vsat speed test sites

(Read 11924 times)

HVYMTL

Senior Member
★★★
Offline

Posts: 69

Jun 16^th, 2007 at 5:09am

I would like some feed back on what everyone wants for reliable speed test sites for vsat.

I've entered into a project with a speed test software company very early this year. I used their product to test high speed 512/2mb Hughes net VAR service as well as 384/1mb iDirect.

Their product as well as many others software do not report real world bandwidth upload/download results.
The vsat industry has always had speed test results skewed by lantency, initial burst speed with some ISP, and other factors etc.

I've allowed the developer to run tests though my personal vsat location, and the project has stagnated due to a lack of support for further testing.(on my part)

When I approached the company I advised I wanted to develop a stable, reliable vsat speed test that would deal with the lantency involved in the vsat area, their as all others' product is for low lant. ISP.
Their software is in place now behind many speedtest sites we all use every day.
I have asked my circle of business partners, and now ask you, do you want to get involved and help establish a true bandwidth test for vsat.

For myself, I would like to direct my customers to such a product. I want my customers to see the real bandwidth I sold them not inflated, not reduced, the real thing.

Of course this is all affected by where they are, where the ISP is, and hops between, but when I test a high end 512kbps upload/2mbdowload service and on one test site it reports 300kbps/1.5mb and the next site reports 895kbps/1mb, I know I have problem. Then test another Isp/hardware solution from my same location- yes I have Hughes and iDirect side by side at my business, and get compeletly diiferent but in-accurate results.- I want some thing better.

I had a company developer interested 4 months ago in developing a vsat specific speed test product, is there any interest here for beta testing?

Tom@CountrySideNet.com

« Last Edit: Apr 10^th, 2021 at 11:50am by Admin1 »

IP Logged

USN - Retired

YaBB Moderator
★★★★★
Offline

Posts: 837
Kentucky (USA)

Reply #1 - Jun 16^th, 2007 at 12:49pm

I'd be glad to offer what assistance I'm able to render. But I should point out that the issue with speed-test-server-results over satellite is less related to latency than it is to differing compression algorithms employed in the respective transmission path. Witness the differences between your two in-house connections.

That said, the few sites that still use small files and calculate on the simple throughput divided by time basis (like mcafee broken link deleted ) are useless to us. They are the ones that don't take into consideration the dead time up front caused by the comparatively lengthy round trip time.

I also feel strongly that satellite access providers should have their own speed test servers. To eliminate terrestrial vagaries, these servers should also be physically located at the gateway earth terminals. Short of that, I advise customers to select ONE speed test site that is as close as geographically possible to their assigned gateway terminal. Going down an arbitrary list of servers to simply find one that returns the most impressive results is counter-productive. Whereas many folks waste time this way in pursuit of bragging rights, the actually productive purpose for speed testing is for QC/QA and space segment troubleshooting.

//greg//

« Last Edit: Apr 10^th, 2021 at 11:48am by Admin1 »

USN (Ret)

IP Logged

Ex Member

Ex Member

Reply #2 - Jun 16^th, 2007 at 4:01pm

[quote author=USN - Retired] But I should point out that the issue with speed-test-server-results over satellite is less related to latency than it is to differing compression algorithms employed in the respective transmission path.
//greg// [/quote]I could not have said it better myself. Agree whole heartedly.

For example: The algorithms in BW fairness as distributed by an iDirect Network system will vary considerably from that of a Hughes network (and others).

« Last Edit: Apr 10^th, 2021 at 11:50am by Admin1 »

IP Logged

HVYMTL

Senior Member
★★★
Offline

Posts: 69

Reply #3 - Jun 21^st, 2007 at 12:47am

I agree on all points, and the iDirect market does not really need this service in my opinion(but occasionally do depending on hub service providers),
but the other vsat consumer and VAR products could use a stable site report software that is identified as developed for vsat instead of the one size fits all services.
My interest is to develop something designed for vsat that equates ftp information and real world browser experience. I've seen too many installers or customers that insist that "this site is the best" when I know it does not reflect true bandwidth, and as stated location is a factor. Numbers do nothing for user experiance.
The developer's product I mentioned allowed selecting a location server for testing which covered many areas of several countries.
I'll contact the developer dept. again and see if they are still interested.

thanks for your input.

IP Logged

Admin1

YaBB Admin
★★★★★
Offline

Posts: 1203

Reply #4 - Apr 10^th, 2021 at 11:47am

I have just noticed that the McAfee speed tester mentioned above no longer seems to be available.

I have a page, 1.13 Mbytes size, on this web site that you can download and measure how long it takes. You do the measurement using the Chrome browser and laptop or desktop screen.

https://www.satsig.net/speed-test/speed-tester.htm
( Note: Use only on low cost connections. )

Warning: Downloading this page causes just over one megabyte of traffic so it may cost you a lot if you are on a high tariff.

To measure download time in milliseconds you go to More Tools, Developer Tools, F5. Put your mouse on the green time bar for download time for the page and it will tell you the number of milliseconds, e.g. 500 ms. In that case your bit rate would be 1.13 x 8 / 0.500 = 18 Mbit/s.

« Last Edit: Apr 10^th, 2021 at 1:41pm by Admin1 »

WWW

IP Logged

Pages: 1

Send Topic | Print

Disclaimer, Terms of Use and Privacy Forum User Agreement Forum rules Cookie policy.