Why the discrepancy between Speedtest and Wget?












7















My customer complains about low internet speeds. When measured with Speedtest.net speeds are acceptable. Periodic measured downloads are 10% to 30% of the nominal speed. I cannot explain that.



Some background. The problematic connection is on one of those sunny Caribbean islands where fast internet is not the greatest asset. Lately internet speeds became decent, up to 200 Mbps. But ping round trip to (say) Amsterdam is about 180 ms.



The customer has a 100 Mbps fiber connection. When carrying out a speedtest on a Windows machine (speedtest.net) to the ISP CO we obtain 95 Mbps. When using the same speed test to Amsterdam we reach 60-70 Mbs. Fully acceptable.



Some time ago I installed a RasPi which periodically wgets a file from one of my servers in Amsterdam. In a datacenter, which is directly connected to AMS-IX. Using this command:



wget -O /dev/null --report-speed=bits http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt


The .txt file is 23MByte of numbers. (Actually it is the one but largest Mersenne Prime, 23e6 digits)



When I download that file on the problematic network, wget reports this:



dev/null 100%[====================================================================>]  22.81M  11.6Mb/s   in 17s    

2019-02-08 14:27:55 (11.2 Mb/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [23923322/23923322]


That is at the same time speedtest.net reports 60-70 Mbps.



I know that the Raspi has its limitations. But this speed varies wildly. One time the RasPi report this 11 Mbps, the next time 22 Mbps. But sometimes as low as 1.5 Mbps.



enter image description here



When I do this test with a really powerful laptop, top speeds are somewhat higher (up to 30 Mbps), but also show the same lows. So it indicates a RasPi limitation on the high side, but not the 10 Mbps on the low side.



I issued exactly the same command from a server in München, Germany in a datacenter. Speed 96 Mbps.



Then from a consumer 100 Mbps fiber connection in the Netherlands: 65 Mbps.



Then, at my home which has nominal 10 Mbps ADSL. Speedtest shows 10Mbps. Wget gives 8.5 Mbps. Which is equal in my book.



This precludes any limitation on the server which acts as host for the file download.



I do not expect that anyone can point out the cause of the slowness of the connection at the customer premises. But can anyone explain the discrepancy between the speedtest.net and the wget?



Is there something the speedtest ignores, or does it measure only the peaks? Or is wget seriously influenced by long ping times?



I feel that the wget test gives the real, effective speed, while speedtest is mainly to show the advertised speed.










share|improve this question

























  • Another way to check speed is to do ssh personal-server cat /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null, on a personal server that you know is not rate limited to be slower than the speed you're expecting.

    – JoL
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    Worth noting that the wget example you gave is in Mb/s, not Mbps. 1 Mb/s is equal to 8 Mbps, so the wget command is actually 89.6 mbps (11.2 * 8)

    – zzarzzur
    2 hours ago
















7















My customer complains about low internet speeds. When measured with Speedtest.net speeds are acceptable. Periodic measured downloads are 10% to 30% of the nominal speed. I cannot explain that.



Some background. The problematic connection is on one of those sunny Caribbean islands where fast internet is not the greatest asset. Lately internet speeds became decent, up to 200 Mbps. But ping round trip to (say) Amsterdam is about 180 ms.



The customer has a 100 Mbps fiber connection. When carrying out a speedtest on a Windows machine (speedtest.net) to the ISP CO we obtain 95 Mbps. When using the same speed test to Amsterdam we reach 60-70 Mbs. Fully acceptable.



Some time ago I installed a RasPi which periodically wgets a file from one of my servers in Amsterdam. In a datacenter, which is directly connected to AMS-IX. Using this command:



wget -O /dev/null --report-speed=bits http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt


The .txt file is 23MByte of numbers. (Actually it is the one but largest Mersenne Prime, 23e6 digits)



When I download that file on the problematic network, wget reports this:



dev/null 100%[====================================================================>]  22.81M  11.6Mb/s   in 17s    

2019-02-08 14:27:55 (11.2 Mb/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [23923322/23923322]


That is at the same time speedtest.net reports 60-70 Mbps.



