[147867] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Speed Test Results
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel jaeggli)
Fri Dec 23 18:09:49 2011
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:08:43 -0800
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net>
In-Reply-To: <CADb+6TAaEsbxv3ukannmUsgd6J4XYZcC-rr4W8cmViuS4vWgrA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: jacob miller <mmzinyi@yahoo.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/23/11 11:16 , Joel Maslak wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:18 AM, jacob miller <mmzinyi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Am having a debate on the results of speed tests sites.
>>
>> Am interested in knowing the thoughts of different individuals in regards to this.
>
> It's one data point of many.
>
> Depending on the speed test site, the protocols it uses, where the
> test is located, any local networking gear (I've seen transparent
> proxies get great speedtest ratings!), etc, they can be useful,
> particularly in verifying that a provider's off-net interconnects and
> partners are doing well.
>
> However, they are susceptible to things like wireless network issues,
> TCP limitations (one stream vs. many streams), and misconfiguration of
> devices at the customer location. And the speed test box isn't
> necessarily configured/speced correctly either.
I don't imagine it accounts for l3 emcp either... To be clear, what one
is I assume generally looking for from a speed test is usable throughput
from the vantage point of the end-user running it.
> I second the thoughts on NDT and I like the ICSI Netalyzer. But I
> wouldn't necessarily put either tool in most end users' hands (I think
> they are too complex for most end users to interpret the results
> properly).
>
