750000 Hz -4.4 dBmV 39.4 dB Hybrid

- TBMeter 200Mb download test snapshot: http://goo.gl/Z31l2


I hope i can get some advice from the Gurus. I'm a bit out of my depth and need some grounding for complaint if i'm to go back to VM. I guess the rely on people ability to qualitatively query them to avoid support.

Thanks
/Oliver - Bournemouth.

I have just upgraded from 20Mb to 30Mb as well. I would never get more than 7Mb download, but more typically it would be around 4Mb. It�s now running at 9.6Mb � that�s the good news. However it took three attempts to get the test to complete AT ALL.
Appalling advice from the Virgin Help Desk, who had problems registering the new modem - �take your computer to a shop and ask them to update the drivers�. The circuit burst into life after around 30 minutes, so give it time before calling.

I get 17mbit on here, but 30mbit on speedtest.net london server as well as real world ftp performance.

so there seems to be a performance issue between tbb and VM.

the TBB speedtest doesn't work on the virgin 50Mb service, and probably the 30Mb as well. speedtest.net will give you a more accurate reading.

(my reading below is from almost 2 years ago, when the speedtest used to work)

I'll triplicate that advice. I've no idea why but TBB always gives poor results on my 50Mbps while speedtest.net and real world downloads show it performing close to advertised rate most of the time.

Thanks Folks.

I ran some more tests in the past two days, I think both are associated

http://speedtest.net.uk/result/25691/ - 29.7Mbps
http://speedtest.net.uk/result/25693/ - 10.16Mbps
http://speedtest.net.uk/result/25694/ - 7Mbps
http://speedtest.net.uk/result/25695/ - 5.9Mbps
http://speedtest.net.uk/result/25712/ - 6.39Mbps
http://speedtest.net.uk/result/25719/ - 30.26Mps .... really... i don't get this at all.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1145356870.png - 29.89Mbps.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1145367414.png - 17.4Mbps
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1145372245.png - 7.96Mbps
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1145375717.png - 25.5Mbps
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1145379549.png - 12.74Mbps


- The Fair Usage policy does appear to be being applied properly after further testing. I' ot sure what happened on the first couple of days because I didn't approach the limits described.
- I did manage to achieve some high throughput lastnight, possibly approaching the 30Mpbs honesty limits.

Still, i'm conflicted about the inconsistencies.
Any advice?

Edited by deleted (Mon 07-Feb-11 19:11:19)

retest with the london server as we know that one is on a gigabit port, many of them are only on 100mbit ports. If london varies its most likely congestion on your UBR port. (VM problem).

+1. London is the only reliable one for me.

I have just self installed my 30 meg superhub. I did have to switch on and off twice to get it to work,but just now i g0t 31.6meg so I gues that I am actually limited to 32 as I seem to bump up to this on the several occasions I have speedtest.net.
I do not use the wifi. I have had mine for a week now with no probs at all..
I am sorry that you get a bad service and hope it all works out ok for you

Hi Folks.

Firstly, thanks for everyone help.

After some further testing I can confirm I am receiving 30Mbps as promise, and bang on, 100% and sometimes a little more.

The engineer did also have to reset my SuperHub several times as part of the expected installation routine, he didn't really know why but knew it was normal. I guess fireware updates or something, notice it doesn't have an option to do this manually in this locked down VM unit.


After reviewing my UseNet connection I found that 'something' new we happening to my download manager way beyond the remit of this forum post. S witching to FileDownloadManager I was able to achieve to full download rate which was a real world 3600KB per sec to my HDD.

So as usual, here and in my role at work as an IT consultant I find there is a problem in my approach, not the product. But how your average customer and those not so astute to join such forums as this are to get value for money from these sorts of this is a mystery.

Thanks again ppl!!!

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

I'll triplicate that advice. I've no idea why but TBB always gives poor results on my 50Mbps while speedtest.net and real world downloads show it performing close to advertised rate most of the time.

The TBB founders have said there is an issue at VM's side of the link; that VM need to fix. Its been known for quite a while. See the TalkToTheStaff (TTTS) forum.