I know that the Raspi has its limitations. But this speed varies wildly. One time the RasPi report this 11 Mbps, the next time 22 Mbps. But sometimes as low as 1.5 Mbps.



enter image description here



When I do this test with a really powerful laptop, top speeds are somewhat higher (up to 30 Mbps), but also show the same lows. So it indicates a RasPi limitation on the high side, but not the 10 Mbps on the low side.



I issued exactly the same command from a server in München, Germany in a datacenter. Speed 96 Mbps.



Then from a consumer 100 Mbps fiber connection in the Netherlands: 65 Mbps.



Then, at my home which has nominal 10 Mbps ADSL. Speedtest shows 10Mbps. Wget gives 8.5 Mbps. Which is equal in my book.



This precludes any limitation on the server which acts as host for the file download.



I do not expect that anyone can point out the cause of the slowness of the connection at the customer premises. But can anyone explain the discrepancy between the speedtest.net and the wget?



Is there something the speedtest ignores, or does it measure only the peaks? Or is wget seriously influenced by long ping times?



I feel that the wget test gives the real, effective speed, while speedtest is mainly to show the advertised speed.










share|improve this question

























  • Another way to check speed is to do ssh personal-server cat /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null, on a personal server that you know is not rate limited to be slower than the speed you're expecting.

    – JoL
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    Worth noting that the wget example you gave is in Mb/s, not Mbps. 1 Mb/s is equal to 8 Mbps, so the wget command is actually 89.6 mbps (11.2 * 8)

    – zzarzzur
    2 hours ago














7












7








7








My customer complains about low internet speeds. When measured with Speedtest.net speeds are acceptable. Periodic measured downloads are 10% to 30% of the nominal speed. I cannot explain that.



Some background. The problematic connection is on one of those sunny Caribbean islands where fast internet is not the greatest asset. Lately internet speeds became decent, up to 200 Mbps. But ping round trip to (say) Amsterdam is about 180 ms.



The customer has a 100 Mbps fiber connection. When carrying out a speedtest on a Windows machine (speedtest.net) to the ISP CO we obtain 95 Mbps. When using the same speed test to Amsterdam we reach 60-70 Mbs. Fully acceptable.



Some time ago I installed a RasPi which periodically wgets a file from one of my servers in Amsterdam. In a datacenter, which is directly connected to AMS-IX. Using this command:



wget -O /dev/null --report-speed=bits http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt


The .txt file is 23MByte of numbers. (Actually it is the one but largest Mersenne Prime, 23e6 digits)



When I download that file on the problematic network, wget reports this:



dev/null 100%[====================================================================>]  22.81M  11.6Mb/s   in 17s    

2019-02-08 14:27:55 (11.2 Mb/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [23923322/23923322]


That is at the same time speedtest.net reports 60-70 Mbps.



I know that the Raspi has its limitations. But this speed varies wildly. One time the RasPi report this 11 Mbps, the next time 22 Mbps. But sometimes as low as 1.5 Mbps.



enter image description here



When I do this test with a really powerful laptop, top speeds are somewhat higher (up to 30 Mbps), but also show the same lows. So it indicates a RasPi limitation on the high side, but not the 10 Mbps on the low side.



I issued exactly the same command from a server in München, Germany in a datacenter. Speed 96 Mbps.



Then from a consumer 100 Mbps fiber connection in the Netherlands: 65 Mbps.



Then, at my home which has nominal 10 Mbps ADSL. Speedtest shows 10Mbps. Wget gives 8.5 Mbps. Which is equal in my book.



This precludes any limitation on the server which acts as host for the file download.



I do not expect that anyone can point out the cause of the slowness of the connection at the customer premises. But can anyone explain the discrepancy between the speedtest.net and the wget?



Is there something the speedtest ignores, or does it measure only the peaks? Or is wget seriously influenced by long ping times?



