Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CarlT]

I have the following for you:

Speedtest.net hosts that can handle a gigabit in my experience don't exist.
The Think Broadband speedtest doesn't come close to handling a gigabit. Presumably all the other BT customers with a gigabit have overwhelmed it.
Fast.com is about the only thing that comes close.

The main cool thing about having a gigabit is that you basically can't max it out downstream.

It's not transformative. I'm not even touching the sides of the capacity. It's a good to have but really no difference noticed from 300 Mbit apart from running speed tests just now.

BT Wholesale and Openreach have nailed it in Wakefield: hasn't skipped a beat.

[meritez]

Interesting, does fast.com or http://speedtest.googlefiber.net/ allow you to hit a gigabit?

[underzone]

I have found that this works well when testing (at work with 1Gb to the desktop):
http://speedtest2.aa.net.uk/

[Alex Atkin UK]

Well you only need a 10Gbit link to be a speedtest.net sponsor for 1Gbit testing, so LOL.

[CarlT]

Interesting, does fast.com or http://speedtest.googlefiber.net/ allow you to hit a gigabit?

Fast.com is actually the one that's capable. Google Fibre sadly no. Too far from the server, too many networks in between, latency too high so bottlenecked by TCP.

I have found that this works well when testing (at work with 1Gb to the desktop):
http://speedtest2.aa.net.uk/

Not bad. However think it's on a gigabit port - maxes just over 800 Mbit. Unsure if a Firebrick is involved somewhere but there are none with ports of more capacity than a gigabit.

Well you only need a 10Gbit link to be a speedtest.net sponsor for 1Gbit testing, so LOL.

That's going to be just fine most of the time.

[Alex Atkin UK]

That's going to be just fine most of the time.

Maybe if they were dedicated ONLY to Gigabit tests, but presumably they are being used for in general at the same time.

How does speedtest.net even decide which servers to use if it doesn't know your speed prior to allocating a server?    Is the "finding a server" part some sort of pre-test and if so, I wonder if that can actually fail to allocate properly if the pre-test servers are overloaded?

[mofa2020]

How does speedtest.net even decide which servers to use if it doesn't know your speed prior to allocating a server?    Is the "finding a server" part some sort of pre-test and if so, I wonder if that can actually fail to allocate properly if the pre-test servers are overloaded?

I believe speedtest.net looks for the lowest ping to near servers then start testing on that server, that is why if the ISP has a test server it will 99% choose it unless there is a more near server to test on.

[sevenlayermuddle]

There must be some other purpose for Gigabit broadband, other than proving/disproving which speed testers work?

It's not transformative. I'm not even touching the sides of the capacity. It's a good to have but really no difference noticed from 300 Mbit apart from running speed tests just now.

More seriously, I suspect that once a critical mass of people have access, bloated services will begin to appear that use it, so bloated that they stretch gigabit it to the limits.   That will then create a ‘need’ for everybody else to have it too.   So no doubt, I’ll soon be feeling left behind.

Edit:  said ‘ethernet’, meant ‘broadband’.

[Alex Atkin UK]

I believe speedtest.net looks for the lowest ping to near servers then start testing on that server, that is why if the ISP has a test server it will 99% choose it unless there is a more near server to test on.

Surely it must be cleverer than that?

[mofa2020]

Surely it must be cleverer than that?

I think it is not, this is my ISP server in the same city I live which will provide the lowest ping and it is chosen automatically..

[Chrysalis]

The main cool thing about having a gigabit is that you basically can't max it out downstream.

Ironically this is my primary motivator, I dont really need the bandwidth in terms of my impatience of downloading stuff, for me 80mbit/sec is fast enough.

But I have learnt that managing local downstream congestion is way harder than managing upstream congestion, very basic router side QoS solves upstream, not as easy for downstream, especially heavily threaded like steam which is like ddos'ing your own connection.

So been able to download of steam, without things like twitch falling apart, and without having to implement QoS would be nice.

[Alex Atkin UK]

I think it being hard to hit the line speed is a very big reason for getting Gigabit IMO, although I more than likely WILL hit it, but not for long periods thanks to the speed. 

I was actually going to say that not having to use QoS, or at least it never needing to kick-in downstream (where its less effective), will be an amazing thing.

[sevenlayermuddle]

I liken FTTP to 1950s roads.    It was clear the trunk routes were no good so in the late 50s and 60s we built motorways.   The capacity of the motorways was so generous that our transport problems would be over for good.  Projects such as Westway into London ensured we would see a permanent end to commuter traffic jams.

And originally, the motorways were exempt from speed limits.  These roads would be so good, so fast and so safe, that speed limits were just not needed.   

Striking a chord?   

[Alex Atkin UK]

Fortunately PONs are easier to upgrade than widening the motorways.