Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: An Accurate Broadband Speed Test?
First time accepted submitter kyrcant writes Is there a way to accurately really test my "broadband" connection? I don't trust the usual sites, the first ones I found via Google. I suspect (and found) that at least some of them are directly affiliated with ISPs, and I further suspect that traffic to those addresses is probably prioritized, so people will think they're getting a good deal. The speeds I experience are much, much slower than the speed tests show I'm capable of. For a while I thought it might be the sites themselves, but they load faster on my T-Mobile HTC One via 4G than on my laptop via WiFi through a cable modem connection. Is there a speed test site that has a variable or untraceable IP address, so that the traffic can't be prioritized by my ISP (call them "ConCazt")? If not, which sites are not in any way affiliated with ISPs? Is there a way to test it using YouTube or downloading a set file which can be compared to other users' results?
(Have your own question for the teeming masses? Ask away — be sure to include appropriate detail and context — via the Slashdot submission form.)
They are all ISP run, or open to bribery. The most independent one I've seen is https://www.google.com/get/vid... which is an ISP quality measure, not a speedtest.
Learn to love Alaska
How are people not aware of DSLReports and their speed tests? And how could this possibly make /.?
Also, your wi-fi sucks. Get a cable if you want to know what your real speed is.
I use speedtest.net and believe there reliable - I always cross reference the results with what my router displays and other websites.
You can download the speedtest widget, and load it on a webserver, and then use that to test your speed.
http://www.speedtest.net/mini....
I've used the Speakeasy Speed Test in the past. I'm currently on a T1 connection and just got a reading of 1.5 Mbps upload and download speed, which is right on the money.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Rent or trial a VPS. You can get them for literally a few pounds/dollars per month.
Put a large file on Apache on it.
Download the file from several places.
Rename the file on the server to check it's not cached.
The "upper limit" on this is then the VPS, which generally are connected direct to 100mbps lines in a datacenter somewhere. If you think it's limited by the VPS, get another from another provider. Or load up iptraf or some packet capture and see how it did.
Speedtest websites are indicative only, and are cheated on by some places. Your own website can't be cheated on - you will see the request coming in and can watch the outgoing traffic to see where the bottleneck lies.
UC Berkeley's NetAlyzr.
NDT - Argonne National Laboratory
ndt.anl.gov/
Not associated with any ISP.
There are other ndt (network diagnostic tests) as well.
Very detailed reports.
They possibly have a speed test detection. It can be done by looking after "speed" in the url or with a list of know speed test sites.
They increase the speed of your line as long as the speed test is running.
You could work around that by "running" your own speed test in the background, but do it with a very low rate limit.
Could be done with something like "wget --limit-rate=x "
If your ISP doesn't fiddle with your traffic, a heavily seeded torrent will normally do a good job of saturating your connection.
Seriously, find a handful of known-high-bandwidth places to download stuff from and download some large files from each of them and use your PC's network-monitoring tools to gauge your bandwidth.
As for as upstream, get some email account from various providers, compose a message, and attach a large-ish file.
Note - if your ISP gives you "burst speed" you will have to "burn through that" before you start getting "real" numbers.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And frequently score higher on my tmobile phone than on comcast (up to 30 vs up to 15)
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
There have been a few stories lately that make me question how they got on here..
All right. Just who woke him up this time? Whoever it is, you need to put him back down in his bunker and this time LOCK THE DOOR.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
https://www.samknows.com/
I have one of their boxes installed. It seems to provide a clear picture of overall performance with a monthly report. I'm doing this because I'd like to think it helps the FCC keep the ISPs honest.
PS - Card carrying Libertarian. No the FCC isn't spying on me, and yes regulation of ISPs is appropriate. If we've broken the free market by granting a local monopoly or limited oligopoly then heavy regulation is appropriate. Consumer choice is better, but this is the best we can do with what we have today.
It's hard to know if slow speeds are from your connection or the server you're connecting to or something in between. If you download a linux distro over bit torrent you'll be bypassing any individual server bottleneck and any (except local) general network slow downs. I usually get extremely good speeds from bit torrent, pushing 15 mbit, from my "15 mbit" fios connection. I don't use it a lot so I don't see any alleged throttling from it.
DSLReports or any of that stuff is only useful to determine if you have a decent working internet connection. They should never be used for any sort of benchmarking as one has to assume carriers optimize connections to them to make themselves look good.
you need a comparable site to where you are, due to the nature of the internet.
the best way to test this would probably be to pull a file from the common CDNs, so Akamai, Amazon CloudFront, CloudFlare etc...
Speeds depend on: ....... etc....
* The speed of your local connection.
* The contention in your ISP networks.
* The contention on your inter ISP links, and their peering arrangements.
* Speed to Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video, etc..
*
So considering much of your traffic is to the closest CDN, and video streaming nodes, that's what you really care about.
If everybody tried to stream a file from Australia, only the Australians would get good results as the rest of the world would experience TCP window size congestion slowing their transfers and we'd end up with a map of the latency from the Aus node rather than broadband speed.
I use the App for Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8:
Windows: http://apps.microsoft.com/wind...
Phone: http://www.windowsphone.com/en...
Youtube speed test won't tell you anything as youtube content tends to be cached locally at your ISP by GGC (Google Global Cache).