(Does make me wonder how many other issues VM need to fix).

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

I'll triplicate that advice. I've no idea why but TBB always gives poor results on my 50Mbps while speedtest.net and real world downloads show it performing close to advertised rate most of the time.

The TBB founders have said there is an issue at VM's side of the link; that VM need to fix. Its been known for quite a while. See the TalkToTheStaff (TTTS) forum.

(Does make me wonder how many other issues VM need to fix).

speedtest.net don't seem to have any problems with VM. makes me think that maybe TBB are just passing the buck.

You can think we are passing the buck, but can assure you we are not.

I've seen speedtest.net report 150Meg on a VM 100Meg link, interesting result. Wonder how many of the speedtest.net servers are actually hosted on 100Meg versus GigE.

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2011/01/net-neutralit...
The methodology used in our tester is more likely to show that congestion up, than what is used on speedtest.net

How to fix TBB speedtest ? I try port 80 and without port 80 , no different. Getting wrong speed 17 meg out of 30 Meg on cable ?



http://www.speedtest.net/result/1154832722.png

Edited by adslmax (Sat 12-Feb-11 20:01:04)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

retest with the london server as we know that one is on a gigabit port, many of them are only on 100mbit ports. If london varies its most likely congestion on your UBR port. (VM problem).

The gloucester server is also gigabit.

In reply to a post by danmeah:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

retest with the london server as we know that one is on a gigabit port, many of them are only on 100mbit ports. If london varies its most likely congestion on your UBR port. (VM problem).

The gloucester server is also gigabit.

not bad a lower latency one from london. Iplayer was running during this test so about a mbit down.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1155118593.png

In reply to a post by adslmax:

How to fix TBB speedtest ? I try port 80 and without port 80 , no different. Getting wrong speed 17 meg out of 30 Meg on cable ?

Ask Virgin to upgrade their transit and peering rather than shaping and hoping that will alleviate the need to?

http://www.speedtest.net/

What do you get on that one?.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You can think we are passing the buck, but can assure you we are not.

I've seen speedtest.net report 150Meg on a VM 100Meg link, interesting result. Wonder how many of the speedtest.net servers are actually hosted on 100Meg versus GigE.

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2011/01/net-neutralit...
The methodology used in our tester is more likely to show that congestion up, than what is used on speedtest.net

the least you could do is put a notice on the speedchecker page to let VM users know that they're likely wasting their time. I know of a number of users who have spent time on the phone with support purely because of the erroneous results produced by the TBB checker.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

How to fix TBB speedtest ? I try port 80 and without port 80 , no different. Getting wrong speed 17 meg out of 30 Meg on cable ?

Ask Virgin to upgrade their transit and peering rather than shaping and hoping that will alleviate the need to?

I test it after 9pm & overnight as there shouldn't be any shaping trafic using TBB from virgin media's end.

I think TBB need to look into this and get it fixed asap.

In reply to a post by aj2703:

http://www.speedtest.net/

What do you get on that one?.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1155734757.png Spot on speed
Incorrect speed

Edited by adslmax (Sun 13-Feb-11 14:15:56)

Your connection is as it should be. I think the problem lies with the thinkbroadband speeedtester.

Just ignore TBB's speed tester, it's poor quailty generally irrelevant.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

How to fix TBB speedtest ? I try port 80 and without port 80 , no different. Getting wrong speed 17 meg out of 30 Meg on cable ?

Ask Virgin to upgrade their transit and peering rather than shaping and hoping that will alleviate the need to?

I ran the traceroute tool on the website to see how tbb gets to VM and it goes over linx and over an old ntl switch (still says ntl in rdns).

here is my speedtest.



tbb has always been shaky to VM but this is the worst I have seen it, it never once spiked above about 4mbit/sec so there is some serious congestion between tbb and VM. My suggestion to tbb is do a post on it on the news page and bad PR will shake VM into action. Assuming this is a VM side issue, I also wonder if its worth to try and route this differently by changing the announces.

