This cant be the improved iburst !!!

[zak]

Ran these 2 different speed tests.
First on is Telkom local speed.
Second one is stanford test, with no other apps running


Below is the data used to calculate your download speed:

* Download time: 32.547 seconds
* Size of file: 500 KiloBytes
* Estimated line speed: 125.4 (kilobits/second)
* Estimated line speed: 15.4 (kiloBytes/second)

click START to begin
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 93.33Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 29.58kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link

click START to re-test
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 51.54Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 24.54kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link

click START to re-test

 

[nocilah]

join the club at: http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=19489

 

[Migo]

I ran this on another server http://ciseweb100.cise-nsf.gov:7123/ which has a better transmit buffer (105.0 KByte) instead of Standford's (63 Kbyte). The site says this all the time..

"The theoretical network limit is 0.05 Mbps
The transmit buffer (105.0 KByte) limits the application to 1.13 Mbps
Your receive buffer (255.0 KByte) limits the application to 2.75 Mbps
The network based flow control limits the application to 0.06 Mbps"

I quite like the other page that says

"This connection is network limited 99.96% of the time.
Contact your local network administrator to report a network problem
Contact your local network admin and report excessive packet reordering
Excessive packet loss is impacting your performance, check the auto-negotiate function on your local PC and network switch"

 

[nocilah]

The transmit buffer (105.0 KByte) limits the application to 1.75 Mbps
Your receive buffer (17.0 KByte) limits the application to 0.28 Mbps
The network based flow control limits the application to 0.11 Mbps

look at the third line... maybe the system thinks i am 'capped' which
shouldnt be considering i have 1.7Gb available

 

[Ares]

Be happy with your speed

This is what i got * Download time: 74.078 seconds
* Size of file: 500 KiloBytes
* Estimated line speed: 55.1 (kilobits/second)
* Estimated line speed: 6.7 (kiloBytes/second)

TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.2.1e
click START to begin
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 112.68Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 41.00kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link

click START to re-test
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 13.40Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 19.09kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Dial-up Modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link
I did the Stanford test after one another. Why does it say I have a dial up modem on the second test?.....Propably because the speed is like dial-up if not worse.
I live in Weltevredenpark and log onto the Northcliff tower, and I still have 2.54gb left of my cap.

 

[brooko]

TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.2.1e
click START to begin
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 127.19Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 84.72kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem

click START to re-test

TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.2.1e
click START to begin
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 115.92Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 95.78kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem

click START to re-test

TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.2.1e
click START to begin
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 137.10Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 89.27kb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem

click START to re-test

on my backup dial up connection currently connected at 49.2Kbps, damn it feels slow.
an befor u flame, i KNOW its proxied somewhere, just showing how unaccurate these tests can be......

 

[jmn]

With the current speeds I experience I have no way of even approaching my cap by month end

 

[jjtoymachine]

well here is a funny little thing...i was complaining about speed earlier today, i phoned wbs 3 times with no luck or proper response...then i though to my self 'all this for the last 400mb, stuff that!' so i went a blew the rest of my cap...well guess what? Now that i am capped i am getting much faster speeds than when i wasnt capped! Still nowhere near 1MB but getting downloads of about 60KB/s. Well i think i deserve it for putting up with that company's sh*t for the past week...

 

[nocilah]

ha ha ha that's awesome...

 

[jmn]

I wonder if they'll transfer me to the faster throttled service if I ask them nicely?

 

[Clipse]

well here is a funny little thing...i was complaining about speed earlier today, i phoned wbs 3 times with no luck or proper response...then i though to my self 'all this for the last 400mb, stuff that!' so i went a blew the rest of my cap...well guess what? Now that i am capped i am getting much faster speeds than when i wasnt capped! Still nowhere near 1MB but getting downloads of about 60KB/s. Well i think i deserve it for putting up with that company's sh*t for the past week...

I think with iburst it is every user for himself

Dont report fast capped speeds, u might get capped capped now

 

[Bjorn]

well here is a funny little thing...i was complaining about speed earlier today, i phoned wbs 3 times with no luck or proper response...then i though to my self 'all this for the last 400mb, stuff that!' so i went a blew the rest of my cap...well guess what? Now that i am capped i am getting much faster speeds than when i wasnt capped! Still nowhere near 1MB but getting downloads of about 60KB/s. Well i think i deserve it for putting up with that company's sh*t for the past week...

My speeds have also been better and more consistant since my cap.. go figure

 

[ic]

well here is a funny little thing...i was complaining about speed earlier today, i phoned wbs 3 times with no luck or proper response...then i though to my self 'all this for the last 400mb, stuff that!' so i went a blew the rest of my cap...well guess what? Now that i am capped i am getting much faster speeds than when i wasnt capped! Still nowhere near 1MB but getting downloads of about 60KB/s. Well i think i deserve it for putting up with that company's sh*t for the past week...

My speeds have also been better and more consistant since my cap.. go figure

Actually, this does make sense - first read my theory here:[post=190613]

I presume everyone else has given this some speculative attention, anyways, assume that the story about serious 300:1 contention is true, i.e. not enough bandwidth available, and that is the reason for the additional 15Mb from IS.

That being the case, we also know that the WBS bandwidth management system is not working properly - evidence: some are getting more than 1Mbits/s, others [presumably lots if contention is 300:1] are getting sub dialup slowness - what that tells me is that bandwidth is not being shared properly, correct?

My conclusion: WBS' bandwidth management system is not working properly, or for that matter as advertised - for the moment put aside the question of whether it correctly counts & records the bytes transferred on your behalf .

My point: even if the IS pipe is in place tomorrow sometime, WBS still need to get their bandwidth management & sharing system sorted in order to fairly distribute up to 1Mbits/s to uncapped customers, and preferably a minimum of 64kBits/s to capped/throttled customers - otherwise we will continue playing Russian Roulette when connecting - if indeed the above assumptiousness has a shred of truth propping it up...

[/post]Ok, this is now officially a looong post with the quotes, but assume that when you are capped, WBS does shunt you onto a throttling/contentioning loop that you share with all other capped iBursters, now assume there aren't too many capped iBursters in that throttled loop to drastically degrade the available contended bandwidth, that might explain why you can get better speeds when capped - you're going through a different router to the rest of us, and it is sharing out the available bandwidth better than the router for uncapped iBursters...

Well it makes sense to me, what does everyone else think???
[apart from ic has been hitting the booze again ]

 

[Gimli_]

Sounds like a plausible theory... You know what gets me though, is if you render a service and something does not work, you decomission it, fix it and then implement again. This story with their throttling system not working properly really should be sorted out off line. So you make a loss while you fix it, but you keep the customers happy... It will be paid back over time.

 

[jjtoymachine]

Sounds like a plausible theory... You know what gets me though, is if you render a service and something does not work, you decomission it, fix it and then implement again. This story with their throttling system not working properly really should be sorted out off line. So you make a loss while you fix it, but you keep the customers happy... It will be paid back over time.

Agreed...but this is wbs we are talking about!

 

[ic]

Is there any explanation to these question:

1. Why did iBurst get more bandwidth from IS and still keep Uunet
2. Why cant they admit the problems [not from the helpdesk point of view for it seams they [helpdesk] they dont have much say or info for that matter.
3. Who is really lying, the helpdesk agents/management/network technicians

It is clear that the Helpdesk staff are under orders to lie to customers, that sort of directive will only come from the WBS Ivory Tower on the 15th floor. As for technicians, we haven't heard from them so we cannot say they are lying - unless anyone has heard from the technicians...? #iburst maybe?

IMO WBS got additional bandwidth from IS bcos there was too much contention with the bandwidth from UUNET alone - they had too little available to supply all of us - how did this happen overnight after launch - only one explanation makes sense to me - the pre-launch UUNET bandwidth supply was reduced at launch - probably anagreement WBS had with UUNET to use a fixed supply instead of dynamically adjusted when WBS had their bandwidth management & throttling system in place - clearly that aint working......solution purchase extra from IS whilst the bandwidth management system is being sorted out...