Test (off-peak): IS Fibre Semi-shaped vs. SAIX Shaped

F

fz1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
556
Reaction score
0
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Axxess IS Fibre Semi-shaped vs. Web Africa SAIX Shaped (at an off-peak time)...
FIGHT!


SAIX
----
>ping www.google.com

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.93.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=236
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=236
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=236
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 66.249.93.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 333ms, Maximum = 341ms, Average = 337ms

>ping www.yahoo.com

Pinging www.yahoo-ht3.akadns.net [87.248.113.14] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=48
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=370ms TTL=48
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=370ms TTL=48
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 87.248.113.14:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 369ms, Maximum = 373ms, Average = 370ms
Click to expand...

IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
>ping www.google.com

Pinging www.l.google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=233
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=233
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=233
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=233

Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 283ms, Maximum = 284ms, Average = 283ms

>ping www.yahoo.com

Pinging www.yahoo-ht3.akadns.net [87.248.113.14] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=47
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=47
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=47
Reply from 87.248.113.14: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 87.248.113.14:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 193ms, Maximum = 194ms, Average = 193ms
Click to expand...

***Round 1: IS WIN!***




Local Performance (Downstream speed / Upstream speed)... I am in Sandton, Johannesburg

SAIX
----
Speedtest to JHB: 3489Kbps / 431Kbps, 33ms
Speedtest to CPT: 3442Kbps / 423Kbps, 24ms


IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
Speedtest to JHB: 3489Kbps / 430Kbps, 39ms
Speedtest to CPT: 3444Kbps / 423Kbps, 24ms


***ROUND 2: TIE!***





International Performance (Downstream speed / Upstream speed)

SAIX
----
http://toast.net/performance
^Shuttle+Text via 1&1: 575Kbps
^Blue Angels via Microsoft Live: 312Kbps
^Upload Speed Test via Yocolo (3.5MB JPG): 408Kbps - 72s

http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest
^Flash based Test to New York (SpeakEasy): 480ms, 303Kbps / 292Kbps (NO ISP upload compression detected)

http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/: 1472Kbps / 101Kbps



IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
http://toast.net/performance
^Shuttle+Text via 1&1: 1337Kbps
^Blue Angels via Microsoft Live: 1872Kbps
^Upload Speed Test via Yocolo (3.5MB JPG): 445Kbps - 66s

http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest
^Flash based Test to New York (SpeakEasy): 138ms, 1468Kbps, 420Kbps (ISP upload compression detected)

http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/: 2024Kbps/ 391Kbps

***FINAL ROUND: IS WIN! FATALITY!***


I don't know about you, but I am flabbergasted. That annoying 50KB/sec limit per download thread does not seem to exist with the IS Fibre Semi-shaped bandwidth. Combine that with lower latencies, and you have a superior product!!! Downside is R80+/GB :eek:

Subjective tests also proved that IS is faster: an international file download (no download manager) transferred at about 50KB/sec on SAIX. Did the same file with IS, and the download transferred at about 150KB/sec. YouTube video downloaded at about 30KB/sec on SAIX. On IS, it wasn't consistently downloading at a certain speed, but would fluctuate, bursting to 100KB/sec (and on average, much faster than SAIX).

Those of you that have known about this, shame on you for keeping the secret and not sharing with the rest of us :P

Excuse me while I go cancel most of my Web Africa SAIX shaped accounts, and sign up with Axxess for IS Fibre Semi-shaped. (side note: Web Africa, once again, please work on offering this product :D)

Of course, I will be repeating the above tests many times over the next few days, to ensure that this wasn't a fluke (or due to one ISP having issues). I'll post back if my results vary.
 
great on the testing i haven't done the "normal" apart from online gaming, but from my experiences online gaming is in some cases slower than saix/verizon unshaped...

...but i'm going to swap out my 5G saix prepaid shaped for 5G IS semi shaped, cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess to be absolutely fair (or at least thorough), SAIX unshaped should be compared to the IS Fibre Semi-shaped offering too. I just don't have a SAIX unshaped account any more. It's also significantly more expensive than the IS Fibre Semi-shaped bandwidth - priced out of contending, IMHO.
 
well nothing wrong with retest :)

i'll do some on the weekend, but there was a definite difference last time in wow on saix unshaped to is semi unshaped.

fz1 said:
It's also significantly more expensive than the IS Fibre Semi-shaped bandwidth - priced out of contending, IMHO.
Click to expand...
why im thinking about swapping from my prepaid saix shaped to fiber semi unshaped.
 
