Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

    Quickweb and Cachefly

    I have two quickweb accounts -- one in Dallas, one in Scranton. Both boxes are great, support is outstanding, and network speeds to me are no problem...

    However, for whatever reason when testing network speeds using cachefly, I get speeds of 1.0-2.0 M/s... It annoys the heck out of me, to be honest... This "standard" benchmark makes my boxes look really slow (even slower than hostrail!)

    Anyone else in Dallas or Scranton on quickweb? Do you get the same results? I've contacted support and there's no real answer (they even put in on a different VPS), Cachefly claims it's nothing on their end...


    [root@vpn7 ~]# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    --2011-06-03 11:21:36-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'

    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 1.06M/s in 82s

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    What's a traceroute look like to cachefly.cachefly.net from the server?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    Here's the traceroute.....

    traceroute to 205.234.175.175 (205.234.175.175), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
    1 10.26.55.132 (10.26.55.132) 0.062 ms 0.032 ms 0.017 ms
    2 po101.cer02.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com (208.43.118.137) 0.304 ms 0.321 ms 0.348 ms
    3 po1.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (173.192.18.188) 0.718 ms 0.747 ms 0.759 ms
    4 po3.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.155) 18.802 ms 18.827 ms 18.900 ms
    5 po1.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.170) 18.777 ms 18.795 ms 18.824 ms
    6 206.223.119.138 (206.223.119.138) 27.824 ms 25.828 ms 23.936 ms
    7 TenGigabitEthernet3-1.ar5.CHI2.gblx.net (208.49.135.161) 234.578 ms 234.600 ms 234.628 ms
    8 po1-20G.ar2.CHI2.gblx.net (67.16.142.241) 181.601 ms 181.597 ms 181.657 ms
    9 vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175) 20.186 ms 20.435 ms 20.003 ms

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    And again.....

    traceroute to 205.234.175.175 (205.234.175.175), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets

    1 10.26.55.132 (10.26.55.132) 0.032 ms 0.021 ms 0.016 ms
    2 po101.cer02.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com (208.43.118.137) 0.269 ms 0.294 ms 0.315 ms
    3 po1.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (173.192.18.188) 0.692 ms 0.718 ms 0.794 ms
    4 po3.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.155) 18.793 ms 18.870 ms 18.895 ms
    5 po1.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.170) 18.829 ms 18.811 ms 18.832 ms
    6 206.223.119.138 (206.223.119.138) 19.700 ms 19.344 ms 19.304 ms
    7 TenGigabitEthernet3-1.ar5.CHI2.gblx.net (208.49.135.161) 26.624 ms 26.638 ms 26.697 ms
    8 po1-20G.ar2.CHI2.gblx.net (67.16.142.241) 26.416 ms 26.491 ms 26.560 ms
    9 vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175) 20.340 ms 19.871 ms 20.292 ms

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    It is, however, consistent!

    [root@vpn7 ~]# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    --2011-06-03 13:55:32-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'

    100%[===========================================================================================>] 104,857,600 1005K/s in 1m 40s

  6. #6
    wait for the respond from Roel.
    You should deal with them via ticket anyway, they should solve this for you.
    ControlVM.com :: Elastic Cloud Hosting Alternatives to VPS Reliable Cloud Server
    Enterprise Hosting @
    Malaysia ● Germany ● USA ● Singapore
    We Accept: Paypal
    Alipay GrabPay Credit/Debit Card FPX Bank Transfer Bank TT

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    474
    People need to understand that cachefly is not a speed testing standard, pick a constant file from linode/leaseweb/ovh that doesn't change and has a stable network.
    How can you factor in VAT when comparing since you are subject to VAT on everything? Obviously purchases made outside the EU are not going to be collected with VAT, but are you not still responsible to pay it on your own? - Tim Flavin from "Hostigation.com"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    Actually this has been submitted to Quickweb and they've really worked on it (to the point of me probably being annoying)... (Ticket# 369790)

    I'm just curious if anyone else has the same issue with Quickweb and Cachefly...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,331
    Hi,

    As far as i know we do not have VPS offering in Scranton (maybe you meant Washington DC as seen in the traceroute), at this point all i can say is probably cachefly is having issue with their softlayer network connection as speed from other sources are good when downloaded to your VPS (except if from Europe as above). We could not figure out why download speed from cachefly is not optimal at this point.