I feel that the wget test gives the real, effective speed, while speedtest is mainly to show the advertised speed.










share|improve this question
















My customer complains about low internet speeds. When measured with Speedtest.net speeds are acceptable. Periodic measured downloads are 10% to 30% of the nominal speed. I cannot explain that.



Some background. The problematic connection is on one of those sunny Caribbean islands where fast internet is not the greatest asset. Lately internet speeds became decent, up to 200 Mbps. But ping round trip to (say) Amsterdam is about 180 ms.



The customer has a 100 Mbps fiber connection. When carrying out a speedtest on a Windows machine (speedtest.net) to the ISP CO we obtain 95 Mbps. When using the same speed test to Amsterdam we reach 60-70 Mbs. Fully acceptable.



Some time ago I installed a RasPi which periodically wgets a file from one of my servers in Amsterdam. In a datacenter, which is directly connected to AMS-IX. Using this command:



wget -O /dev/null --report-speed=bits http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt


The .txt file is 23MByte of numbers. (Actually it is the one but largest Mersenne Prime, 23e6 digits)



When I download that file on the problematic network, wget reports this:



dev/null 100%[====================================================================>]  22.81M  11.6Mb/s   in 17s    

2019-02-08 14:27:55 (11.2 Mb/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [23923322/23923322]


That is at the same time speedtest.net reports 60-70 Mbps.



I know that the Raspi has its limitations. But this speed varies wildly. One time the RasPi report this 11 Mbps, the next time 22 Mbps. But sometimes as low as 1.5 Mbps.



enter image description here



When I do this test with a really powerful laptop, top speeds are somewhat higher (up to 30 Mbps), but also show the same lows. So it indicates a RasPi limitation on the high side, but not the 10 Mbps on the low side.



I issued exactly the same command from a server in München, Germany in a datacenter. Speed 96 Mbps.



Then from a consumer 100 Mbps fiber connection in the Netherlands: 65 Mbps.



Then, at my home which has nominal 10 Mbps ADSL. Speedtest shows 10Mbps. Wget gives 8.5 Mbps. Which is equal in my book.



This precludes any limitation on the server which acts as host for the file download.



I do not expect that anyone can point out the cause of the slowness of the connection at the customer premises. But can anyone explain the discrepancy between the speedtest.net and the wget?



Is there something the speedtest ignores, or does it measure only the peaks? Or is wget seriously influenced by long ping times?



I feel that the wget test gives the real, effective speed, while speedtest is mainly to show the advertised speed.







internet performance-monitoring wget network-speed






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago







Hans Linkels

















asked 9 hours ago









Hans LinkelsHans Linkels

1362




1362













  • Another way to check speed is to do ssh personal-server cat /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null, on a personal server that you know is not rate limited to be slower than the speed you're expecting.

    – JoL
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    Worth noting that the wget example you gave is in Mb/s, not Mbps. 1 Mb/s is equal to 8 Mbps, so the wget command is actually 89.6 mbps (11.2 * 8)

    – zzarzzur
    2 hours ago



















  • Another way to check speed is to do ssh personal-server cat /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null, on a personal server that you know is not rate limited to be slower than the speed you're expecting.

    – JoL
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    Worth noting that the wget example you gave is in Mb/s, not Mbps. 1 Mb/s is equal to 8 Mbps, so the wget command is actually 89.6 mbps (11.2 * 8)

    – zzarzzur
    2 hours ago

















Another way to check speed is to do ssh personal-server cat /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null, on a personal server that you know is not rate limited to be slower than the speed you're expecting.

– JoL
4 hours ago





Another way to check speed is to do ssh personal-server cat /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null, on a personal server that you know is not rate limited to be slower than the speed you're expecting.

– JoL
4 hours ago




1




1





Worth noting that the wget example you gave is in Mb/s, not Mbps. 1 Mb/s is equal to 8 Mbps, so the wget command is actually 89.6 mbps (11.2 * 8)

– zzarzzur
2 hours ago





Worth noting that the wget example you gave is in Mb/s, not Mbps. 1 Mb/s is equal to 8 Mbps, so the wget command is actually 89.6 mbps (11.2 * 8)

– zzarzzur
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















10














ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net so that they can brag how fast their connections are, while in reality, they don't provide that much bandwidth. They're perfectly aware that most users will only check that site for confirmation.