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
don't forgot to test with your laptop connected directly to your cable modem.
You could always get your own server and then write a simple speed test script! I mean create a script that generates like a 20MB file and then download to your browser and calculate using the distance formula - distance = rate / time well except in this case distance is transfer speed.
You can't hold your ISP responsible for your speedtest results if the server is outside of their own network. I run a very large network in a very large state and we have our own speedtest servers and we publicize those details. We don't prioritize those packets in any way and try to make our service look any better than it would for normal traffic. I agree with Maxwell...cable up to get the most accurate test results. It sounds to me like you are trying to make a case against your ISP. Better check your usage agreement because I'll bet there is some language in there that lets you know 100% of your plan speed is not always 100% of the time. Even internally run speedtest servers have their own limitations. They are generally devices with gig, multiple gig or 10gig interfaces. How many simultaneous tests can these devices run before their own connection to the network becomes the bottleneck? We've considered a first-com-first-serve approach which would queue requests and tell the user why it's important to do so. This becomes more and more important as providers move closer and closer to delivering gigabit to the home. (not that I understand why anyone "needs" gig to their home.....for legitimate reasons....)
Ookla speedtest.net.
Resolution: Seriously, don't ever use wireless. Props to Tesla but wireless is downright abysmal for anything more complicated than loading the html version of Gmail. It depends on what wireless card or adapter you have but even with Wireless-N, even if you have a good router and a great connection, you'll be lucky to get 5 solid bars with even a 4th of your potential bandwidth even if your laptop is literally right next to the wireless antennae.
There is no way to test "The internet"
The fact of the matter is you make dozens of hops, even hundreds, to get anywhere. En-route you can hit any number of choke points. If you run a speed test I can almost guarantee your ISP knows about the speed test site and is going to prioritize your traffic. Add to that the fact that the speed test site is likely hosted somewhere like the Amazon cloud and all you're testing is your route to about the easiest place to get to.
Is your ISP throttling Torrents? Netflix? Youtube? A test to any other site is useless if they prioritize that and throttle where you actually want to go. Is there a problem with your NID? The remote you connect to? The peering they have setup?
On top of all of that, speed test sites are just a test of downloading various file sizes. That's easy... flawless movie playback and seamless online game play? That's an entirely different story. You've no idea how many friends I've had complain about their ISP throttling their game, only to find out later the problem cleared up when they got a new video card. lol
So if your ISP is not working for your needs, you need to switch. If you have other options, most offer a contract free option now-a-days. Try that out and cancel if it's no better. If you have no other options, you're stuck with it anyway.
Your best bet, if you're stuck with that ISP, is to make friends with a tech. Get one out there for some reason, offer him a beer, whatever. Joke, laugh, etc... he'll probably tell you what's up. Once you know where the problem is, often you can figure out how to talk them into a better solution. In these situations you're usually fighting their bureaucracy... its not that they don't want to help, it's just a lot of paperwork to get that help. Be more annoying than the paperwork.
Use the Xfinity speed test at speedtest.comcast.net.
As far as I can tell, they are not affiliated with any ISP.
Don't test over Wifi. Not all interference shows up as conflicting wireless networks. Connect your laptop to the router using an Ethernet cable. Download a Linux ISO from a university mirror server close to you. (Here is a list of Ubuntu mirrors.) Some of these servers may be overloaded, but most can easily saturate a residential connection. Give the connection a couple of seconds to ramp up.
You still have to get the data across your link to your ISP, whether it's coming from a cache at the ISP or from a server not at your ISP.
Speedtest.net used to be good at one stage. But when I tried them relatively recently, I found that they measure the speed once it gets going, and ignore the regular dropouts that may occur. Speedtest.net claimed about 1gigabit, but in reality it was a tenth or even a fiftieth of that.
I had more luck with the following:
http://speedof.me/ - HTML5 Internet speed test (no Flash or Java needed). It claims to be the "smartest and most accurate online bandwidth test".
http://testmy.net - Nice graph and intelligent picking of the size of the test file to download.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Comcast is an ISP, isn't it?
I'm a network engineer at an ISP, so I would say I have a bit of experience with this from both ends of the table. First of all, there's a difference between your broadband connection speed and your perceived rate. Your broadband connection might be capped to what you pay for, and, assuming your last-mile medium can handle that speed, that only means that you will never actually go beyond your connection speed.
Now as we know, the internet is a complicated network of interconnected systems. You are connected via your ISP's backbone to the other systems (ISPs, enterprises, content providers, etc.) via a number of internet peering points. These peering points have their own connection speed (typically 1 Gbit/s or 10 Gbit/s, although higher exist), and may or may not be utilised to their maximum extent at any point of time. This means that you may have your full data rate available to some destinations, while others may take a congested route.
You mention testing, and your frustration is very reasonable. There are testing sites out there, but you never have any idea about how many else might be testing at the same time, or how much load there is on the server at the moment of the test. If you are unlucky, you might also be limited by your hardware, your operating system (TCP Window Size, receive buffers and similar might not be tuned properly), or your router.
I would say your best choice would be to download as much as possible from as many sources as possible (bittorrent is excellent for this, but may be throttled by evil ISPs), and do this over a couple of days to get an average indication of how much your connection is capable of delivering.
