Normaly very good. I use my IBurts mostly for World of Warcraft and lately the latency has been terrible but this has been refered to previously. I am still considering putting up an OMNI antena. Hopefully this will increase my throughput
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Are you keeping your Prime subscription?
iBurst Speed Test Results
- Thread starter iBurst
- Start date
Normaly very good. I use my IBurts mostly for World of Warcraft and lately the latency has been terrible but this has been refered to previously. I am still considering putting up an OMNI antena. Hopefully this will increase my throughput
bdt
Executive Member
Motivation to do this: office worker asking me if there's "anything wrong with the internet" 
..yes, know but when ordinary (as in non-tech) people start asking questions best you see the writing on the wall.
Therefore, without further ado:
C:\>ping www.iburst.co.za
Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=125
iBurst speedtest - it took several tries to even GET the speedtest.net page to fully bloodywell load up!
301/184 kbps down/up: this is utterly craptastic and, frankly, pathetic.
627.6ms jitter, 0.1% packet loss: literally off the bottom of the chart. Also, unusable for VoIP.
QoS summary: 55%. Along with the jitter paramater, a nice big red dot - just lovely.
NOW I've got JHB speedtest.net:
0.19Mb/s download
0.15Mb/s upload
151ms ping
NY speedtest.net:
0.35Mb/s download
0.21Mb/s upload
667ms ping (only (barely) not evil..?)
Given that I know from experience that this connection can hit (and sustain) >100MB/s download late at night, this kind of non-performance during office hours WHEN PEOPLE NEED IT is execrable and is in DIRE need of being fixed.
Oh, and the (black) UTD sits in an IP66 box on a pole on the roof not even a par 5 shot down the hill from the Hyde Park (or whatever name it got assigned) tower. Where it has sat for something like 2 years now. And, as I said, can/usually does work to expectation late at night - good enough, even, for Skype with video.
Except, usually, during office hours.
..yes, know but when ordinary (as in non-tech) people start asking questions best you see the writing on the wall.Therefore, without further ado:
C:\>ping www.iburst.co.za
Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=125
iBurst speedtest - it took several tries to even GET the speedtest.net page to fully bloodywell load up!
301/184 kbps down/up: this is utterly craptastic and, frankly, pathetic.
627.6ms jitter, 0.1% packet loss: literally off the bottom of the chart. Also, unusable for VoIP.
QoS summary: 55%. Along with the jitter paramater, a nice big red dot - just lovely.
NOW I've got JHB speedtest.net:
0.19Mb/s download
0.15Mb/s upload
151ms ping
NY speedtest.net:
0.35Mb/s download
0.21Mb/s upload
667ms ping (only (barely) not evil..?)
Given that I know from experience that this connection can hit (and sustain) >100MB/s download late at night, this kind of non-performance during office hours WHEN PEOPLE NEED IT is execrable and is in DIRE need of being fixed.
Oh, and the (black) UTD sits in an IP66 box on a pole on the roof not even a par 5 shot down the hill from the Hyde Park (or whatever name it got assigned) tower. Where it has sat for something like 2 years now. And, as I said, can/usually does work to expectation late at night - good enough, even, for Skype with video.
Except, usually, during office hours.
Hi BDT
Please get me your detail.
Would like to come and see what can be done to improve.
Thanks.
Please get me your detail.
Would like to come and see what can be done to improve.
Thanks.
bdt
Executive Member
Heh, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve but if you want to come and check it out, the action is up on the roof so plan accordingly - not just head for heights but also balance, there's a walk along a wall before getting to the roof proper.
If it comes to it I can get power up there, it's all just a matter of planning but we can hash that out.Sadly
I'm doing something else tonight so I'll do the late night speed test later, hopefully tomorrow. And if it goes as expected/I'm used to, you'll see how profound my speed differences are: night and day ..literally. Anyhow, PM'd for further action.Related: I had to entirely recompose this reply as my first attempt vanished into thin air when I hit the preview post button and I couldn't get it back. Also, that previous reply was done in Chrome while this one is in Firefox; between the two, Ff definitely seems better at not losing the plot - I've been having a BITCH of a time viewing MyBB pages today, I may wear my F5 key out soon at this rate.
How does MyBB behave now.
Had it tweaked.
Let me know.
Cheers
Had it tweaked.
Let me know.
Cheers
bdt
Executive Member
Oh dear, THIS is a can you don't want to open!