You also have to keep in mind that transfer speed relies both on the client and the server. In today's world most servers throttle in one way or another.



Finally, it's pointless to expect stable bandwidth for overseas connections. There's just no such thing. It has to go through an infinite number of switches, fibers, datacenters to reach the final location. And all it takes is just one moving part to slow down.






share|improve this answer
























  • I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago






  • 5





    Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago











  • @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

    – MonkeyZeus
    5 hours ago











  • I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

    – BurnsBA
    5 hours ago











  • Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

    – Captain Man
    4 hours ago





















6














wget give good practical measure of the speed. The tests of Speedtest probably include kind of parallelism which can explain higher numbers.



For good average speed test I think the time for download should be at least 90-120 seconds (to get good average)






share|improve this answer
























  • I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago











  • Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

    – Romeo Ninov
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago



















5














In addition to the other reasons posted, TCP connections don't work well with large files when the bandwidth-delay product becomes large.



Like on an otherwise fast connection to an island.



See Wikipedia's entry on TCP tuning.



So Speedtest can dump a small file through the connection at 95 mb/sec, but wget can only get 10 mb/sec on a 20 MB file.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

    – Hans Linkels
    8 hours ago



















1














One reason could be that often the maximum speed cannot be reached by just a single TCP connection.



Speedtest.net recently introduced a single connection mode. Try this and see if it makes a difference.



Then, for the download use for example aria2 with parameters to use multiple conections and compare.
e.g. aria2c -d /dev -o null --allow-overwrite=true --file-allocation=none --max-connection-per-server=8 --min-split-size=1M http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "2"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f952978%2fwhy-the-discrepancy-between-speedtest-and-wget%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    10














    ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net so that they can brag how fast their connections are, while in reality, they don't provide that much bandwidth. They're perfectly aware that most users will only check that site for confirmation.



    You also have to keep in mind that transfer speed relies both on the client and the server. In today's world most servers throttle in one way or another.



    Finally, it's pointless to expect stable bandwidth for overseas connections. There's just no such thing. It has to go through an infinite number of switches, fibers, datacenters to reach the final location. And all it takes is just one moving part to slow down.






    share|improve this answer
























    • I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 5





      Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago











    • @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

      – MonkeyZeus
      5 hours ago











    • I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

      – BurnsBA
      5 hours ago











    • Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

      – Captain Man
      4 hours ago


















    10














    ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net so that they can brag how fast their connections are, while in reality, they don't provide that much bandwidth. They're perfectly aware that most users will only check that site for confirmation.



    You also have to keep in mind that transfer speed relies both on the client and the server. In today's world most servers throttle in one way or another.



    Finally, it's pointless to expect stable bandwidth for overseas connections. There's just no such thing. It has to go through an infinite number of switches, fibers, datacenters to reach the final location. And all it takes is just one moving part to slow down.






    share|improve this answer
























    • I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 5





      Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago











    • @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

      – MonkeyZeus
      5 hours ago











    • I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

      – BurnsBA
      5 hours ago











    • Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

      – Captain Man
      4 hours ago
















    10












    10








    10







    ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net so that they can brag how fast their connections are, while in reality, they don't provide that much bandwidth. They're perfectly aware that most users will only check that site for confirmation.



    You also have to keep in mind that transfer speed relies both on the client and the server. In today's world most servers throttle in one way or another.



    Finally, it's pointless to expect stable bandwidth for overseas connections. There's just no such thing. It has to go through an infinite number of switches, fibers, datacenters to reach the final location. And all it takes is just one moving part to slow down.






    share|improve this answer













    ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net so that they can brag how fast their connections are, while in reality, they don't provide that much bandwidth. They're perfectly aware that most users will only check that site for confirmation.



    You also have to keep in mind that transfer speed relies both on the client and the server. In today's world most servers throttle in one way or another.



