?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Thanks, Clear

« previous entry | next entry »
Feb. 12th, 2010 | 08:44 am

So, a coworker signed up for this newfangled Clear WiMax service that I've been talking about, and loaned me his spare USB dongle so I could give it a test. Initial impression?

AT&T speed test: 792kbps down, 508kbps up
Bandwidthplace.com: 1533kpbs down, 474kbps up
DSLReports.com: 1075kbps down, 469kbps up, 40ms ping
Speakeasy: 1352kbps down, 422kbps up
Speedtest.net: 0.63Mbps down, 0.50Mbps up, 74ms ping
Pingtest.net: 103ms ping, 28ms jitter

... bad. Not quite the 6Mbps down, 768kbps up they're advertising.

[Edit]
I'm running the same tests on my normal (6Mbps/768kbps) DSL, over my wireless, just to compare against. I'll just do text this time and skip the images. I chose the same servers to test against as well as I could on each.

AT&T speed test: 4.74Mbps down, 467.94kbps up.
Bandwidthplace.com: 4945kbps down, 479kbps up.
DSLReports.com: 2202kbps down, 473kbps up, 19ms ping.
Speakeasy: 5082kbps down, 487kbps up.
Speedtest.net: 5.09Mbps down, 0.46Mbps up, 24ms ping.
Pingtest.net: 32ms ping, 10ms jitter, 1% packet loss (?).

And, since Pi asked for it, Netalyzr says: We estimate your uplink as having 2300 msec of buffering.

Hm. What's that about?

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {10}

flainn

(no subject)

from: flainn
date: Feb. 12th, 2010 03:09 pm (UTC)
Link

Funny how close the upload and download speeds are in several of those tests. I'd sure like 1:1 on my DSL.

Reply | Thread

Pi

(no subject)

from: two_pi_r
date: Feb. 12th, 2010 09:01 pm (UTC)
Link

What's netalyzr say?

Reply | Thread

Bill Weiss

(no subject)

from: houdini_cs
date: Feb. 13th, 2010 04:00 am (UTC)
Link

Notable stuff:
Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink 990 ms, Downlink 1600 ms
We estimate your uplink as having 990 msec of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
We estimate your downlink as having 1600 msec of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large downloads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large downloads at the same time.


And

1 popular name has a moderate anomaly: we are unable to find a reverse name associated with the IP address provided by your ISP's DNS server, although we expected to find a name. This is most likely due to a slow responding DNS server. If you rerun Netalyzr and see this condition remain, it could be due to a misconfiguration on the part of the domain owner or your DNS server could be misconfigured or enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack.
Name IP Address Reverse Name/SOA
www.tdameritrade.com 204.58.27.97 X


That buffering number is impressive...

Reply | Parent | Thread

(Deleted comment)

Bill Weiss

(no subject)

from: houdini_cs
date: Feb. 14th, 2010 04:15 am (UTC)
Link

The owner says that it works well in a slower train, and ok (but slow) in a fast moving one. Coverage is a few cities for now, see http://www.clearwire.com/store/service_areas.php for details (Flash warning).

Reply | Parent | Thread

Pi

(no subject)

from: two_pi_r
date: Feb. 13th, 2010 06:14 pm (UTC)
Link

That reverse thing is pretty common, but that is one hell of latency.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Bill Weiss

(no subject)

from: houdini_cs
date: Feb. 14th, 2010 04:16 am (UTC)
Link

Fucking filtering reverse DNS? That's a hell of something to be common...

Reply | Parent | Thread

Bill Weiss

(no subject)

from: houdini_cs
date: Feb. 14th, 2010 04:25 am (UTC)
Link

I was going to blame the wireless, but the wired machine gets a similarly shitty buffer time. It also gets that reverse DNS thing, but only sometimes. Maybe it's time to look in to who I'm using as upstream DNS?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Bill Weiss

(no subject)

from: houdini_cs
date: Feb. 14th, 2010 05:08 am (UTC)
Link

It got better when I changed from openDNS to a combination of Google, my upstream, and some random open one.

Reply | Parent | Thread

OMG, it's a talking biscuit named Mara!

(no subject)

from: be4u
date: Feb. 12th, 2010 10:23 pm (UTC)
Link

Whoa....good to know.

Reply | Thread