Last edited:
fz1 said:
Downside is R80+/GB :eek:

Excuse me while I go cancel most of my Web Africa SAIX shaped accounts, and sign up with Axxess for IS Fibre Semi-shaped. (side note: Web Africa, once again, please work on offering this product :D)
Click to expand...

Nexus offer an IS Topup type which is un-shaped after hours for 7c/MB
I think you elect your base cap and a topup increment once it is depleted.
 
dionb said:
Nexus offer an IS Topup type which is un-shaped after hours for 7c/MB
I think you elect your base cap and a topup increment once it is depleted.
Click to expand...

cool not bad at all.
 
Can you redo these tests during peak period? From my experience IS is pretty good out of business hours but slows down markedly during Biz hours.

BTW Nice test!
 
Well I wouldnt use http traffic for tests as its the least shaped out of all the protocols, try p2p and game server's from overseas.
 
KinsZA said:
Well I wouldnt use http traffic for tests as its the least shaped out of all the protocols, try p2p and game server's from overseas.
Click to expand...

Fair point. However, I deliberately stuck to HTTP because browsing has never been up to speed (literally) on 4Mbps lines. Especially when you consider how many people report the "50KB/sec-per-thread" limit. Also, P2P and using download managers that multi-thread (for example) has not really been an issue, with people able to get decent speeds.

General browsing is just as important to me (and I am sure it is to others also) - specifically, browsing international web sites (and streaming from YouTube, etc.). My tests indicate that IS has a significant advantage over SAIX for this particular purpose.

I use P2P quite a bit, so I'll try and compare its performance and report back.
 
arf9999 said:
Can you redo these tests during peak period? From my experience IS is pretty good out of business hours but slows down markedly during Biz hours.

BTW Nice test!
Click to expand...

Thanks :) I'm at work during peak hours, so unsure when I will get a chance to do a peak-time comparison. However, I assume that Monday, even though it is a public holiday, will be considered peak time from 7am-5pm. I will re-do my tests then and report back.
 
Quick update: p2p (bittorrent) performance comparison...

OpenOffice torrent (very well seeded), run from 0% each time for exactly 2 minutes.

SAIX
----
Completed: 41.5MB
Average download speed: 351.7KB/sec
Peak download speed: 418KB/sec

IS
----
Completed: 46.5MB
Average download speed: 396.9KB/sec
Peak download speed: 422KB/sec

***P2P BONUS ROUND: IS WIN!***


Side note: I'm so convinced by the markedly better (browsing) performance of IS Fibre Semi-shaped over SAIX shaped that I signed up for an account with Nexus. Sign up was fast and easy, and although it was not instant, it was activated within 10 minutes (I guess that is near instant :D) Would love to have stayed with Axxess (much better control panel than Nexus', which requires logging in directly to IS' control panel to view usage), but with Axxess at ~R80/GB and Nexus at R57/GB, there really is no question which to go for... Nexus also provides a like-for-like local cap. OpenWeb would have been another of my choices, but they do not provide the IS Fibre Semi-shaped accounts via credit card payment method (only EFT / debit order). Activation is also not instant.

I'm keeping my 10GB (R49/GB) SAIX shaped account with Web Africa for my heavy downloading, and my IS semi-shaped account with Nexus for general web surfing. Looks like this combo will work well :cool:

Will try and do the 'peak' test later today.
 
fz1 said:
Side note: I'm so convinced by the markedly better (browsing) performance of IS Fibre Semi-shaped over SAIX shaped that I signed up for an account with Nexus. Sign up was fast and easy, and although it was not instant, it was activated within 10 minutes (I guess that is near instant :D) Would love to have stayed with Axxess (much better control panel than Nexus', which requires logging in directly to IS' control panel to view usage), but with Axxess at ~R80/GB and Nexus at R57/GB, there really is no question which to go for... Nexus also provides a like-for-like local cap. OpenWeb would have been another of my choices, but they do not provide the IS Fibre Semi-shaped accounts via credit card payment method (only EFT / debit order). Activation is also not instant.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to confirm your comparison between Nexus and Axxess costs and offerings but I am finding different info on their websites. Firstly I am battling to find IS packages on the Axxess website? Or were you comparing Axxess SAIX to Nexus IS with those costs? Secondly I find that on the Nexus website it shows 1Gb IS semi shaped + 1Gb local for R65, you mention R57, is this the same product but already a little more expensive?