If you have a server on some remote location via the internet, you can use programs like iperf to make a bandwidth test, but such a test is not exactly precise when you have no idea how the intermediate networks are.
If you have a system that you can test against (i.e. a server at your work with a fatter-pipe then you have at home, or a hosted server/VPS/etc.)
iperf
run "iperf -s" on the server and "iperf -c server.ip.address" on the client.
Read the man pages for more options.
If you don't have a 'known better then you' to test against try this to test your maximum download bandwidth.
Simple test: download a large file from Microsoft (i.e. a 'network install' service pack, or similar) or other big-host
More complicated: .iso's as your target download, make sure you grab the files from *.edu sites. Schools should have a lot more bandwidth then the average .com that is hosting files.
run several (4-20) 'wget' concurrently. If you use Linux
Your ISP might have several things in place from preventing DDOS attacks from there customer machines. So each 'download' might be throttled by your ISP. If you open several download threads to different locations, downloading different things you can maximize your usage.
Also, don't download the same thing twice from the same source. Caching can/will interfere with accurate measurements.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
I can literally guarantee you'll go faster websurfing with this (safer & more reliably too) http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... AND save bandwidth you paid out for too monthly!
*:)
Using the data it outputs from 12 reputable sources in the security community for custom hosts file data, You can LITERALLY test it, yourself by using it, and SEE/NOTICE an immediate change in webpage speed being MUCH faster!
(Again - which also, especially since bandwidth caps ARE being instituted too which this also saves you that also since most websites are up to 40% adbanner mass which hosts block, is easy to note...)
APK
P.S.=> However, I *am* truly "with you" on being "unable to test the internet" (@ large) due to traffic conditions + congestion @ the "choke points" or otherwise on hops on the way etc. - et al... apk
The Network Diagnostic Test was able to see performance problems on my cablemodem connection that Ookla's speedtests did not.
http://www.measurementlab.net/...
Unfortunately, the number of ridiculous hoops you need to go through to let an unsigned Java applet run an arbitrary network I/O makes it much less useful.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Go download a heavily seeded torrent.
I always prefer a functional test.... Download steam then a f2p game. Check your download rate. Delete the game then retry it on a cable connection.
FOADIAF shithead. I'm sick of your spam.
Pick a popular torrent — like a recent release of your favorite BSD or Linux distro — and start downloading (without any limits on your client side, of course). Watch the bandwidth. With a large number of peers, your measurement will be insulated from the oddities of any particular connection.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There are simply to many variables to get results that you feel comfortable believing. But what you could do is create a file that's 10M and send it and receive it from a friend (or multiple friends) connection that is using the same bandwidth speeds and a different ISP. Even this has lots of holes in it, but at least you can get some peace of mind. In my mind, there is no true valid test, unless you have complete control over all hardware between you and the end, which not many can have.
Another way to get peace of mind is to just use all of the sites that measure bandwidth. If they all report basically the same thing, then take it as fact.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem on Comcast's side but you are asking the impossible. It seems like most people have a mental picture of an isp and the internet as being some hierarchical series of connections where there is some single "backbone" that connects to everything and an ISP has one big connection to that so that there is one route to everything. Your computer to the isp to the backbone to the server. The reality is that everything is much much more complex than that with most ISPs of any size having numerous connections at multiple different locations and potentially multiple different paths to get someplace. A speed test doesn't have to be rigged or unfairly prioritized for it to give different results than accessing random site xyz. A speed test might go over one line to one backbone provider and the path to the website might go over a different link to a different provider and the speed test link might not be busy while the other link might be, see netflix dispute. Or it could be that the website's server or their connection to the internet is busy.
It is impossible to tell you what the performance will be like for a specific server other than by simply going to the server. As far as your phone on cell being faster on your laptop than wifi that's comparing apples to beach balls. Is wifi interference the problem? Is the site detecting a mobile browser and serving up different pages that are smaller/more optimized? Is it platform or web browser difference? A better test would try to eliminate as many differences as possible such as comparing a wired Ethernet connection directly to your cable modem to a usb tethered to your phone comparison so the differences are limited to your connection as much as possible.
I know it's not a good reliable test, but you can always try do download an .ISO file from some Linux distro from various sources or some big program from sourceforge.
The second alternative, you can try to use the meter from the Brazilian agency for internet at:
http://simet.nic.br/medidor/ (try googling: simet nic br)
it's not in any form affiliated with any US ISP and i think we have sufficient bandwitdth for the test.
It's not sourcery, it's Technology!!!
hey! I'm in the group that runs that box!
most of the national labs have a NDT server serving internet/internet2
fermilab also has one at http://psonar2.fnal.gov/toolkit/, but for some reason the ndt portion seems to be down.
Download some binaries from a Usenet provider, that'll max out your connection.
I generally get ~13.5MBps down on my 120Mbps connection from Rogers. Uploading to my VPS gets me a solid 2MBps out of 20Mbps.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
Really?
Either just say, "... my ISP, Comcast..." or don't name them at all. Trying to be cute just muddles the conversation and gains absolutely nothing.
Why do you care about other people's results, too? Just upload a large file to somewhere with known good bandwidth (amazon S3 might be a good choice, or FTP it to Dreamhost, or whatever), time it, then pull it back down again (and time that). You'll get a pretty accurate "actual bandwidth" there.