Is it VM's linx link thats saturated again? if you know that is. As I remember when I was on ntl half a decade back they had saturated linx then.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

How to fix TBB speedtest ? I try port 80 and without port 80 , no different. Getting wrong speed 17 meg out of 30 Meg on cable ?

Ask Virgin to upgrade their transit and peering rather than shaping and hoping that will alleviate the need to?

I test it after 9pm & overnight as there shouldn't be any shaping trafic using TBB from virgin media's end.

I think TBB need to look into this and get it fixed asap.

You could also try reading what I said again. The capacity issue is with Virgin and they introduced shaping to try and avoid upgrading.

Also recommend you check the shaping hours, it doesn't end at 9PM.

Or you could carry on thinking that TBB have no capacity issues to anyone except Virgin but it's TBB's fault

In reply to a post by Roph:

Just ignore TBB's speed tester, it's poor quailty generally irrelevant.

TBB's speed tester is the most accurate one publicly available and considerably better than the Ookla based tests which are quite flattering to ISPs. If being accurate is considered poor quality so be it

As a reminder a speed test is as fast as the slowest point. It's interesting how many people seem to think that slow point is the fault of TBB when pretty much everyone else is fine, including people who test from 100Mbps fibre connections.

It's really strange that this poor quality tester that can't manage more than a few Mbits to Virgin Media customers appears able to do this for me...



Sadly other people were using the rest of the 100Mbps so couldn't have it all to myself - upload is rate limited locally.

In reply to a post by BipolarBear:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You can think we are passing the buck, but can assure you we are not.

I've seen speedtest.net report 150Meg on a VM 100Meg link, interesting result. Wonder how many of the speedtest.net servers are actually hosted on 100Meg versus GigE.

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2011/01/net-neutralit...
The methodology used in our tester is more likely to show that congestion up, than what is used on speedtest.net

the least you could do is put a notice on the speedchecker page to let VM users know that they're likely wasting their time. I know of a number of users who have spent time on the phone with support purely because of the erroneous results produced by the TBB checker.

This would seem good to me. If enough people phone up VM may stop trying to delay by shaping and traffic management (I am talking there in terms of routing, not Subscriber Traffic Management) and adequately upgrade their external capacity to cope with demand.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Ask Virgin to upgrade their transit and peering rather than shaping and hoping that will alleviate the need to?

I test it after 9pm & overnight as there shouldn't be any shaping trafic using TBB from virgin media's end.

I think TBB need to look into this and get it fixed asap.

You could also try reading what I said again. The capacity issue is with Virgin and they introduced shaping to try and avoid upgrading.

Also recommend you check the shaping hours, it doesn't end at 9PM.

Or you could carry on thinking that TBB have no capacity issues to anyone except Virgin but it's TBB's fault

I agree, I do remember also when I was on a diff ip range speedio testing was also affected by congested transit.

What I dont understand is VM spending money on local UBR updates which I would assume is quite expensive but skimp out on transit which now days is dirt cheap compared to a decade ago.

If you know tho I am curious, is it the linx peering link again?

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 13-Feb-11 22:13:24)

That is dated 20-12-10.

Do one now....

In reply to a post by aj2703:

That is dated 20-12-10.

Do one now....

one thing has got me thinking. it may be a paranoia view and I guess only the tbb foudner's can comment on this.

the article on tbb's site shows how an isp can manipulate performance depending on how it routes traffic (correctly). VM would have no motivation to route tbb traffic slowly as it will only damage their rep but tbb does seem to be a pro adsl site, I have tried to duplicate the inbound routing using other hosts that go via linx and I cannot get the same route to my VM connection, they all avoid linx or at least avoid that specific linx route as if its been deprioritised (maybe VM consider it faulty?). So because of that I couldnt test from another host using that route on VM.

So my thoughts are as to a reason why the routing hasnt been changed or if it cannot be changed as to why. The sending host can do this.

Look like TBB had finally fix the speedtest - got it correct this time on 30 Meg:

for me higher but no cigar.



http://www.speedtest.net/result/1156658341.png

from tbb to me.