I would also like feedback on whether these comparisons would even make a difference to those people on the "lower end" packages like myself on a 384k line? I assume not as I am not concerned about those speeds as I will get no where near them :). When they shape what do they throttle the p2p, streaming etc to anyway?

Another thing is we are obviously not doubting that the SAIX NS is still far superior, am I correct?
 
LancelotSA said:
Firstly I am battling to find IS packages on the Axxess website? Or were you comparing Axxess SAIX to Nexus IS with those costs?
Click to expand...

As TheLoot says ;) For my particular case, I was looking at the 7GB semi-shaped package. Axxess 7GB is R559 (= ~R79.86/GB)


LancelotSA said:
Secondly I find that on the Nexus website it shows 1Gb IS semi shaped + 1Gb local for R65, you mention R57, is this the same product but already a little more expensive?
Click to expand...

You are looking at the correct product. However, I was looking at the 7GB package. Nexus 7GB is R399 (= R57/GB effectively)


LancelotSA said:
I would also like feedback on whether these comparisons would even make a difference to those people on the "lower end" packages like myself on a 384k line? I assume not as I am not concerned about those speeds as I will get no where near them :).
Click to expand...

I obviously cannot test that. However, I would guess that you would NOT see much of a difference between SAIX Shaped and IS Fibre Semi-shaped in terms of pure speed. My reasoning for this is because of my results on the speed tests with the SAIX shaped product: they are already exceeding (or at least approaching) 384Kbps line speeds. So, a 384Kbps line would (theoretically at least) not hit these "walls" or limits to begin with. However, the lower latencies would benefit you, and perhaps you would be able to perceive a slightly faster response time and load time from international web sites with IS Fibre Semi-shaped. I would recommend you try it out for yourself. Get 1GB of prepaid IS Fibre Semi-shaped from Axxess, and compare it to your SAIX Shaped... Alternatively, just repeat all the tests that I have done below with your existing account and see how it compares (to the SAIX results in my tests)

LancelotSA said:
When they shape what do they throttle the p2p, streaming etc to anyway?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not sure on this. I would imagine it would still work, but be painfully slow (think 56Kbps dial-up speeds). I think if they were applying the rules like they do (did?) - assuming I recall correctly - on the uncapped express accounts where you would still be able to get half your package speed on P2P during peak, they would be advertising that fact proudly. They're not...

LancelotSA said:
Another thing is we are obviously not doubting that the SAIX NS is still far superior, am I correct?
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. SAIX Unshaped has not been brought into this test as I do not have an account (and don't feel the need to blow R100+ for 1GB to test with). Besides, as I mentioned earlier it is so much more expensive that it is priced out of contention for me (to use on a daily basis to browse with).
 
Re-test

I had assumed that today being a weekday, shaping rules would apply. I redid all the tests and they are so close to my original results that I conclude that the shaping rules are smart enough to give us unshaped freedom during public holidays (or, the rules are just very relaxed and optimised :p)

FIGHT!


SAIX
----
>ping gooogle.com

Pinging gooogle.com [66.249.93.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=236
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=236
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=236
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 66.249.93.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 351ms, Maximum = 352ms, Average = 351ms

>ping yahoo.com

Pinging yahoo.com [206.190.60.37] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=47
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=47
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=47
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 206.190.60.37:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 373ms, Maximum = 374ms, Average = 373ms
Click to expand...

IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
>ping gooogle.com

Pinging gooogle.com [64.233.161.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=311ms TTL=233
Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=233
Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=233
Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=233

Ping statistics for 64.233.161.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 258ms, Maximum = 311ms, Average = 272ms

>ping yahoo.com

Pinging yahoo.com [206.190.60.37] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=43
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=43
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=43
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=43

Ping statistics for 206.190.60.37:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 266ms, Maximum = 268ms, Average = 267ms
Click to expand...