If you're paranoid - and it appears that you are - make the file something unique and check the checksums in both places (or just record a brand new 60 second video, timed upload it from one machine, then timed download it to another and play it). No way that anyone can optimize that transfer - if they could, they wouldn't be wasting the technology on you (and, quite frankly, if they could move 7 megabits/second over a "5 megabit/second pipe" then they'd be entitled to say that they had a 7mpbs pipe.
Not everything needs a dedicated app.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
What is fast enough?
I look at at speedtest.net some times, but what really counts is the data in PFSense (our router) and does the movie etc. have problems.
PFsense will tell you what is going on, and who the culprit is sucking up all the bandwidth on your local net.
.
http://www.measurementlab.net/...
Runs on OS-X, Windows, Linux. Port available on FreeBSD.
Netflix offers several test streams for validating your speeds, and Google has a Video Quality Report
I find that the Speedtest.Net results are a realistic estimate of my actual best case upload/download speed, but there are certainly some websites which are much slower to load, for various reasons. If you suspect your ISP is throttling some websites intentionally, you can always browse through a VPN service.
As mentioned previously, local WiFi problems are often the root cause of slow page loads. Go wired. You can also use the network debugging tools built into Firefox (Network Monitor) and MSIE to try to determine what parts of a page are particularly slow.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Even being noisily right with an answer to a question that nobody's asking, in a conversation about something completely different, is annoying and should be discourages.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
there's no ACTUAL speed test on that page.
God damn dumbfuck!!!
your geek card, submitter, if you don't know how to saturate your internet connection.
You can't prove a flat-earther wrong either because they will ignore or dismiss any amount of evidence. You could take them up into space and show them the spheroid Earth for themselves and they would say it was a trick or illusion. Arguing with APK and his faggot fanboys is the same. You will always fail if "success" means "convince APK and his ilk". You will always succeed if "success" is "give him enough rope to hang himself and let everyone see for themselves what an obsessive, single-minded, raving lunatic with no life he really is".
Yet you're complaining? Prove apk wrong instead of trolling or downmoderating his posts like you did here earlier you effete little ac troll whimp http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... but then again, you can't, now can you? Evidently not just judging by your cry-baby wuss'ness! Get on topic or prove him wrong little boy.
http://testmy.net/, besides the ordinary one-shot, also does automatic, periodic tests, and gives you a chart and a report a the end. It has a few options, such as automatic payload sizing, and allows for multiple identifiers such as home, office, etc., for multiple devices or sites.
I had a problem with a 2-way satellite provider last year, and used http://testmy.net/ to show, every hour for 48 hours, what their speed was.
Stick to old fashioned measures...
Just get a copy of httpwatch/fiddler, (wireshark too if you know what you're looking at), and test several hits with a few random sites. Preferably the big sites that tend to have more capacity (news sites, apple, etc..).
Not only will you get the big picture of how long it took to load, but you can also focus on what took too long to load - if it's a network or site issue, name resolution, etc..
ICMP is also your friend (latency test).
Downloading a popular TV show episode over Bittorrent will saturate your link. It is a good measure of your connection speed.
In theory the ISP's might look to see where your data is headed and make adjustments based on that, but that of course would be deceitful. No, they wouldn't do that would they?
Too bad apk's made you "run forrest run" again here though, eh http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
I had been noticing poor performance from Youtube when watching videos (buffering, dropping to low-res, etc). Then I noticed that youtube seemed to work much better while I was connected through VPN, which is the opposite of what you would expect, at least in theory. But I realize that ISPs have been playing throttling games with large video sites like Youtube and Netflix.
However, I did another test and the results of it were more surprising for me. I have 3mbps DSL service through Verizon. If I run a test through speedtest.net, it reports right around 3mbps. However, if I connect my VPN first and then do the same test, it reports around 5mbps! How is that even possible?
Unfortunately, I feel like the VPN slows normal browsing of other sites a little bit, but I haven't done a comparison yet to confirm my perception.
"GotWhippedAndRanWithHisTailBetweenHisLegsLikeABadDog" after this http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
I'd like to see a site that's capable of testing the peering throughput of a given ISP. As opposed to running a single speed test, it'd run run multiple tests consecutively via servers on different networks. Take the Verizon fiasco recently where they had a saturated link to Level 3 that affected Netflix. A peering test would be capable of highlighting this sort of thing.
Does your VPN use compression? Try running the VPN-routed test using testmy.net; they use random incompressible data for their testing.
Try Cloudcheck http://forum.cloudcheck.net/
and run iperf
or use an amazon free trial thing.
These speed tests are basically meaningless. There are too many factors that might affect the throughput and latency from your desktop or device to any given site.
Meaningful tests might include:
- local link test to neighborhood node, Internet access point - your ISP would need to install test servers in local (neighborhood, at least for cable setups) nodes and wherever traffic exits their network to the Internet. This would allow you to test latency and throughput within your ISPs own system. Obviously, this ultimately limits possible Internet speeds. Your ISP almost certainly already has these kinds of test servers. But they may or may not expose them or advertise them to users.
- A test employing MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS test servers. This would at least attempt to assess your available bandwidth "to the Internet".
You should not have any reasonable expectation of achieving the maximum theoretical throughput of your "Internet connection" to any given site. Or any one site at all. I do not know why people obsess so over these meaningless tests.