# Host Sent Recvd Best Avg Worst
1 thinkbroadband-gw2.core-rs2.thdo.ncuk.net 15 15 0ms 3ms 27ms
2 gi4-47-10-star1.bdr-rt3.thdo.ncuk.net 15 15 0ms 3ms 47ms
3 linx-gw2.router.ntli.net 15 15 0ms 0ms 0ms
4 brnt-bb-1b-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net 15 15 0ms 2ms 13ms
5 brnt-bb-1b-ae5-0.network.virginmedia.net 15 15 0ms 5ms 75ms
6 brnt-bb-1a-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net 15 15 0ms 1ms 8ms
8 leic-core-1b-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net 15 15 4ms 4ms 4ms
9 leic-cmts-14-gigaether-141.network.virginmedia.net 15 15 4ms 5ms 7ms
10 <censored>.cable.virginmedia.com 15 15 11ms 12ms 14ms

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 14-Feb-11 06:03:13)

In reply to a post by aj2703:

That is dated 20-12-10.

Do one now....

Certainly.



Network is busy, lunchtime and all that, so apologies for the slightly slow performance.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by aj2703:

That is dated 20-12-10.

Do one now....

one thing has got me thinking. it may be a paranoia view and I guess only the tbb foudner's can comment on this.

the article on tbb's site shows how an isp can manipulate performance depending on how it routes traffic (correctly). VM would have no motivation to route tbb traffic slowly as it will only damage their rep but tbb does seem to be a pro adsl site, I have tried to duplicate the inbound routing using other hosts that go via linx and I cannot get the same route to my VM connection, they all avoid linx or at least avoid that specific linx route as if its been deprioritised (maybe VM consider it faulty?). So because of that I couldnt test from another host using that route on VM.

So my thoughts are as to a reason why the routing hasnt been changed or if it cannot be changed as to why. The sending host can do this.

Back to BGP school Chrys actually the receiver of traffic is the one with the control really.

TBB aren't manipulating traffic in any way, it's not their job to route around issues on VM's network, if VM don't want that peering link used they can stop advertising prefixes on it, or advertise a subset, or use AS path prepending or one of the many other things they do as standard to manage traffic on their network borders.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I ran the traceroute tool on the website to see how tbb gets to VM and it goes over linx and over an old ntl switch (still says ntl in rdns).

Nothing old about that router particularly that IP address just hasn't had its DNS updated.

When it became Virgin Media they didn't just throw out all the ntl T320s, T640s, etc, most of the core network is ex-ntl kit.

I say irrelevant due to that tbb seems to be the only place where this happens. Say "speedtest", and you generally imagine the speed that the user is able to achieve on their line, not the speed to a specific site. TBB's problems do not reflect real world results.

What's also strange is that while their java based one gives terrible performance:



The flash one comes much closer to real world speed.

Still doesn't match a dedicated speedtest site however, London / Paris

In reply to a post by Roph:

I say irrelevant due to that tbb seems to be the only place where this happens. Say "speedtest", and you generally imagine the speed that the user is able to achieve on their line, not the speed to a specific site. TBB's problems do not reflect real world results.

What's also strange is that while their java based one gives terrible performance:



The flash one comes much closer to real world speed.

Still doesn't match a dedicated speedtest site however, London / Paris

The flash one clearly shows why you weren't getting maximum speed, there's a few dips in transfer rate. The Ookla tests don't appear to reflect this.

The difference between the Java and Flash is interesting, I suspect it is in part due to the difference in payloads between the two - that would need someone with TBB To confirm.

I guess a part of it is what you want to see, do you want your 'real' speed or your peak one?

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by aj2703:

That is dated 20-12-10.

Do one now....

one thing has got me thinking. it may be a paranoia view and I guess only the tbb foudner's can comment on this.

the article on tbb's site shows how an isp can manipulate performance depending on how it routes traffic (correctly). VM would have no motivation to route tbb traffic slowly as it will only damage their rep but tbb does seem to be a pro adsl site, I have tried to duplicate the inbound routing using other hosts that go via linx and I cannot get the same route to my VM connection, they all avoid linx or at least avoid that specific linx route as if its been deprioritised (maybe VM consider it faulty?). So because of that I couldnt test from another host using that route on VM.

