Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test

Thu Apr 4 05:01:59 UTC 2013

The only reliable way to really test performance is to saturate the
pipe (Iperf) and have a sufficiently well provisioned target. NDT does
a good job using short non-saturation tests, but it is susceptible to
slow start and other challenges. In general, NDT results will be more
conservative than best case, whereas a lot of other tests are very
optimistic best cases.

FWIW, the actively maintained code has moved to:
https://code.google.com/p/ndt/ and 3.6.4 is a bit more stable and
flexible on some platforms than 3.6.5.

You can either standup your own test server or point at the public
sites run by a few universities and MeasurementLab
(http://www.measurementlab.net/mlab_sites), which are not as widely
distributed as the Ookla / speedtest.net targets, but they tend to be
better provisioned and the result data for the Mlab targets is made
available to the public.

Once you've compiled the client, you can run again the closest host via:
$ web100clt -n ndt.iupui.donar.measurement-lab.org

(default install will put the test client in /usr/local/bin)

If anybody want to host Mlab collection servers, they're always
looking for more hosts (http://measurementlab.net/getinvolved).

--
Andy

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- nick at foobar.org wrote:
> From: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
>
>>> They may do some magic with bandwidth delay products.. If that was the case,
>>> they may have written it for a standard latency versus something that is
>>> unreasonable by interweb standards.
>
> I don't know how they calculate bandwidth, but I was surprised that their system
> gave such wrong results under what were effectively lab conditions.
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> It'd be nice to know if NDT was not accurate as well.  Anyone tested it?
>
> scott
>