Can people do a quick speed test on the following two 3MB files, and give me the K/s result from various areas of each file. (please post your location)

Server #1: http://www.macrumors.com/http.03m.sav
Server #2: http://65.19.139.18/test/http.03m.sav

Thanks
arn

for both files, (im in allentown, pa) we got a 71.2k/s average. we normally get around 165 k with a max of 203 k

86kbps... Washington State.

I got around 25kbps on both files. Usually I get around 150-300kbps, not a good sign...:(

By the way, I'm located in southern Ontario, Canada...;)

76 first file 84 second, southern California Earthlink DSL.

From my server at 56 Marietta in Atlanta:

02:06:41 (380.95 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

From my server at FDCservers (best speed I've had out of this biatch for a long time):

20:09:02 (373.83 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

Both downloaded from the link with the IP in it.

Originally posted by Tazzman
From my server at 56 Marietta in Atlanta:

02:06:41 (380.95 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

From my server at FDCservers (best speed I've had out of this biatch for a long time):

20:09:02 (373.83 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

Both downloaded from the link with the IP in it.

they are different servers (the one with the ip and the one without)

arn

In that case, here's the results of the other server:

From FDC:

20:17:15 (108.81 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav.1' saved [2908160/2908160]

From Atlanta:

02:18:42 (114.32 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

P.S. Anybody happen to have the URL for the UUnet speedtest file handy? I'd like to try it on my FDCserver as the speed seems to be up a little at the moment.

ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z

Just do a 'wget'...:cartman:

(128.58 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]
www.macrumors.com/http.03m.sav

(674.58 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav.1' saved [2908160/2908160]
65.19.139.18/test/http.03m.sav

Verio in NYC

Wow, something is seriously wrong at FDCservers, the UUnet file downloaded at 1.4 MB/s. I must be sucking up the bandwidth of their entire network for some reason :D

Also nice to see my serverhost server is doing a strong 2.4 MB/s.

Thanks for the URL 311, appreciated.

Speed test from ftp.aol.com/setup/setup32.exe

13230456 bytes received in 1.41 seconds (8.93 MB/s)

probably would have been faster if i had a better hard drive...

cheers to defender hosting

18:53:57 (10.47 MB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

well, both are from fastservers


01:48:14 (48.88 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

this one is from EServer.biz at DV2, no good at all

fastservers got a capped feed from he.net? cuz i mean... transfer between these two servers at he.net is fast, but from the 'net, slow as hell... i get ~50KB/sec from vancouver, bc, canada... VERY low from what i'm used to, especially from he.net... slower than what i'd expect cogent in washington dc (other end of the continent) to be... heh

Capped feed? Not in a million years.
We aren't using a third of the bandwidth we have available to us in that facility.

If you'll notice there are many people chiming in with hundreds of KB per second transfers, from various locations, to the HE.net/Fastservers connectivity. We aren't within a light year of our hard limit, bandwidth-ly speaking. That's a word, I swear!

:D
That test site (located on a box that does nothin' but DNS), hath been taken down, as it was beginning to take on a huge rush of transfers, multiple connections from the same location type excitement. (aka evil people) Posting up 'speed tests' is a bit dangerous and a bit too easy to be misconstrued, from our point of you, especially if a server that is blue skies with a few dns queries per day is running up against machines with multiple live sites on the same network.

We'll use more caution in the future, to be sure.

Questions? ask, we'll do the best we can without embellishing too much. :cool:

what would explain the fact that two servers within your network transfer at blazing speeds, but transfers from elsewhere are slow?

Dilhole's two ratings... two boxes, same network... why such different speeds? your box uncapped, client capped? but then i got slow speeds on both... hmm

didn't take torwill's figures into consideration because he didn't specify which site he was downloading from...

average from client's server: 86.8KB/sec
average from your server: 241.8KB/sec

the other speed figures, if you read the posts, are about sites that aren't hosted by you.

why i didn't take torwill's post into consideration: also because 10.4MB/sec... would unjustly through the averages off by a bit too much... but to be fair, didn't take the 48KB/sec from that into consideration neither

o yeah... as for the multiple download streams from single people... thats what download accelerator programs do... and also would see that stuff from cache/proxy servers... :)

i hate 'em for that, cuz i get a lot of that on my download server... heh... had to go to win2k from freebsd just because win2k handles high-volume file transfer better on lower powered boxes... :)

Servers on same network = blazing speeds.
Yes, that's true. But what would you expect? A 100 megabit-network around every corner, no hops, nothing but yards of cat5 in between. That's to be expected.

"Transfers from elsewhere are slow"

That blanket statement is unfair and unjustified. Elsewhere = Madagascar, Delhi, or Jakarta? Help me out here. I honestly wish we had the power to make routes flawless around the globe perpetually, but we don't. It's a never ending battle, the push and pull between ISPs and Telcos, all that jazz, feeding people with data until they do their best to fix something, which may cause packet loss or a skewed route elsewhere.

