3 ms·

Google does the same if you search “speed test” they have one that runs through the search results page. Cloudflare runs one too. https://speed.cloudflare.com/

by eli 5y ago

Google does the same if you search “speed test” they have one that runs through the search results page. Cloudflare runs one too. https://speed.cloudflare.com/ https://speed.cloudflare.com/ Those are all harder to game than speedtest.net

LeoPanthera 5y ago
The cloudflare one is the most accurate I've ever found. People often accuse it of "reading low" but after much experimentation I think it actually reads accurately and most of the others read fast. So much of the web is behind cloudflare that most ISPs are unwilling to prioritize traffic to it. It also loads a selection of dummy files of varying sizes which is a more realistic portrayal of normal internet usage than a single stream of data.
- thayne 5y ago
  I just tried the cloudflare one and saw something interesting, while it was gathering data, the bandwidth doubled from below my advertised rate to above it, which kind of suggests my ISP recognized it was a speed test and increased the bandwidth...
- vachina 5y ago
  I just tried the cloudflare Speedtest and it doesn’t read low, in fact it read higher than what’s possible. Monitoring the NIC rx is the most accurate in my experience.
  - LeoPanthera 5y ago
    > I just tried the cloudflare Speedtest and it doesn’t read low, in fact it read higher than what’s possible. Perhaps there is a confusion between megabytes, and megabits.
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      Unfortunately, no. I intentionally constrained an ethernet link at 10Mb (in the PHY layer, so any bugs in the network stack is irrelevant) and both Fast.com and Cloudflare misread the upload speeds up to 20 times (what should be 9.something Mbps became >200Mbps). Speedtest.net is immune to this, even using their browse client. I don't know what's causing this, but I've ruled out browser bugs. I haven't tested Google's though.
      - exikyut 5y ago
        You mean you told the PHY to renegotiate at 10M with something like `ethtool -s <dev> speed 10`? While stumbling around attempting to figure out `tc qdisc` a while back I found that the shaping it was applying was very synthetic, such that asking for low bitrate and high latency would mean the kernel would just wait a second or two then shunt several KB of data through at once. IIRC I was just playing with the default approaches you'd find bandied about on tutorial websites and such. (I'm still looking for a way to synthetically limit a link in ways that are physically accurate.) Remembering that experience got me thinking - without any idea what I'm talking about, I'm wondering if the PHY layer is doing something vaguely similarly stupid-simple that does technically limit the line rate to 10Mb at full blast, but still allows throughput to very briefly burst higher than that. I think speedtest websites try to measure both the burst rate and the line rate, so perhaps something's gotten very tangled up on both the PHY and JS sides. Now I'm curious what model PHY (well, NIC) you're using. FWIW, Chrome's devtools has a network rate limiter built in (network tab, dropdown that says "No throttling", open that and hit "add"... aaaand remember that it's persistent (for just the tab) until you turn it back off :) lol) Edit: Just found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31063184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31063184 downthread describing seeing 100Mbps through a 10Mbit hub. I think you've either found a technical bug or a, uh, "the speedtest is good so my internet must be fine" "bug" (which would be very interesting).
        zinekeller 5y ago
        Ah, apologies for not responding here. It's (shocks in disgust) a Realtek one, I forgot which specifically, but the "smart" switch (ugh, I hate the naming everything smart) definitely said that it's only a 10M Ethernet connection. Using Chrome's limiter, capped at 5,000,000 bits/sec (5Mbps) both direction: Speedtest.net: 5.00Mbps in both directions (nice, are they're including overhead in these calculations?) Cloudflare: 4.80Mbps downlink, 4.81Mbps uplink (well, it's true now) Fast.com: 5.0Mbps downlink, 58Mbps uplink (holy crap, that's not what I've expected) So I will re-test Cloudflare again at link-limited PHY, but Fast.com's test seems a little weird.
judge2020 5y ago
Cloudflare could easily be gamed if they did some passive SNI for that hostname and boosted internet speeds for 15 seconds. But maybe they'll make it a cdn-cgi endpoint+randomize the endpoint to random customers' sites at some point in the future if they discover ISPs doing this.
Semaphor 5y ago
I usually use the DSL Reports test [0], downstream is similar (CF: 193, DSL: 205; I pay for 200, but speeds do vary from slightly more to slightly less over the day), but the upstream for CF is plain wrong, it gives 25 Mbit vs. the correct 50 (both what I pay for and reach normally) for DSL Reports [0]: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest
LinuxBender 5y ago
Anecdotally for what its worth my personal preference to avoid gaming the system is to run iperf3 on a random VM that has a solid tier-1 network and many peering agreements. I start it on a non standard port non standard for iperf3 and test bi-directionally with TCP and UDP. On each end I use the "watch" command to call a simple bash function that sorts the output of "netstat -s" to get tcp retransmits. I also watch the output of "tc -s -p qdisc" on each end to see how many packets had to be reordered or dropped. This can be useful for tuning or picking traffic shaping methods. In reference to gaming the system one can also run iperf3 on ports used by https, voip, common bittorrent and other service ports to see if the ISP is blindly traffic shaping on ports by means of different behavior per port.
puglr 5y ago
On someone else's Cox connection and seeing ~450 with the Google search results test but only ~150 with the fast.com test. Interesting.

by eli 5y ago

LeoPanthera 5y ago

The cloudflare one is the most accurate I've ever found. People often accuse it of "reading low" but after much experimentation I think it actually reads accurately and most of the others read fast. So much of the web is behind cloudflare that most ISPs are unwilling to prioritize traffic to it. It also loads a selection of dummy files of varying sizes which is a more realistic portrayal of normal internet usage than a single stream of data.

thayne 5y ago
I just tried the cloudflare one and saw something interesting, while it was gathering data, the bandwidth doubled from below my advertised rate to above it, which kind of suggests my ISP recognized it was a speed test and increased the bandwidth...
vachina 5y ago
I just tried the cloudflare Speedtest and it doesn’t read low, in fact it read higher than what’s possible. Monitoring the NIC rx is the most accurate in my experience.
- LeoPanthera 5y ago
  > I just tried the cloudflare Speedtest and it doesn’t read low, in fact it read higher than what’s possible. Perhaps there is a confusion between megabytes, and megabits.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    Unfortunately, no. I intentionally constrained an ethernet link at 10Mb (in the PHY layer, so any bugs in the network stack is irrelevant) and both Fast.com and Cloudflare misread the upload speeds up to 20 times (what should be 9.something Mbps became >200Mbps). Speedtest.net is immune to this, even using their browse client. I don't know what's causing this, but I've ruled out browser bugs. I haven't tested Google's though.
    - exikyut 5y ago
      You mean you told the PHY to renegotiate at 10M with something like `ethtool -s <dev> speed 10`? While stumbling around attempting to figure out `tc qdisc` a while back I found that the shaping it was applying was very synthetic, such that asking for low bitrate and high latency would mean the kernel would just wait a second or two then shunt several KB of data through at once. IIRC I was just playing with the default approaches you'd find bandied about on tutorial websites and such. (I'm still looking for a way to synthetically limit a link in ways that are physically accurate.) Remembering that experience got me thinking - without any idea what I'm talking about, I'm wondering if the PHY layer is doing something vaguely similarly stupid-simple that does technically limit the line rate to 10Mb at full blast, but still allows throughput to very briefly burst higher than that. I think speedtest websites try to measure both the burst rate and the line rate, so perhaps something's gotten very tangled up on both the PHY and JS sides. Now I'm curious what model PHY (well, NIC) you're using. FWIW, Chrome's devtools has a network rate limiter built in (network tab, dropdown that says "No throttling", open that and hit "add"... aaaand remember that it's persistent (for just the tab) until you turn it back off :) lol) Edit: Just found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31063184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31063184 downthread describing seeing 100Mbps through a 10Mbit hub. I think you've either found a technical bug or a, uh, "the speedtest is good so my internet must be fine" "bug" (which would be very interesting).
      - zinekeller 5y ago
        Ah, apologies for not responding here. It's (shocks in disgust) a Realtek one, I forgot which specifically, but the "smart" switch (ugh, I hate the naming everything smart) definitely said that it's only a 10M Ethernet connection. Using Chrome's limiter, capped at 5,000,000 bits/sec (5Mbps) both direction: Speedtest.net: 5.00Mbps in both directions (nice, are they're including overhead in these calculations?) Cloudflare: 4.80Mbps downlink, 4.81Mbps uplink (well, it's true now) Fast.com: 5.0Mbps downlink, 58Mbps uplink (holy crap, that's not what I've expected) So I will re-test Cloudflare again at link-limited PHY, but Fast.com's test seems a little weird.

judge2020 5y ago

Cloudflare could easily be gamed if they did some passive SNI for that hostname and boosted internet speeds for 15 seconds. But maybe they'll make it a cdn-cgi endpoint+randomize the endpoint to random customers' sites at some point in the future if they discover ISPs doing this.

Semaphor 5y ago

I usually use the DSL Reports test [0], downstream is similar (CF: 193, DSL: 205; I pay for 200, but speeds do vary from slightly more to slightly less over the day), but the upstream for CF is plain wrong, it gives 25 Mbit vs. the correct 50 (both what I pay for and reach normally) for DSL Reports [0]: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest

LinuxBender 5y ago

Anecdotally for what its worth my personal preference to avoid gaming the system is to run iperf3 on a random VM that has a solid tier-1 network and many peering agreements. I start it on a non standard port non standard for iperf3 and test bi-directionally with TCP and UDP. On each end I use the "watch" command to call a simple bash function that sorts the output of "netstat -s" to get tcp retransmits. I also watch the output of "tc -s -p qdisc" on each end to see how many packets had to be reordered or dropped. This can be useful for tuning or picking traffic shaping methods. In reference to gaming the system one can also run iperf3 on ports used by https, voip, common bittorrent and other service ports to see if the ISP is blindly traffic shaping on ports by means of different behavior per port.

puglr 5y ago

On someone else's Cox connection and seeing ~450 with the Google search results test but only ~150 with the fast.com test. Interesting.