    Finally, it's pointless to expect stable bandwidth for overseas connections. There's just no such thing. It has to go through an infinite number of switches, fibers, datacenters to reach the final location. And all it takes is just one moving part to slow down.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 9 hours ago









    bviktorbviktor

    50849




    50849













    • I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 5





      Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago











    • @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

      – MonkeyZeus
      5 hours ago











    • I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

      – BurnsBA
      5 hours ago











    • Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

      – Captain Man
      4 hours ago





















    • I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 5





      Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago











    • @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

      – MonkeyZeus
      5 hours ago











    • I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

      – BurnsBA
      5 hours ago











    • Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

      – Captain Man
      4 hours ago



















    I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago





    I understand your statements, except for throttling on the server side. It is my own server, and when the client is in a different data center (about 1200km away) the speed is consistently 95 Mbps. Even if the client is on a 100 Mb consumer connection it is 65 Mbps.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago




    5




    5





    Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago





    Can you document you claim ? "ISPs often prioritize traffic to speedtest.net"

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago













    @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

    – MonkeyZeus
    5 hours ago





    @Soleil Didn't take too much Googling: myce.com/news/…

    – MonkeyZeus
    5 hours ago













    I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

    – BurnsBA
    5 hours ago





    I'm seconding the question about whether ISPs prioritize traffic to speed test sites. I just wanted to add that googling reveals a lot of unsubstantiated forum posts stating this occurs with no evidence or data. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs engage in such behavior but, for example, with the heavy throttling of netflix there was plenty of data to demonstrate the problem.

    – BurnsBA
    5 hours ago













    Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

    – Captain Man
    4 hours ago







    Okay, so even if ISPs don't prioritize traffic to speed testing sites, it's plausible that at least some might because it would give the impression of faster speeds.

    – Captain Man
    4 hours ago















    6














    wget give good practical measure of the speed. The tests of Speedtest probably include kind of parallelism which can explain higher numbers.



    For good average speed test I think the time for download should be at least 90-120 seconds (to get good average)






    share|improve this answer
























    • I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago











    • Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

      – Romeo Ninov
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago
















    6














    wget give good practical measure of the speed. The tests of Speedtest probably include kind of parallelism which can explain higher numbers.



    For good average speed test I think the time for download should be at least 90-120 seconds (to get good average)






    share|improve this answer
























    • I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago











    • Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

      – Romeo Ninov
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago














    6












    6








    6







    wget give good practical measure of the speed. The tests of Speedtest probably include kind of parallelism which can explain higher numbers.



    For good average speed test I think the time for download should be at least 90-120 seconds (to get good average)






    share|improve this answer













    wget give good practical measure of the speed. The tests of Speedtest probably include kind of parallelism which can explain higher numbers.



    For good average speed test I think the time for download should be at least 90-120 seconds (to get good average)







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 9 hours ago









    Romeo NinovRomeo Ninov

    504210




    504210













    • I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago











    • Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

      – Romeo Ninov
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago



















    • I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago











    • Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

      – Romeo Ninov
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

      – Hans Linkels
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

      – Soleil
      9 hours ago

















    I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago





    I am working on installing a more powerful logging computer and to increase the file size.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago













    Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago





    Can you develop "kind of parallelism" ? I don't see any way/reason since there is a priori 1 connection.

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago




    1




    1





    @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

    – Romeo Ninov
    9 hours ago





    @Soleil, IMHO they download few files, not only one. You can test it by run few wget and sum the speed

    – Romeo Ninov
    9 hours ago




    1




    1





    I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago





    I could parallelize my measurement, but what is the benefit? I already demonstrated that other clients reach full speed. The difference is that the problematic connection has a 180 ms latency. The fast connections < 10 ms. Would parallel diminish latency effects? Just asking.

    – Hans Linkels
    9 hours ago




    1




    1





    @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago





    @RomeoNinov I checked, there is no such parallelism (speedtest.net). One file per upload and one per download ([1-2]MB each).

    – Soleil
    9 hours ago











    5














    In addition to the other reasons posted, TCP connections don't work well with large files when the bandwidth-delay product becomes large.