I don't trust the usual sites, the first ones I found via Google. I suspect (and found) that at least some of them are directly affiliated with ISPs, and I further suspect that traffic to those addresses is probably prioritized, so people will think they're getting a good deal.
I just wanted to point out that they're not necessarily trying to trick you by running these speed tests. For one thing, if they wanted to trick you, they could always just compile a list of popular test sites and prioritize/uncap that traffic.
But it's actually somewhat valid for ISPs to provide tests that, in a sense, are biased. Let's say you have a Verizon connection. Verizon may want to provide a testing mechanism to make sure you're getting the advertised connection to their network, to make sure things are operating properly. If you have a slow connection to Slashdot, for example, that might just mean that Slashdot is slow. It might mean that your route to Slashdot has been saturated somehow, and that might not be Verizon's fault. There are a lot of things that could possibly go wrong that could cause your connection to Slashdot to be bad, and Verizon can't rely on that as a good test.
So what Verizon would want to do is provide a test that simply confirms that your connection to their network is running at advertised speeds, which would mean testing between your home computer and another machine on their network. If that is operating at advertised speeds, but your connection to some endpoint is slow, then the problem is probably between Verizon's network and the endpoint, and not between you and Verizon's network.
Steam. Pick a large game and install it. Their pipes are larger than yours.
The reason we ISP's host our own speedtest.net nodes is because we dont want to have people judging us for speeds to networks that we don't control. How would you feel if some goomba called you up and told you your service was shit because he was speedtesting to cletus's speedtest server 900 miles away?
If you have your speedteset node right at your fiber switch you get accurate results (barring an issue with the upstream provider that is, which you can confirm by using a neihboring speedtest node)
Seems to me a tech person would want to have it there so they can properly diagnose an issue... or am i missing something here?
Not sure if anybody said this one but - i always recommend the following-
TCP speed tests - they run over java and get actual good metrics.
http://www.ispgeeks.com/wild/modules.php?name=TcpipSpeed
also for further testing of long term throttling i use large file downloads
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download.html
just DL the 1 GB file. and watch the progress.
I work for a small ISP, and my rule of thumb is you should be able to hit about 80% of the top speed using these TCP speed tests. If you can't then something is wrong.
I don't know if my VPN uses compression, but that's a good tip. I will check that out, thanks!
The best way to test your real bandwidth is to use your own server. Put some large and small files on a VPS you, or someone you know, uses for torrents. Or, on a server at your workplace where you can securely host random files. Assuming that both locations have much greater bandwidth than you do and you have already verified that.
The simply use wget to test the speed at which you can download those files.
The problem you're going to run into isn't even 'bribed and biased' speedtests themselves.
The problem is they literally priortize the traffic the IDENTIFY as a speed test.
So you can have a completely neutral party and if they don't hide that it's a speed test, it'll get prioritized.
E.G Download file45456.zip from a server. Measure that speed, repeat to confirm.
Rename the file on the server speedtest.zip and bam, suddenly it gets way better speeds.
Take it easy on him, guys. He was abused as a child.
Uhuhm, shallow and pedantic.
I bet you woman-handle the beggars on the street about their clothing style.
You know, the abuse you suffered as a child will only continue to haunt you until you seek out competent mental health care. I don't know if it was your mother, your father or both that abused you, but they left damage that is clear for all to see. Please seek out psychiatric care immediately. Your constant claim to be trying to make the internet better by making it worse is clear evidence of your need for help. Seek it out before you destroy yourself utterly. I'm truly afraid that you'll actually commit suicide, like you pretended to do several years ago. You do remember posting in your mother's "voice" about how we horrible slashdotters had driven you to suicide, don't you? Please get help before that becomes more than a fantasy in your tortured mind.
Forget the speed test. Give me an accurate uptime / reliability test instead - i'll pay for it. In fact, i'll pay for a home router that has a service integrated for reliability monitoring.
I'll be happy to pay more for extra reliable service, rather than variably available peak bandwidth.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Client-software based. The problem with any server-based test is twofold:
The ideal speedtest would look like a Knoppix CD... you'd boot your computer, and load up a Kernel patched to gather Web100 metrics, and then test a large number of upload and download scenarios against a large number of servers.
Then analyze the data to calculate a "Composite speed score"
you could run a tor relay. .. a slow steady demise. .. slow as a dog. .. they can "shape" it with randomly handing out "dog slow" ip addresses.
you can limite how much of your bandwidth you want to donate.
you set a hard limit.
after running it for a few month you can get pr3tty graphs on your "bandwidth"
by looking up your relay on: https://atlas.torproject.org/
to wit: i was running a relay for about 8 month and tor clearly showed a slowing
of my DSL connection
also i found that instead of slowing down / shaping the DSL connection, my ISP seems to
have "dog" IP addresses. since i'm in a pool of dynamically assigned ip addresses, i soemtimes get a
one of these "dog" ip address, which are
then the next day or so, i get another which is not a "dog".
so without acctually shaping the bandwidth
hey, maybe you're lucky today and you got a fast one : )
R O T F L M A O - quit projecting, & take your OWN advice, weirdo...