    As you said it is only for testing purpose and you have no actual business of downloading real useful data from cachefly rather than for testing and satisfy yourself.

    would be great to know if other people who have a server at Softlayer dallas are having the same inconsistent speed?
    Last edited by QuickWeb-Roel; 06-03-2011 at 08:37 AM.
    QuickWeb™ -We Host Servers Like a Boss!
    New Zealand - USA - UK - Germany Virtual Servers
    Worldwide hosting provider with proven 24x7 and 25-Minute Support!
    www.quickweb.co.nz

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    154
    Weird. I'm getting the following results, both ClubUptime VPS in Dallas:

    OpenVZ:
    2011-06-03 16:40:27 (1.09 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

    Xen:
    2011-06-03 08:38:27 (3.87 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    Quote Originally Posted by kendid View Post
    Here's the traceroute.....
    So it seems that despite the fact that you're in WDC and Cachefly has nodes located there, you're being routed to Chicago instead (this isn't necessarily wrong, it's just the way anycast routing works sometimes). It should still be a bit faster than what you're seeing, but this would explain why you're not necessarily maxing out your port or anything here.

    I would not worry about this personally.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    1,184
    He is still getting pretty slow speeds to EU ( Leaseweb/OVH )
    Best Regards / Melhores Cumprimentos,
    Bernardo Andrade
    Need a system Administrator?Contact me at email@bernardoa.pt
    Visit me at www.bernardoa.pt

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    Oops, my mistake -- yes, WDC, NOT Scranton

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    QuickWeb,

    see if you can optimize the TCP buffers on your system a bit.

    i.e. in sysctl:

    net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1
    net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle = 1

    net.ipv4.tcp_sack = 1
    net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 0

    net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 8388608
    net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 87380 8388608
    net.core.rmem_max = 8388608
    net.core.wmem_max = 8388608
    net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 5000
    net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1

    From one of our systems in New York:


    [root@atlas ~]# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    --2011-06-03 08:56:47-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'

    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 98.2M/s in 1.0s

    2011-06-03 08:56:48 (98.2 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

    (this box has the above in sysctl)
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickWeb-Roel View Post
    Hi,

    As you said it is only for testing purpose and you have no actual business of downloading real useful data from cachefly rather than for testing and satisfy yourself.
    Yes, primarily for testing purposes. Does seem like there is something wrong somewhere along the route (as EU)... I'm not complaining, just checking if others have the same issue...

    Appears so, even with a different provider!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    The traceroutes look perfectly fine - there really isn't anything wrong here from a network standpoint. By increasing TCP buffers on the system higher as I suggested, it'll probably improve the transfer rate quite a bit.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by kendid View Post
    Oops, my mistake -- yes, WDC, NOT Scranton
    PM me your IP address, I'll take a look..

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    Pm'd to you Matt...

  20. #20
    Hi Matt,
    Most of the peoples are now using cachefly download source for network speed benchmark or speed test. Something strange will affect the evaluation.

    Let the standard be the standard.
    Looking forward your input.
    ControlVM.com :: Elastic Cloud Hosting Alternatives to VPS Reliable Cloud Server
    Enterprise Hosting @
    Malaysia ● Germany ● USA ● Singapore
    We Accept: Paypal
    Alipay GrabPay Credit/Debit Card FPX Bank Transfer Bank TT

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,331
    Yes seems like cachefly is the standard speed test here at WHT

    i tried downloading and here's i got at the moment (WDC)


    wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    --2011-06-04 08:29:51-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'

    100%[========================================================>] 104,857,600 20.1M/s in 8.1s

    2011-06-04 08:29:59 (12.4 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    QuickWeb™ -We Host Servers Like a Boss!
    New Zealand - USA - UK - Germany Virtual Servers
    Worldwide hosting provider with proven 24x7 and 25-Minute Support!
    www.quickweb.co.nz

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by CH Hosting View Post
    Hi Matt,
    Most of the peoples are now using cachefly download source for network speed benchmark or speed test. Something strange will affect the evaluation.

    Let the standard be the standard.
    Looking forward your input.
    Unfortunately our customers pay us to deliver their content as quickly as possible, not to be the standard WHT test . If there's a destination that's underperforming, we do our best to fix it, period.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58
    Ditto on Cachefly being the standard... I'm being shamed by a friend who has got Hostrail at 3x the speed (for a buck or so a month!)

    Here's what I got today

    [root@vpn7 ~]# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    --2011-06-04 17:06:57-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'

    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 1.02M/s in 1m 41s

    2011-06-04 17:08:38 (1011 KB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    Just to make it clear to anyone reading this, considering Quickweb -- I use this as a VPN to Eastern Europe and this WDC VPS gives me faster transfer rates (and shorter pings) than any other provider I've tried... For whatever reason, the Cachefly "standardized" speed test does not give accurate results showing the true quality of Quickweb services.

Similar Threads

  1. Cachefly or Rackspace?
    By zymic in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-01-2011, 09:46 PM
  2. Quickweb
    By mikeo in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Cachefly Speed Test is Failing; Any clue why?
    By WebManagerNY in forum Other Reviews
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 11:38 AM
  4. how does cachefly or other CDN work for a db driven site?
    By surfmanjoe in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-24-2007, 04:05 PM
  5. Anyone using Cachefly or a similar CDN?
    By notsle in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2006, 10:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •