I found a better speed test for satellite internet

Greg please don't play games. I just pulled the connection logs and the only tests recently peformed were two 6:52pm and 6:55pm from the the previous poster who posted his results here. No other satellite originated tests have been issued to anyone else in the recent since 4:47pm today. I can post the link to the reporting engine and everyone can see as well if you want.

Now pull some legit tests and lets have an honest discussion. Otherwise please stop wasting everyones time.
Then you must have some other problems bigger than both of us. cuz I ran half a dozen various tests about half an hour ago. This may go back to the NAT thing I was talking about earlier. Just to show you I'm not jerkin' your chain, here's a screen capture (time in lower right). This is about 4 seconds into a 5 second test

//greg//
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    80.7 KB · Views: 206
Hate to say it but satellite may be great for surfing but it doesn't provide a consistent long term stream of data. I bet once the tests are done this will be proven quickly. .
Good grief. That's why I tried to tell that porker dude up front. Now all of a sudden it's all right if you say it ?!?!?!
//greg//
 
Then you must have some other problems bigger than both of us. cuz I ran half a dozen various tests about half an hour ago. This may go back to the NAT thing I was talking about earlier. Just to show you I'm not jerkin' your chain, here's a screen capture (time in lower right). This is about 4 seconds into a 5 second test

//greg//

And guess what...

You aren't even close to the right page. Go over to the menu, scroll down to DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS then select ISP Capacity Test.
 
Last edited:
Good grief. That's why I tried to tell that porker dude up front. Now all of a sudden it's all right if you say it ?!?!?!
//greg//

Greg porker is a noob, please give him a break. I think there's a way it can be done with some success and now that I'm knee deep in this stuff I bet we can do it. We have the tools to at least test the concept and then put together a solution that might work for some. It won't be perfect but it's tons better than nothing. Ease off the piggy (enuf swine flu goin around as it is).
 
You aren't even close to the right page. Go over to the menu, scroll down to DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS then select ISP Capacity Test.
Wrong. Like I said, half an hour ago I ran all the ISPGeeks tests, some of them several times. Including the Capacity test. The upload portion is a joke for a satcommers. There's no way we'll even register through the first 6-7 levels.
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 187792 bps
Download packets per second: 23
Upload capacity: 68584 bps
Upload packets per second: 8
Quality of service: 80 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes

If my tests are not in your logs, you've got other problems.

//greg//
 
Wrong. Like I said, half an hour ago I ran all the ISPGeeks tests, some of them several times. Including the Capacity test. The upload portion is a joke for a satcommers. There's no way we'll even register through the first 6-7 levels.
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 187792 bps
Download packets per second: 23
Upload capacity: 68584 bps
Upload packets per second: 8
Quality of service: 80 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes

If my tests are not in your logs, you've got other problems.

//greg//

Greg you aren't expected to rate in the first 6-7 levels. It's going to run through them anyway just in case. That's the purpose of such a test and answers your first concern right away. Not a fixed test at all as you claim. Its dynamic, takes into consideration cache, burst and any other form of acceleration and selects the appropriate test for YOUR connection not just some generic configuration. That's exactly what you asked for. One second while I check the logs.
 
Wrong. Like I said, half an hour ago I ran all the ISPGeeks tests, some of them several times. Including the Capacity test. The upload portion is a joke for a satcommers. There's no way we'll even register through the first 6-7 levels.
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 187792 bps
Download packets per second: 23
Upload capacity: 68584 bps
Upload packets per second: 8
Quality of service: 80 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes

If my tests are not in your logs, you've got other problems.

//greg//

Please go back and test one more time because your results are the only ones not showing. When the test is complete there will be a link to CLICK FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS. Inside the link will be a test id just tell me the test id please.
 
Ok a couple more test. They may not be valid as this is prime Internet and satellite time.

But it looks to me like (and as an original 9000 spaceway III user that spaceway III is deliberately being throttled. I have said from the beginning that Hughes is doing this so that the first users on spaceway III don't have superb performance and as they add users it gets to be unacceptable.

7000S modem satmex5

17.57 mst
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 809928 bps
Download packets per second: 101
Upload capacity: 152864 bps
Upload packets per second: 19
Quality of service: 90 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes

18:01 mst
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 551976 bps
Download packets per second: 68
Upload capacity: 34512 bps
Upload packets per second: 4
Quality of service: 85 %
Packet size: 1000 B


9000 modem spaceway III

18:05 mst

Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 4421304 bps
Download packets per second: 552
Upload capacity: 36392 bps
Upload packets per second: 4
Quality of service: 64 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes


18:08 mst

Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 5547488 bps
Download packets per second: 693
Upload capacity: 36032 bps
Upload packets per second: 4
Quality of service: 23 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes
 
Ok a couple more test. They may not be valid as this is prime Internet and satellite time.

But it looks to me like (and as an original 9000 spaceway III user that spaceway III is deliberately being throttled. I have said from the beginning that Hughes is doing this so that the first users on spaceway III don't have superb performance and as they add users it gets to be unacceptable.

7000S modem satmex5

17.57 mst
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 809928 bps
Download packets per second: 101
Upload capacity: 152864 bps
Upload packets per second: 19
Quality of service: 90 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes

18:01 mst
Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 551976 bps
Download packets per second: 68
Upload capacity: 34512 bps
Upload packets per second: 4
Quality of service: 85 %
Packet size: 1000 B


9000 modem spaceway III

18:05 mst

Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 4421304 bps
Download packets per second: 552
Upload capacity: 36392 bps
Upload packets per second: 4
Quality of service: 64 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes


18:08 mst

Capacity test statistics
------------------------
Download capacity: 5547488 bps
Download packets per second: 693
Upload capacity: 36032 bps
Upload packets per second: 4
Quality of service: 23 %
Packet size: 1000 Bytes

On the last two tests you had an unacceptable amount of loss, 18:05mst 13.5% loss, 18:08mst 25.0% loss which is horrible. You can see loss statistics in the Capacity test, click on the loss tab and run your mouse across the the plot lines.
 
Hughes is intentionally dropping packets to achieve the service level you're seeing. Some may call it throttling, comcast users know it well as torrent busting and similar nasty names.
 
Hughes is intentionally dropping packets to achieve the service level you're seeing. Some may call it throttling, comcast users know it well as torrent busting and similar nasty names.
Maybe it looks like that to you, but that's not really what's happening. Remember, this is burst transmission shared bandwidth - so a highly interrupted serial bitstream is the rule rather than the exception. Whereas it may appear as dropped packets to you, it's actually gaps in the burst transmissions. Think of it as a buncha folks lined up outside a buffet restaurant at dinner time. They get let in to feed - one at a time - then are seated at a common table to eat. But don't even think about getting up to pee, cuz the next guy in line will jump right in your seat. You have to go to the back of the line and work your way forward again. This can happen even while the distant server is waiting for an ACK. If someone else gets your slot, it looks like a NACK to the distant server. To mix the metaphors even more, the longer the queue - the greater the (time) gap between individual customer bursts.

With satcom, the problem is compounded by varying transmit signal strengths. The guy with the strongest carrier can actually have the effect of bumping weaker ones out of the queue. This also goes back to where I said the simple throughput over time method is all but useless for us. It often counts the initial lag (latency) - and the dead spots between bursts - against the time component.

And that's just the gateway server. That's where the packet headers are read, then prioritized/routed according to protocol detected. Most go first to a DNS server, HTTP also goes through a HPEP server (accelerator), everything else (FTP, UDP, etc) gets pushed out into the internet. The stuff that the consumer grade providers don't like (P2P, VoIP, streaming, etc) gets treated like the proverbial stepchild, receiving lower processing priority. I guess the corporate logic is that if they render the performance of this kinda stuff so poor, some "bandwidth hogs" may just give up trying to use it over satellite.

On the flip side, this is all technically reversible. For those willing to pony up the bucks, business grade service (as opposed to consumer grade) can actually be customized to prioritize by specific protocols. One can specify VPN and/or VoIP acceleration (as opposed to suppression), even HTTPS acceleration can be made available. Keep in mind I'm speaking of outfits like Hughes and iDirect. I don't think what Wildblue VARs sell as business/enterprise service is that technically advanced yet

//greg//
 
Last edited:
Maybe it looks like that to you, but that's not really what's happening. Remember, this is burst transmission shared bandwidth - so a highly interrupted serial bitstream is the rule rather than the exception. Whereas it may appear as dropped packets to you, it's actually gaps in the burst transmissions. Think of it as a buncha folks lined up outside a buffet restaurant at dinner time. They get let in to feed - one at a time - then are seated at a common table to eat. But don't even think about getting up to pee, cuz the next guy in line will jump right in your seat. You have to go to the back of the line and work your way forward again. This can happen even while the distant server is waiting for an ACK. If someone else gets your slot, it looks like a NACK to the distant server. To mix the metaphors even more, the longer the queue - the greater the (time) gap between individual customer bursts.

With satcom, the problem is compounded by varying transmit signal strengths. The guy with the strongest carrier can actually have the effect of bumping weaker ones out of the queue. This also goes back to where I said the simple throughput over time method is all but useless for us. It often counts the initial lag (latency) - and the dead spots between bursts - against the time component.

And that's just the gateway server. That's where the packet headers are read, then prioritized/routed according to protocol detected. Most go first to a DNS server, HTTP also goes through a HPEP server (accelerator), everything else (FTP, UDP, etc) gets pushed out into the internet. The stuff that the consumer grade providers don't like (P2P, VoIP, streaming, etc) gets treated like the proverbial stepchild, receiving lower processing priority. I guess the corporate logic is that if they render the performance of this kinda stuff so poor, some "bandwidth hogs" may just give up trying to use it over satellite.

On the flip side, this is all technically reversible. For those willing to pony up the bucks, business grade service (as opposed to consumer grade) can actually be customized to prioritize by specific protocols. One can specify VPN and/or VoIP acceleration (as opposed to suppression), even HTTPS acceleration can be made available. Keep in mind I'm speaking of outfits like Hughes and iDirect. I don't think what Wildblue VARs sell as business/enterprise service is that technically advanced yet

//greg//

Pull the detailed analysis of the TCP speed test and you will see exactly how they throttle or in this case manage traffic. Give it a shot and let me know if it doesn't demonstrate exactly what we're talking about. Feel free to keep your results links for comparison, they stay active at least 90 days. I'm working on a way you can pull results in a number of formats including excel feedback from the user is needed about the hostname and masks.

I've asked the question on our site and I'll ask it here. If we give full access to the reporting engine does anyone object to ip's being shown? Honestly this should be a no-brainer because no personal information is obtained and everyone knows your ip these days anyway. Depending on the answers posted I may seek permission to open up the reporting feature to everyone.
 
We got it and found your others based on the ip.
Fine. Now perhaps you'll realize that I'm not in this for the fun of it. But it should also go to demonstrate the monkey wrench that a NAT server can throw into the mix.

If we give full access to the reporting engine does anyone object to ip's being shown?
No sweat here. All you're going to "expose" is the address of a Hughes NAT server

//greg//
 
Alright here is the url to pull your own stats. It's different and you will need to play a little to customize it for your needs. You can pull results by any number of data types and then of course import them into excel and all the usual things.

MyConnection Server Report

Knowing your current IP will be helpful. Because satellite users appear to change IP's often (we just noticed this) we're going to enable session id's for just the satellite tests. This will allow you to enter a unique id just for your tests. So long as you remain consistent with your session id all your tests will be available.
 
So then you don't actually know what a NAT server is ???

//greg//

Greg...you have a way with words that is really startin to piss me off. Stop looking for fault in everyone. You have a communication style that at best is venomous and you really need to check it. I have no problems answering your questions but I WILL NOT tolerate this "ooooo I got you now" attitude and unlike porker I will take personal pleasure in appropriately taking you to the mat. So...let's go back to that positive and constructive conversation now...shall we....

Alright then, not only am I familiar with NAT but have implemented several similar systems current and past. I hold several long standing certifications and almost 22 years in the network engineering field. Remember I also had Direcway at one time and this is probably one of the only GREAT features about it. For some its a pain, I loved it.

The surprise was that connections from the same origination point within just a couple seconds from each other resulted in different ips (I don't care if it's your actual, we both know it's not). I expected things to remain at least somewhat constant for at least 30 seconds. And they didn't.
 
Did youchange something on the Route Performance test? Yesterday it was showing the NOC firewall and today it does not but is showing something that i make as the proxy server.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts