3 ms·

https://speedof.me https://speedof.me remains my favourite, although I still find myself using Speedtest at times because that's what everyone else uses and it'

https://speedof.me https://speedof.me remains my favourite, although I still find myself using Speedtest at times because that's what everyone else uses and it's useful to pick a server that others are testing between on any given day. Also, there are more links and alternatives under this discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/5mntko/other_alternatives_to_speedtestnet/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/5mntko/other_alte... Ultimately in most cases, I just want to know whether my connection is working or not. If it's working, it'll usually be in a certain ballpark. If it's not (or if I've accidentally left a VPN on), it's obvious.

MrEldritch 8y ago
I prefer https://testmy.net https://testmy.net, personally. It's supposed to be more accurate.
woofcat 8y ago
My problem is that speedof.me seems to be on Amazon EC2 in a US West data center. So for me on the East coast it's not really measuring my internet access, it's measuring my internet access across the whole country. So using speedof.me I get a result of around 100Mbps. Using Speedtest.net within my own city it's around 700Mbps. Using Speakeasy with a Eastern server it's around 400Mbps speedtest.googlefiber.net to Kansas comes in at around 300Mbps. So in my opinion the speedtest you should be using is entirely based on who has servers closest to you physically.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  Ironically, speedof.me is using a server in my country and gets 90 Mbps, and speedtest.googlefiber.net is using a server in Los Angeles and gets 150 Mbps. Peering is weird. I'd love a speedtest that tests to whatever node you're using on all biggest CDNs (CloudFront, CloudFlare, Akamai, Google, etc)
  - pavs 8y ago
    The problem with peering is that cross country peering can cost a lot of money. So if netflix does not have any caching server in your country, they will have to pull bandwidth from the closest location and your isp might have limited peering agreement with that provider. Which many ISP understansibly will refuse to icrease peering capacity and you end up with poor bw speed from netflix or other similar providers. The solution is to do what google does with GGC nodes. Netflix also has similar service but the are very stringent and picky with which ISP they give the servers to. Google basically gives them away to almost whoever asks for it. Not to mention with all streaming and cdn and cloud providers wanting to have their own ggc like hardware at ISP premise it puts cost strains to isp in terms of power usage, rack space and high-output switch and routers at the distribution end. Not to mention all of these hardware will pull bandwidth from source (about 20%) which will come through ISPs expense. People often like to blame ISPs. While big ISPs have legitimate problems. It also makes it extremely difficult for smaller isps bear this cost and provide service parity compare to ISP giants. Which is why you don't see a lot of isp business popping up. There is a reason google fibre is so limited in scope. It always facinates me how most ISPs makes money at all. Then i realize the one who do has been doing it for a long time ans were already big companies when started out and probably had to take substantial loans and help from government and even then it probably took them a long time to be profitable.
    - kalleboo 8y ago
      The difficulty in creating an ISP is all in the last mile, not in peering. Where I live there are 100+ ISPs since there's a national fiber network anyone can plug into, so to start an ISP all you need is a router and some peering.
      - pavs 8y ago
        I was talking about international peering. If you are in USA/Europe, it's not much of an issue. Outside of that, the situation gets murky. Local ISPs don't do international peering, they piggyback on other, whose peering capacity is almost always oversold. Yes, the last mile is the biggest expense, but other costs are not small either. An ISP with a couple of 1000 users are just reselling BW from someone else. They are at the mercy of their upstream's peering. I wasn't referring to them. I own an ISP outside the developed nation.
mkagenius 8y ago
> https://speedof.me https://speedof.me remains my favourite It asks me to disable adblock.

MrEldritch 8y ago

I prefer https://testmy.net https://testmy.net, personally. It's supposed to be more accurate.

woofcat 8y ago

My problem is that speedof.me seems to be on Amazon EC2 in a US West data center. So for me on the East coast it's not really measuring my internet access, it's measuring my internet access across the whole country. So using speedof.me I get a result of around 100Mbps. Using Speedtest.net within my own city it's around 700Mbps. Using Speakeasy with a Eastern server it's around 400Mbps speedtest.googlefiber.net to Kansas comes in at around 300Mbps. So in my opinion the speedtest you should be using is entirely based on who has servers closest to you physically.

kalleboo 8y ago
Ironically, speedof.me is using a server in my country and gets 90 Mbps, and speedtest.googlefiber.net is using a server in Los Angeles and gets 150 Mbps. Peering is weird. I'd love a speedtest that tests to whatever node you're using on all biggest CDNs (CloudFront, CloudFlare, Akamai, Google, etc)
- pavs 8y ago
  The problem with peering is that cross country peering can cost a lot of money. So if netflix does not have any caching server in your country, they will have to pull bandwidth from the closest location and your isp might have limited peering agreement with that provider. Which many ISP understansibly will refuse to icrease peering capacity and you end up with poor bw speed from netflix or other similar providers. The solution is to do what google does with GGC nodes. Netflix also has similar service but the are very stringent and picky with which ISP they give the servers to. Google basically gives them away to almost whoever asks for it. Not to mention with all streaming and cdn and cloud providers wanting to have their own ggc like hardware at ISP premise it puts cost strains to isp in terms of power usage, rack space and high-output switch and routers at the distribution end. Not to mention all of these hardware will pull bandwidth from source (about 20%) which will come through ISPs expense. People often like to blame ISPs. While big ISPs have legitimate problems. It also makes it extremely difficult for smaller isps bear this cost and provide service parity compare to ISP giants. Which is why you don't see a lot of isp business popping up. There is a reason google fibre is so limited in scope. It always facinates me how most ISPs makes money at all. Then i realize the one who do has been doing it for a long time ans were already big companies when started out and probably had to take substantial loans and help from government and even then it probably took them a long time to be profitable.
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    The difficulty in creating an ISP is all in the last mile, not in peering. Where I live there are 100+ ISPs since there's a national fiber network anyone can plug into, so to start an ISP all you need is a router and some peering.
    - pavs 8y ago
      I was talking about international peering. If you are in USA/Europe, it's not much of an issue. Outside of that, the situation gets murky. Local ISPs don't do international peering, they piggyback on other, whose peering capacity is almost always oversold. Yes, the last mile is the biggest expense, but other costs are not small either. An ISP with a couple of 1000 users are just reselling BW from someone else. They are at the mercy of their upstream's peering. I wasn't referring to them. I own an ISP outside the developed nation.

mkagenius 8y ago

> https://speedof.me https://speedof.me remains my favourite It asks me to disable adblock.