So my thoughts are as to a reason why the routing hasnt been changed or if it cannot be changed as to why. The sending host can do this.

Back to BGP school Chrys actually the receiver of traffic is the one with the control really.

TBB aren't manipulating traffic in any way, it's not their job to route around issues on VM's network, if VM don't want that peering link used they can stop advertising prefixes on it, or advertise a subset, or use AS path prepending or one of the many other things they do as standard to manage traffic on their network borders.

the sender can also manipulate tho as they can stop announcing to certian networks to force a routing change. I never said VM are blameless, just it is not a complete one sided issue. It still raises the question how I cannot get other linx side hosts to go over that specific route and repeat the same performance issues.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by Roph:

I say irrelevant due to that tbb seems to be the only place where this happens. Say "speedtest", and you generally imagine the speed that the user is able to achieve on their line, not the speed to a specific site. TBB's problems do not reflect real world results.

What's also strange is that while their java based one gives terrible performance:



The flash one comes much closer to real world speed.

Still doesn't match a dedicated speedtest site however, London / Paris

The flash one clearly shows why you weren't getting maximum speed, there's a few dips in transfer rate. The Ookla tests don't appear to reflect this.

The difference between the Java and Flash is interesting, I suspect it is in part due to the difference in payloads between the two - that would need someone with TBB To confirm.

I guess a part of it is what you want to see, do you want your 'real' speed or your peak one?

for what its worth I agree with you on ookla.

for this reason I watch dumeter during tests, as dumeter shows live throughput. on ookla it does sustain my full throughput now VM have sorted out local congestion issues, however in the past eg when I was on VM's legacy network I can see how ookla gave false results, I would see dumeter spike once during test to 10mbit/sec for a split second and then finish off crawling 0.2mbit/sec, bam 9-10mbit/sec speedtest result. It takes some account of slowdown but generally not enough. Also I think tbb is single threaded vs 4 threaded ookla so ookla has leniancy on low tcp buffer sizes + retransmits as well. So ookla can show misleading results but at the moment in my case it is not.

also even tho I am questioning why tbb is having thie unique issue compared to other uk hosts, I know enough to know VM have transit issues, real world performance indicates that as various http sites will give me low download performance, however generally its not low enough that it causes a real concern usually at least 5mbit/sec or so. just that I rarely fully utilise the line capability.
no idea how to post the flash result here, cannot see a button to click on for link.

It got 26.4 down 0.98 up which is interesting.

dumeter showed it initially spike to about 29-mbit/sec and then levelled of at about 26mbit/sec. This could be a tcp buffer issue or could be congestion, I will repeat the test in early hours and if it doesnt improve its less likely to be congestion.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 14-Feb-11 18:42:45)

That's quite good considering the time of day

TBB is back to square one, incorrect speed again!
compare to this speed below:

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=12977...

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1157452970.png

I give up using TBB speed test, they are [censored] and never resolved it.

ok I changed autotuning on win7 from highlyrestricted to normal (highlyrestricted caps to 256k tcp window) and now it flatlines at max speed in dumeter. There was a momentary dip tho but wasonce and a split second.

result came out as.

28.6 down and 1.02 up.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

the sender can also manipulate tho as they can stop announcing to certian networks to force a routing change. I never said VM are blameless, just it is not a complete one sided issue. It still raises the question how I cannot get other linx side hosts to go over that specific route and repeat the same performance issues.

How would TBB changing the advertising their network affect VM's advertising of their prefixes? The key word is advertising, one side advertises, the other side uses the best advertised path.

TBB send traffic that way because it's the best path VM offer. Each side offers a path to their network, regardless of where VM see TBB's network as being advertised from while VM continue to advertise best path through that IP address TBB will continue to send it unless they manually engineer traffic.