***Round 1: IS WIN!***




Local Performance (Downstream speed / Upstream speed)... I am in Sandton, Johannesburg

SAIX
----
Speedtest to JHB: 3488Kbps / 430Kbps, 35ms
Speedtest to CPT: 3445Kbps / 423Kbps, 24ms


IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
Speedtest to JHB: 3488Kbps / 427Kbps, 47ms
Speedtest to CPT: 3445Kbps / 423Kbps, 26ms


***ROUND 2: TIE! (slight edge to SAIX)***





International Performance (Downstream speed / Upstream speed)

SAIX
----
http://toast.net/performance
^Shuttle+Text via 1&1: 345Kbps
^Blue Angels via Microsoft Live: 420Kbps
^Upload Speed Test via Yocolo (3.5MB JPG): 445Kbps - 66s

http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest
^Flash based Test to New York (SpeakEasy): 287ms, 303Kbps, 263Kbps (NO ISP upload compression detected)

http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/: 904Kbps/ 96Kbps



IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
http://toast.net/performance
^Shuttle+Text via 1&1: 1360Kbps
^Blue Angels via Microsoft Live: 1830Kbps
^Upload Speed Test via Yocolo (3.5MB JPG): 445Kbps - 66s

http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest
^Flash based Test to New York (SpeakEasy): 172ms, 1435Kbps, 422Kbps (ISP upload compression detected)

http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/: 2040Kbps/ 381Kbps

***FINAL ROUND: IS WIN! FATALITY!***



P2P Performance
OpenOffice torrent (very well seeded), run from 0% each time for exactly 2 minutes.


SAIX
----
Completed: 40.6MB
Average download speed: 344.3KB/sec
Peak: 423.6KB/sec


IS FIBRE SEMI-SHAPED
----
Completed: 45.2MB
Average download speed: 382.2KB/sec
Peak: 422.7KB/sec

***P2P BONUS ROUND: IS WIN!***
 
(summarized version of all tests)


here is saix shaped, unshaped and verizon unshaped to google

-test time 3:04pm, 16 june 2008
-echo count 10

[saix shaped]
ping google.com -n 10

Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=317ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=239
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=317ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 317ms, Maximum = 328ms, Average = 321ms


[saix unshaped]
ping google.com -n 10

Pinging google.com [64.233.187.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=286ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=286ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=286ms TTL=240
Reply from 64.233.187.99: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=240

Ping statistics for 64.233.187.99:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 286ms, Maximum = 291ms, Average = 287ms


[verizon unshaped]
ping google.com -n 10

Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=360ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=299ms TTL=237
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 283ms, Maximum = 364ms, Average = 309ms
 
Last edited:
(summarized version of all tests)


here is saix shaped, unshaped and verizon unshaped to yahoo

-test time 3:10pm, 16 june 2008
-echo count 10

[saix shaped]
ping yahoo.com -n 10

Pinging yahoo.com [68.180.206.184] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=46
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=46
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=331ms TTL=47
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=331ms TTL=46
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=331ms TTL=47
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=47
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=46
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=331ms TTL=47
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=46
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=331ms TTL=46

Ping statistics for 68.180.206.184:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 331ms, Maximum = 333ms, Average = 331ms


[saix unshaped]
ping yahoo.com -n 10

Pinging yahoo.com [206.190.60.37] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=54
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 206.190.60.37:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 264ms, Maximum = 265ms, Average = 264ms


[verizon unshaped]
ping yahoo.com -n 10

Pinging yahoo.com [206.190.60.37] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=45
Reply from 206.190.60.37: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=45

Ping statistics for 206.190.60.37:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 270ms, Maximum = 346ms, Average = 292ms
 
Last edited:
(summarized version of all tests)


here is saix unshaped and verizon unshaped with speedtest.net

-test time 3:52pm, 16 june 2008
-2x each go

verizon unshaped
to CT
d: 3456 kbps
u: 428 kbps
p: 41ms

to JHB
d: 3241 kbps
u: 427 kbps
p: 61ms

to london uk
d: 2843 kb/s
u: 383 kb/s
p: 417 ms

to usa (washington dc)
d: 2621 kb/s
u: 274 kb/s
p: 598 ms

saix unshaped
to CT
d: 3459 kbps
u: 430 kbps
p: 27 ms

to JHB
d: 3448 kb/s
u: 252 kb/s
p: 28 ms

to london uk
d: 2754 kb/s
u: 319 kb/s
p: 531 ms

to usa (washington dc)
d: 2910 kb/s
u: 321 kb/s
p: 537 ms
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X