We're doing our best. There is absolutely no way we can guarantee the routes to Canada from our network will be bulletproof day in and day out, though we are always standing by to improve things whenever we can. All we need is routing data that determines the latency and/or packet loss, or bottleneck, and we will go forward with what we have from there to get the environment improved any way we can.

Contact our technical staff with details via the methods that we have made known, and we will sort out routing difficulties, or die trying. Period.

Originally posted by isildur


Contact our technical staff with details via the methods that we have made known, and we will sort out routing difficulties, or die trying. Period.

To add my 2cents. I didn't post this to generate any brouhaha. I just needed the colateral information and didn't have any other way to get that information.

I have been in email exchange with some of the fastservers.net staff and they have been doing what they could to try to help... but in the end, they didn't see speed differences in their testing of the same two servers. I finally figured that it may have been just my local connections (50k/s vs 250k/s on a 250k/s capped cable modem connection). So, I wanted to survey other locations... as it certainly could affect users on my sites.

arn

I guess the end lesson is that many of the locations did have similar speeds from the two servers, with one or two notable exceptions... which I guess at this time, I have to attribute to the net gods. :)

arn

isildur

when i say other locations, i mean locations that these people have been posting speeds from... the averages speak for themselves... i mean... look at 'em... i wouldn't expect an average like that even from cogent, and you guys have an excellent provider... from downloads within the US from proper commercial connections (those servers/etc)...

rackshack... doesn't use any 'excellent' providers... yet i get much better speeds from them... i don't understand why... and those guys are like 100ms away... (really poor considering their geographic location to me)

as for the route in my case... excellent route, 40ms (which is typical, ideally would expect 30ms) to fastservers.net... 13 hops... 5 within my ISP, 4 within metromedia (my isp peers in seattle with them) then directly to he.net... but what would explain the slow speeds? i mean... i've gotten better speeds to servers i have 100ms ping times to...

i am just absolutely stumped as to why the download speeds would be so poor... poorer than expected, especially from he.net whom i get excellent responsiveness when i view web pages/etc...

btw, i noticed the download link is MUCH faster now... i know it wasn't my connection... so i am wondering if you guys changed anything...

plz take note... i m not trying to single u guys out... just happens that this thread is about u guys... i m pretty sure i could find just as many flaws about ANY provider that charges less than $200/Mbps... heh... but the fact is, i used to think he.net charged more... heh

Maybe they ucapped my server? ;)
http://www.xsenses.com/download.jpg

thats what i was thinking... but they say they don't cap... makes me kinda think they are fibbin' a bit

lol

I'm getting around 50k/sec on the file http://www.macrumors.com/http.03m.sav Cable modem on the West coast.

Isn't he.net west coast based? My ping to he.net/fastservers are always exceptional (~50).

If there is sluggishness with the download speed, the problem could be internal to the web hosting company, like overloaded routers or switches. I recall on another host how my server was serving very slowly. Nothing wrong with the network or connection as it turned out, but rather, the core swtiches at the company was overloaded due to too many servers. The company promply replaced them with Gigabit switches, and the problem was solved. Amazing how many emails I had to sent them before they'd even consider the possibility though.

i was gettin' 160-180KB/sec a bit earlier... back down to 50-80KB/sec

georgec, do you own dynamicdrive.com ?

Originally posted by netdude
i was gettin' 160-180KB/sec a bit earlier... back down to 50-80KB/sec


I get 50-90k/s (out of a max of 250k/s) on my Cable connection (Roadrunner, Timewarner Cable, North Carolina). Which is less than ideal for moving large files, but acceptable for web hosting. If there is a switch issue, I assume it will affect others as well, and come to attention.

Anyhow. I've moved the file myself. If anyone else wants to test speed from their location, just pm me.. and i'll give you the url.

arn

heh

yeah... i m guessin' ur bandwidth graphs were starting to reflect all us leechers of that file... lol

Originally posted by netdude
i was gettin' 160-180KB/sec a bit earlier... back down to 50-80KB/sec

georgec, do you own dynamicdrive.com ?

Well, I co-run the site.

cuz damn... that site is my hero... been goin' there for so long... hehehehe... don't use it much anymore (cuz i don't do any design work at all), but... i luv it... lol

Originally posted by netdude
cuz damn... that site is my hero... been goin' there for so long... hehehehe... don't use it much anymore (cuz i don't do any design work at all), but... i luv it... lol

Much thanks :) Can I enter pass your name onto our fan club president? :D

umm... sure... :)

BTW, there seems to be quite a lot of Fastserver users here. How about some of them put up a test download file as well. It would certainly interest me to know for sure that download speeds on FS are unhindered/uncapped, whether intentional or not.

Originally posted by Tazzman
From my server at 56 Marietta in Atlanta:

02:06:41 (380.95 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

From my server at FDCservers (best speed I've had out of this biatch for a long time):

20:09:02 (373.83 KB/s) - `http.03m.sav' saved [2908160/2908160]

Both downloaded from the link with the IP in it.

Tazzman, you're on FDC, how do you like them tell me more about them, well everything... I need to get more info, because few days ago people talked very bad things about them.