    Like on an otherwise fast connection to an island.



    See Wikipedia's entry on TCP tuning.



    So Speedtest can dump a small file through the connection at 95 mb/sec, but wget can only get 10 mb/sec on a 20 MB file.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

      – Hans Linkels
      8 hours ago
















    5














    In addition to the other reasons posted, TCP connections don't work well with large files when the bandwidth-delay product becomes large.



    Like on an otherwise fast connection to an island.



    See Wikipedia's entry on TCP tuning.



    So Speedtest can dump a small file through the connection at 95 mb/sec, but wget can only get 10 mb/sec on a 20 MB file.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

      – Hans Linkels
      8 hours ago














    5












    5








    5







    In addition to the other reasons posted, TCP connections don't work well with large files when the bandwidth-delay product becomes large.



    Like on an otherwise fast connection to an island.



    See Wikipedia's entry on TCP tuning.



    So Speedtest can dump a small file through the connection at 95 mb/sec, but wget can only get 10 mb/sec on a 20 MB file.






    share|improve this answer













    In addition to the other reasons posted, TCP connections don't work well with large files when the bandwidth-delay product becomes large.



    Like on an otherwise fast connection to an island.



    See Wikipedia's entry on TCP tuning.



    So Speedtest can dump a small file through the connection at 95 mb/sec, but wget can only get 10 mb/sec on a 20 MB file.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 9 hours ago









    Andrew HenleAndrew Henle

    84059




    84059








    • 2





      This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

      – Hans Linkels
      8 hours ago














    • 2





      This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

      – Hans Linkels
      8 hours ago








    2




    2





    This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

    – Hans Linkels
    8 hours ago





    This is new knowledge for me. Very good. Indeed, the bandwidth-delay product is high (2.25 MB if I calculated correctly). A quick look showed a default buffer of 87kB and a maximum of 3.5 MB. (I assume Byte not bits). I have to dive more deeply into this to better assess it. If, in combination speedtest downloads a lot of small files and records the max speed on that, it explains a lot.

    – Hans Linkels
    8 hours ago











    1














    One reason could be that often the maximum speed cannot be reached by just a single TCP connection.



    Speedtest.net recently introduced a single connection mode. Try this and see if it makes a difference.



    Then, for the download use for example aria2 with parameters to use multiple conections and compare.
    e.g. aria2c -d /dev -o null --allow-overwrite=true --file-allocation=none --max-connection-per-server=8 --min-split-size=1M http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt






    share|improve this answer




























      1














      One reason could be that often the maximum speed cannot be reached by just a single TCP connection.



      Speedtest.net recently introduced a single connection mode. Try this and see if it makes a difference.



      Then, for the download use for example aria2 with parameters to use multiple conections and compare.
      e.g. aria2c -d /dev -o null --allow-overwrite=true --file-allocation=none --max-connection-per-server=8 --min-split-size=1M http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt






      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        One reason could be that often the maximum speed cannot be reached by just a single TCP connection.



        Speedtest.net recently introduced a single connection mode. Try this and see if it makes a difference.



        Then, for the download use for example aria2 with parameters to use multiple conections and compare.
        e.g. aria2c -d /dev -o null --allow-overwrite=true --file-allocation=none --max-connection-per-server=8 --min-split-size=1M http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt






        share|improve this answer













        One reason could be that often the maximum speed cannot be reached by just a single TCP connection.



        Speedtest.net recently introduced a single connection mode. Try this and see if it makes a difference.



        Then, for the download use for example aria2 with parameters to use multiple conections and compare.
        e.g. aria2c -d /dev -o null --allow-overwrite=true --file-allocation=none --max-connection-per-server=8 --min-split-size=1M http://aserv.example.net/~myuser/links/M77232917.txt







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 3 hours ago









        JosefJosef

        29629




        29629






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f952978%2fwhy-the-discrepancy-between-speedtest-and-wget%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Magento 2 controller redirect on button click in phtml file

            Polycentropodidae