APK
P.S.=> You're a flipcase man - real delusions of grandeur @ being a competent licensed & degreed practicing psychiatric pro... lol, more like "The 'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.'" = mmell... apk
See subject above. Topic's about online speed stupid. So, learn to read. Apk's offers more. Prove him wrong. You fail. It's also spelled discouraged (not discourages) in that context. Learn to write. You failed again. Minus modding me earlier too for this same post also is your triple fail http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5807175&cid=48105559
Subject's speed online. Apk offers more. Do you? No. You can't prove him wrong. You fail, loser. Minus modding this same post I did before too is your double fail http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... since your whimp attempt at 'hiding it' is useless, goof.
You offtopic trolling no mind http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
* Good luck - you'll NEED it (more like a miracle for a trolling off topic "ne'er-do-well" STOOGE like you, lol...)
APK
P.S.=> It's going to be a PLEASURE watching YOU evade a COMPLETELY FAIR challenge put to you - & Hey, "New NEWS"/NewsFlash (predictable): YOU HAVE EVADED IT, lol, attempting to vainly "hide" this being put your way fairly only seeing you to have to "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" like you have, effetely downmodding this last time I posted it to you YET NOT PROVING ME WRONG either (will wonders never cease, lol - not) -> hhttp://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5807175&cid=48105637 What a weasel troll you are!
Change your name to "The Projectionist". Hahaha. You project way too much!
I used to deal with this stuff all the time... lots of content providers on the internet throttle the connections of users or have an insignificant uplink to the internet in the first place. If you really want to test your internet connection start a few downloads from Microsoft (Trial versions of OSs) and Oracle (Database Software) they don't skimp on their peering connections to the internet... then measure the actual through put your are getting. If your using ConCazt ;) I'm willing to bet you can achieve higher download speeds than you are paying for by a few percent. @peak times and during half time a football games you may well see this go down. Remember your ISP isn't a magic entity that has an entire copy of the internet on their network even if they do try...
The only thing I'm projecting onto you is the clear light of reason. Your mental incapacity (and its source) are both plainly evident for all here to see.
Most speed-test Web sites fail to tell the user where the the server at the other end is located or who owns it. For that reason, I generally use Speedtest.net or DSLReports, both of which allow me to select a distant server. Speedtest.net has a really large set of responding servers all over the world. DSLReports has a very limited set of servers for its Flash-based test but seems to match Speedtest.net for its Java-based test.
I have a browser extension that obfuscates my browser's outgoing HTTP headers and thus confounds many geolocation algorithms. Both Speedtest.net and DSLReports generally think I am someplace other than where I really am, in some cases on a different continent. I am not sure what is being tested in this situation, so I generally disable the extension.
I give folks a better way to get the best hosts file too - Now, *IF* I'm "wrong" as you say? Then, I don't want to be "right" - like YOU, troll (as in being an off topic useless troll psycho stalking me around here today like you have been)...
APK
P.S.=> What *EXACTLY* am I doing "wrong" by offering folks more speed, security, reliability & more online, for FREE?
Lastly - Now, I *know* you're also NOT qualified to judge my "alleged 'mental state'" according to YOU, Dr. Quack: "The 'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.' lmao (the person with delusions of grandeur @ being qualified as a psychiatric pro) - So, try this & quit projecting:
Get on topic, get a life, + get the hell out of here (lol)... apk
No, you attempted to project your own strange issues onto others. Get on topic, quit trolling.
Is your grasp on reality truly that weak?
Nobody here is foolish enough to run a kernel-mode host file manager written by a man who clearly has what is at best a tenuous grip on reality. I know the truth hurts, but until you accept the truth and do something about it you will remain an object of derision and ridicule here.
You can use iperf or jperf between two sites to get an accurate test.
I know most people don't have access to their own servers but there are some public iperf servers out there for measureing performance. I have found this the best way to independently test.
It probably is not. Deep inside, the narcissist is aware that his life is an artifact, a confabulated sham, a vulnerable cocoon.
"Nobody here is foolish enough to run a kernel-mode host file manager written by a man who clearly has what is at best a tenuous grip on reality. I know the truth hurts, but until you accept the truth and do something about it you will remain an object of derision and ridicule here." - by mmell (832646) on Thursday October 09, 2014 @08:47PM (#48108049)
Your grip on reality's questionable now (lol): My program's *NOT* in kernelmode: The resulting Hosts file it creates *IS* though (via the IP stack which uses it, in this case, tcpip.sys in Windows 32 &/or 64-bit).
* So, before you tell *ANYONE* about having a "tenuous grip on reality"? Please: DO get one yourself!
(... & get your facts straight...)
APK
P.S.=> Oh yeah: Again - Try to GET ON TOPIC TOO, troll... you failed, yet again (large technical blunder)... apk
Yours is weak. That's proven as Apk just made mincemeat out of you on your blunder http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
Mmell just got smoked by apk (showing his grasp of reality n' tech's weak) http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
I've found the best speedtest solution is to choose a couple of the major fileshare sites (ie. the ones that ISPs love to throttle or block). I then upload a non-compressible junk file of about 100MB and try downloading it directly and via a VPN. I then compare those results to my ISP's speedtest.
I've seen some impressive throttling or within-ISP network congestion/lack of interconnects.
Get some help . . . soon.
Your grip on reality is even weaker than I'd thought. I'm certain (based on your other posts) that you were abused by your father, and possibly your mother as well. Were you also sexually molested, or was it only physical and emotional abuse you suffered?
Then again, my understanding is not what is required. If only Alexander Peter Kowalski were up to the simple task of honest self-appraisal, there might be some hope.
The question was poorly frames one about speed, yet most of answers were about bandwidth. I thought people on Slashdot might be better informed. Calling bandwidth speed is like saying a 2 lane road is faster than a one lane road. Speed in IT is a real I've term. You have to define the parameters. If it's speed to download a large file, then bandwidth may be a factor. if it's speed to load a google search, the number of hops might be more of a factor. Frankly I can't believe the FTC hasn't cracked down on the ISPs for misleading customers.
I use this one
http://www.speedtest.net/
Pretty reliable and has a good mobile app
The purpose and function of a speed test site is NOT to tell you you will be able to download files at such and such rate. BUT TO HELP IDENTIFY if there is a last mile configuration issue preventing you from obtaining proper bandwidth. That is the only that is guarantee your ISP has to uphold, that you can take up that total amount of bandwidth on your circuit. Your service can support numerous simultaneous connections , provided that the upload and download rates are not maxed out in either direction. Lets say I have a 100Mbps circuit and connect to a website provider to download a file via "http://" who runs their site on a 1.5Mbps circuit. YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DOWNLOAD @ 100Mbps. AT MOST 1.5Mbps.
Bandwidth tests should be performed to at minimum 3 different speed-test websites to see if the issue is consistent between different sites, which would indicate a problem. if 1 of them is correct, then you are fine and are getting the bandwidth the ISP promised you. Also this test should be performed from a clean PC/MAC/LINUX, and never done over a wireless connection, and not done with your internal network connected up. Just you, Your PC, and your cable modem and an ethernet cable between the PC and Cable modem. That's it. No watching netflix, streaming youtube, pandora, or downloading some file or performing windows or anti-virus updates while you are performing the test. That is because the speed test will only report what is currently LEFTOVER in your bandwidth, thus, you are making sure you are using little as bandwidth as possible, your speed test should come out right as rain.
*Further information*
Most cable modem customers are basically on aggregate circuit where the pipe's bandwidth is policed or shaped (shaping is better than policing) to the speed you ordered via virtual networking interfaces (ie vlans), if this is misconfigured, you would consistently get poor performance on bandwidth tests. but this is also assuming that you are doing a speed test to the closest server available. As you go further out, say i'm in california and doing a speed test to a server in NYC. there are many factors that will make that connection poor. Examples such as maxed out circuits between carriers(speed tests can't control where / how the traffic is routed on the internet), distance is a huge factor in latency which will in return contribute to the re-transmission rate of your packets assuming your using TCP (UDP is a totally different beast which I won't go into). If TCP has to re-negotiate it's transmission rate, this will result in poorer throughput. One of the ways around this is multiple individual TCP connections are created, Bit Torrent is one of the things that does this but other major games companies, application providers, and even content delivery networks do this, but it will never be able to work around congested backbone circuits.
ISP's do not guarantee that you are able to get the full circuit bandwidth on a single TCP or UDP Connection. Period.
Sites like Argonne National Labs is a good site to use to provide additional information to your ISP if you are experiencing severe troubles. You would want to provide them the full output of this test. You could also use something like M-LAB " http://www.measurementlab.net/tests" i would scroll down a bit and use the NDT and the NPAD tests and provide this info to your ISP. (Java and or Flash is required to be installed for most speed tests and these advanced tests.)
Remember, if somebody tells you he has a negative ping. He's a freaking moron. Minimum response time (in milliseconds) is always 1, which you will see pinging between PCS on your internal network.
You played yourself mmell http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
go to pirate bay, download a torrent with hundreds of seeders. wait 5 min and see how fast it's going. you now know your max download speed. hurray.
Get help, child.
As a(n unhappy) FiOS user, I use the Comcast Speed Test.
Of course neither factor in crippling video throttling, but I can bet if anyone is going to lie about my speed it'll be a competing company's speed test.
Over at bufferbloat.net we have developed several pretty accurate bandwidth and latency measurement tests, that work at speeds up to 40GigE. We wrap the popular with the linux-netdev's "netperf" tool with something that can aggregate and plot the results, called "netperf-wrapper". The most popular test in the suite is called "rrul" which stands for "Realtime Response Under Load", but there are many others in the suite. It has been used to extensively tune several fair queuing and aqm algorithms, notably "fq_codel" which is in cerowrt, openwrt, and many other 3rd party firmwares. Its been used to debug network hardware, wifi, cablemodems, and most recently during the 40GigE batch-bql patchset now entering the linux kernel. Some examples of use to tune a smarter queue management system against modern day cable modems: http://burntchrome.blogspot.co... http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.... There are also netperf-wrapper results for 40GigE, DSL, and wifi spread around the Internet. The intermediate format netperf-wrapper uses to store its results are in json and parsable by anything, and I keep hoping someone will get around to writing a web interface for the datafiles... Nothing else I've ever seen even comes close to netperf-wrapper for finding good, accurate, long term numbers and multiple forms of anomoly. Pretty much all the web based tests get increasingly inaccurate above 20Mbits. Single threaded TCP tests are bad also as they generally result in someone defeating TCP congestion avoidance in pursuit of the best benchmark numbers. [2] Far more important to the debloaters is not the bandwidth attained but the latency induced while getting it. [1] We maintain several public servers for netperf-wrapper, all connected via a gigE connection to the internet. Thus far we haven't overloaded them (nor advertised them widely), but if you want to give netperf-wrapper a try, and can't set up your own netperf server on the other side, feel free to ping us on the bloat mailing list for some addresses on various continents. [1] A brief rant: Bandwidth != speed. Bandwidth is capacity/interval. Real perceived speed is obtained via low latency. [2] I really hate that all the web network measurement tests don't simultaneously measure ping while running their upload and downloads. IF ONLY those tests would do that, people would start to realize that there is a huge tradeoff between good latency and high bandwidth, and that they are doing their networks in, by optimizing for bandwidth only. Networks engineered for speedtest's current test, *suck* for voip and gaming. I'd like to petition them to at least report ping times under load to the 98th percentile.