Have a read of the BGP guides for more information on this.

The node you are seeing in your reverse trace is:

195.66.226.22 00:90:69:07:2f:91 Telecity Bonnington House No 11 7 3 10G No Extreme

Name: linx-gw2.router.ntli.net
Address: 195.66.226.22

That is the LINX facing interface of:

Name: telc-ic-1.network.virginmedia.net
Address: 194.145.149.101

Edited by deleted (Mon 14-Feb-11 20:32:46)

nevertherless the sender can manipulate the route, I have had it done dozens of times.

interesting tho.

on the flash test, if I repepeat it, occasionalyl its slow like the java test. indicates different hosts used in some kind of round robin fashon, with one been slow. probably always used for the java test. so we defenitly need an explanation from tbb on this behaviour. also as to why tbb were willing to reroute speedtesting to fix easynet but not VM.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

nevertherless the sender can manipulate the route, I have had it done dozens of times.

interesting tho.

on the flash test, if I repepeat it, occasionalyl its slow like the java test. indicates different hosts used in some kind of round robin fashon, with one been slow. probably always used for the java test. so we defenitly need an explanation from tbb on this behaviour. also as to why tbb were willing to reroute speedtesting to fix easynet but not VM.

Never suggested routing couldn't be manipulated both ways - local preference is the first considered factor in BGP routing decisions.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_t...

However you did specifically use the word 'advertise' which was inaccurate, and shows that you don't understand BGP too well, no-one apart from network engineers has any need to, so I thought I'd best explain a bit.

I'm sure if they could easily resolve the VM issue they would have a long time ago, however the obvious question is why should NCUK pay for transit because VM are running a public peering interface too hot? If there was an alternative settlement free path to Easynet but no alternative option to VM that would explain the discrepancy.

Ask NCUK.

Edited by deleted (Mon 14-Feb-11 21:35:17)

fair point on the announce.

I think we really need seb or someone to reply now, as clearly tbb is capable of fast speeds to VM as shown in flash, which means we dont know if the traceroute I did is from a fast or slow tbb server.

the joys of traffic shaping, a false positive.

seems tbb port 81 speedtests are classed as p2p by VM as when i do a port 80 test it jumps up to 18-22mbit/sec range. So that will explain the improvement off peak also.

However it doesnt explain the difference between the flash and java tests still.

If we broke into the Virgin network infrastructure and fixed it we would get arrested.
It has been raised with Virgin Media at a variety of levels I believe.

Do you understand what people are trying to say to you?

pro adsl in what way?

I guess he mean in the sense that you used to be ADSLGuide?

In reply to a post by pete_thomson:

I guess he mean in the sense that you used to be ADSLGuide?

bit more then that

however there is still lack of answers as to why flash is fast on VM, yet java is dog slow. I have asked in another thread whats different between the 2 tests.

If this was down to a linx congestion issue at VM dont you think it would slow down a lot more than just tbb speedtests? I think there be a lot of traffic coming in on that pipe if its saturated. Yet I cannot get any other uk hosted site/server to repeat the performance behaviour.

I can't answer as its not my code and don't know what it line by line

my 10mb speed test seems ok

my 30mb speed test seems ok

Edited by adslmax (Fri 18-Feb-11 15:42:40)

yeah they fixed it, MHC on another isp also had the same issues.

Sound like TBB or VM had fixed the speedtest now!

If you look closely, you see that the "fixed" tests are using speedtest2.thinkbroadband.com, and the one with issues is speedtest1.thinkbroadband.com.

yup its working for me now

Still broken for me:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results/id/1...

Yet Speedtest.net:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1165783723.png

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Feb-11 12:40:41)

TBB speed is trouble broken again!

How many times do you have to be told the issue is at Virgin end?

Ian

It appear a faulty of superhub wi-fi again.

How was the upgrade you had the other week then? Not so happy with the new hub it seems.

There is setting option services on the superhub just untick both boxes firewall features and ip flood and the issues will be solved.

Knowledge can be a dangerous thing!

Surf....don't speedtest.