..y'see, it's all well and good that you tweak MyBB: you've got the biggest concentration of noisemakers here that WILL complain ..and whose complaints then get indexed by GOOG(le - "GOOG" is their faster NASDAQ code) than you want them to.But what about when just trying to load up the GOOG page fails, much less the search results you're trying to reach? What about Faceache, Gmail, Hotmail ..you know? Are you also going to try tweak those? Will tweaking for those break the tweak for MyBB? Why is this tweaking even necessary in the first place? What's taken so long to do this tweaking? You see what I mean about a BAD can of worms to open?
...do you enjoy playing whack-a-mole?
Oh, it IS behaving a whole lot better right now, but it's also dark out: I'll respond more accurately to the result of the tweak sometime during the day tomorrow...bdt
Executive Member
OK, all snarkiness aside 
whatever got done has had a great effect on the javascript response, as applies to when you have a link to add to text.
whatever got done has had a great effect on the javascript response, as applies to when you have a link to add to text.bdt
Executive Member
All righty, here's that late night test I promised:
C:\>ping www.iburst.co.za -n 20
Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=125
Ping statistics for 196.30.31.120:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 38ms, Maximum = 194ms, Average = 69ms
iBurst speed test is now at 687/283 down/up, 77% QoS, 14.9ms jitter and 0.0% packet loss. The MOS score (what IS that anyway??!) is reported as being 3.8.
JHB speedtest.net:
0.73Mb/s download
0.26Mb/s upload
112ms ping
NY speedtest.net:
0.52Mb/s download
0.12Mb/s upload
663ms ping
OK, that's the tech. specs. Now anecdotally: I hit a few 'tube videos (went from "The Champs" & "Tequila" (don't ask)) to something entirely different (worth watching if you're into boobies and automatic gunfire... (again, don't ask!) in 4 easy steps. In each case by around the 30sec mark the read-ahead buffer had outstripped the playback marker and ALWAYS finished buffering while I watched live streaming.
This kind of responsiveness is an absolute joy to behold but it's basically ONLY ME that gets to enjoy this here - not so much the staff who are hear at saner, office hours and for whom, you know, this facility is actually meant.
So why on earth can this not be achieved when people are wanting to, say, do VoIP to international suppliers (a very real possibility for this site) or do banking that doesn't crap out during a payment session - id est during office hours?!
Note that I haven't made a single change to any part of the system: the UTD lives in its box up on the pole, the router is set for the DNS options (OpenDNS first, IS 2nd, iafrica 3rd on a WaRT running DD-WRT v24sp1) that I forget when I last set.
But we can go through the motions of whatever testing iBurst want to do, it's like chicken soup: it may not help but it certainly won't hurt. More later ..maybe - depends on whether this site visit turns up anything useful.
C:\>ping www.iburst.co.za -n 20
Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=125
Ping statistics for 196.30.31.120:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 38ms, Maximum = 194ms, Average = 69ms
iBurst speed test is now at 687/283 down/up, 77% QoS, 14.9ms jitter and 0.0% packet loss. The MOS score (what IS that anyway??!) is reported as being 3.8.
JHB speedtest.net:
0.73Mb/s download
0.26Mb/s upload
112ms ping
NY speedtest.net:
0.52Mb/s download
0.12Mb/s upload
663ms ping
OK, that's the tech. specs. Now anecdotally: I hit a few 'tube videos (went from "The Champs" & "Tequila" (don't ask)) to something entirely different (worth watching if you're into boobies and automatic gunfire... (again, don't ask!)
in 4 easy steps. In each case by around the 30sec mark the read-ahead buffer had outstripped the playback marker and ALWAYS finished buffering while I watched live streaming.EVERY.single.time!
This kind of responsiveness is an absolute joy to behold but it's basically ONLY ME that gets to enjoy this here - not so much the staff who are hear at saner, office hours and for whom, you know, this facility is actually meant.
So why on earth can this not be achieved when people are wanting to, say, do VoIP to international suppliers (a very real possibility for this site) or do banking that doesn't crap out during a payment session - id est during office hours?!
Note that I haven't made a single change to any part of the system: the UTD lives in its box up on the pole, the router is set for the DNS options (OpenDNS first, IS 2nd, iafrica 3rd on a WaRT running DD-WRT v24sp1) that I forget when I last set.