Apprently netperf-wrapper is one of the better ones around, more deatils here:
https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/wp/?p=963
Basically it uses nertperf to run multiple tcp streams in parallel, and then test various other things like latency, web page load times etc while the line is heavily loaded, and aggregates all the results together.
After this horrendous technical fail of yours he caught you in mmell here http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
You don't self-analyze. Psych pros know that. You don't. You also don't know about computing after a blunder of yours apk caught you in http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
Nobody believes you know a thing in computing after apk proved it here http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... with your help. With your help apk doesn't need supporters. You played yourself for him.
Can adblock do these 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That'd be illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
At Hot Interconnect this year, there was a good presentation by the folks that make the application "cloudcheck" It does mulitple levels of testing, including your WIFI, ISP, and performance to content providers (netflix, etc). It will also give you graphs of your wifi performance walking around the house. One of the better apps I have seen. Android and iOS
if you are in Pakistan and want to check your exact broadband ptcl speed test check at http://www.pakistanihub.pk/201...
The speeds I experience are much, much slower than the speed tests show I'm capable of.
You answered your own question...if you're looking for a more accurate test that shows the speed you're likely to experience through the course of your normal browsing, then why not just use your normal browsing as the test? There is really no other accurate option since the Internet by its very nature is decentralized so even if you found a non-prioritized speed test server, those results would be meaningless for any other hosts because your traffic would likely flow a completely unrelated path to reach them. The ISP speedtest sites are usually located within the ISP's own network so they're a good measure of throughput from you to the edge of the ISP's network, which is all they really care (or can care) about. Just use a different ISP's speed test site if you want results from outside your ISP's network.
I have 90Mbit up * 10Mbit down lightning service from Brighthouse and it is quite real. I can say for certain it is real because I have a co-located machine at Terramark on a 1GBit link running SNMP and I move enough data both ways to be able to do the math to validate. The fact is that they deliver well over rated speeds as well as I routinely push 11Mbits sustained up and pull over 100Mbits sustained down. Sustained to me means over at least an hour down with some of
my sustain up running 8 or more hours(a lot of cameras, a lot of data pushed offsite everyday).
One thing you really need to understand in this battle for bandwidth is that you are absolutely owned by your network transit path. An interior network (you are part of your ISP's interior network in the context I refer to) may have plenty of capacity while their edges may be grossly inadequate (as in Comcast and AT&T the last time I was on their pipes) and this fact can thoroughly convolute your test results because they can (and some definitely do) divert bandwidth test traffic onto a better path than you will ever see with real traffic.
The short answer IMHO is that you can only really determine true bandwidth with a real, uncongested validation point that you can trust. Bandwidth tests are circumvented other ways too. One trick is traffic shaping with a burst that gives you full rated pipe for a minute then hacks you down step by step until you get what they decide you get sustained. That will show high bandwidth in a test but the ISP chosen rate will surface when you actually move some traffic around.
Personally, (and Larry Ellison may want to kill me for this) I have used various Oracle image downloads (not little Java tarballs but ISOs for Solaris and other various big Oracle stuff) as a basis for occasional test in the past. My trust in this methodology stems from the fact that I can routinely pull over 300Mbits from Oracle to my co-located host and I can nearly always saturate my inbound to well above spec on Brighthouse.
First there are several things to consider. your speed to your ISP, then your ISP's speed to other ISP's. Most ISPs have their own speed test that will show the speed your connection to them is running. This is the only one that really matters because no ISP is going to guarantee speed on networks they do not control. Then you have to consider that in many cases the connection from one ISP to another can get overloaded, or sometimes there is some other provider between the two that is overloaded. Routing over the internet is very complex based on many factors including political factors between companies, price, reliability, speed, and how much utilization there is on the lines. The only real way to know how fast your connection is going to be to a certain site is to download something from that site, and due to the dynamic nature of the routing the path can change for each packet so you may know the speed now, but it is very difficult to predict the speed in the future.
Sorry, it is actually 90down * 10up.
I was having similar problems (Uverse though, not Comcast). On a lark, I dug an old Ethernet cable out of storage and ran it from my gateway router to my desk. Problem solved.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
In order to do this accurately you need to visit your local Costco and buy an entire pallet of aluminum foil. Once you've accomplished this step write back and further instructions will be given.
Guaranteed + security & reliability too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do these 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That'd be illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk