On 3 Apr 2013, at 23:41, Warren Bailey <wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote: > They may do some magic with bandwidth delay products.. If that was the case, > they may have written it for a standard latency versus something that is > unreasonable by interweb standards.
I don't know how they calculate bandwidth, but I was surprised that their system gave such wrong results under what were effectively lab conditions. Nick > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> > Date: 04/03/2013 3:35 PM (GMT-08:00) > To: Warren Bailey <wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> > Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu,nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test > > > On 3 Apr 2013, at 23:20, Warren Bailey > <wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote: >> Try it with upwards of 900ms of variable latency. > > The last crazy result I got was 146mbit/s on a hardwired 100 mbit link and > 1-2ms latency to the speedtest.net server I was using at the time (same data > centre). Testing this sort of thing with high latency and jitter is > understandably hard, but I didn't see a good reason at the time why it should > have been so badly out with good underlying network characteristics. > > Nick > > > >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> >> Date: 04/03/2013 3:04 PM (GMT-08:00) >> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test >> >> >> On 3 Apr 2013, at 22:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> > (If anybody's got evidence of it reporting more than the link is >> > technically >> > capable of, feel free to correct me...) >> >> I've seen speedtest.net give results significantly greater than the physical >> bw of the client's network link. >> >> Nick