But we can go through the motions of whatever testing iBurst want to do, it's like chicken soup: it may not help but it certainly won't hurt. More later ..maybe - depends on whether this site visit turns up anything useful.
bdt
Executive Member
So, unexpectedly NOT useless-waste-of-time with a tech oke this morning. Results follow but, pointedly, while he was initially not thrilled about the used-for-VPN MTU of 1364 I had to use to keep the Xbox happy, it turned out not to matter. Nor did he have anything to say about my DNS choices. Anyhow, we managed to kick the UTD into connecting to a tower ~4km away (id est Randburg CBD) instead of the local one literally a few hundred metres up the road and it really seems to have helped. Still, we established that plugging a flat panel in to be (as) sure (as possible) we're rejecting the local tower is the way to go. So, I'll get that up and run those tests later on. For now we have:
C:\>ping www.iburst.co.za -n 10
Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=125
Ping statistics for 196.30.31.120:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 41ms, Maximum = 269ms, Average = 84ms
JHB speedtest at
0.34Mb/s download
0.17Mb/s upload
118ms ping
NY speedtest at
0.31Mb/s download
0.16Mb/s upload
689ms ping
iBurst speedtest at 398/137 down/up, 68% QoS, 20.6% jitter and 0.0% packet loss. MOS score (will someone please say what that is/why it's significant?!) is 3.8.
Then I hit the 'tube again and I'll concede that there's a definite improvement overall, as there is with general international browsing. Anyhow, let's see what we get after I HGA that sucker.
with a tech oke this morning. Results follow but, pointedly, while he was initially not thrilled about the used-for-VPN MTU of 1364 I had to use to keep the Xbox happy, it turned out not to matter. Nor did he have anything to say about my DNS choices. Anyhow, we managed to kick the UTD into connecting to a tower ~4km away (id est Randburg CBD) instead of the local one literally a few hundred metres up the road and it really seems to have helped. Still, we established that plugging a flat panel in to be (as) sure (as possible) we're rejecting the local tower is the way to go. So, I'll get that up and run those tests later on. For now we have:C:\>ping www.iburst.co.za -n 10
Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=125
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=125
Ping statistics for 196.30.31.120:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 41ms, Maximum = 269ms, Average = 84ms
JHB speedtest at
0.34Mb/s download
0.17Mb/s upload
118ms ping
NY speedtest at
0.31Mb/s download
0.16Mb/s upload
689ms ping
iBurst speedtest at 398/137 down/up, 68% QoS, 20.6% jitter and 0.0% packet loss. MOS score (will someone please say what that is/why it's significant?!) is 3.8.
Then I hit the 'tube again and I'll concede that there's a definite improvement overall, as there is with general international browsing. Anyhow, let's see what we get after I HGA that sucker.
Last edited:
Great news.
Let us know.
Thanks
Let us know.
Thanks
Hi Myles.
what was the outcome of the techie visit?
Please let us know.
Thank you
what was the outcome of the techie visit?
Please let us know.
Thank you
Hi Raithlin
You should be enjoying your experience.
How do you find it?
Thanks for the feedback.
Hi guys
Any of you who have sent me results gamers?
I would like to know your gaming experience lately.
Thank you
Any of you who have sent me results gamers?
I would like to know your gaming experience lately.
Thank you
Hi guys
Any more results for me?
Any more results for me?
Hiya Shaun please see other posts in other forums there are still major issues on the gaming side.
Yesterday Jannie and yourself said you would be looking at the ticket at the upstream providers any news on this ?????
Yesterday Jannie and yourself said you would be looking at the ticket at the upstream providers any news on this ?????
Hi guys
I am awaiting a answer on a workaround to the damaged under sea cable. I am trying desperately to get you going before the cable gets repaired.
I was not aware of this cable fault until Diegoa let me know.
Hope we can come up with something soon.
I am awaiting a answer on a workaround to the damaged under sea cable. I am trying desperately to get you going before the cable gets repaired.
I was not aware of this cable fault until Diegoa let me know.
Hope we can come up with something soon.
Hi guys.
I need some results here please.
Thanks in advance.
I need some results here please.
Thanks in advance.
Time: 10:07PM
Date: 21/07/2009
Location: Wigeheuwel, Roodepoort
iBurst Speed Test
Download Speed: 902kbps
Upload Speed: 283kbps
Jitter: 13.9ms
Round Trip: 59ms
Max Pause: 390ms
QoS: 79%
Packet Loss: 0%
SpeedTest to Johannesburg:
SpeedTest to New York:
Date: 21/07/2009
Location: Wigeheuwel, Roodepoort
iBurst Speed Test
Download Speed: 902kbps
Upload Speed: 283kbps
Jitter: 13.9ms
Round Trip: 59ms
Max Pause: 390ms
QoS: 79%
Packet Loss: 0%
SpeedTest to Johannesburg:
SpeedTest to New York: