iperf giving incorrect results
I've just had new broadband installed, and wanted to test its throughput using iperf3. However it appears to be giving considerably different results than more conventional speed tests.
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec receiver
Whereas online speed tests show the expected results of ~150 Mbits
3.testdebit.info has been tested from azure and is consistently around 330Mbits (though who knows what that means any more!)
I have tried various different servers, including a linux box hosted on azure - that delivers ~100Mbits to another azure box. This was also performed on port 80, to rule out any ISP throttling. All of those results are comparable.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Can anyone shed any light on why iperf3 might be so low (or am I being really stupid and reading something wrong!)
These are all on the same computer, over ethernet so no wireless etc to get in the way.
edited to add
Performing the same test with iperf2 (on windows client (iPerf 2.0.5-3) and ubuntu (iperf version 2.0.5)) gives these results
E:tmpiperf2> iperf -c <hidden>.cloudapp.net -p 5201
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to <hidden>.cloudapp.net, TCP port 5201
TCP window size: 63.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.0.2 port 51816 connected with <hidden> port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.1 sec 12.1 MBytes 10.0 Mbits/sec
The same performed from a linux based NAS
Nas:~# iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec receiver
And with the -R flag
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 58.0 MBytes 48.6 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 57.0 MBytes 47.8 Mbits/sec receiver
To ensure it isn't a server issue, I have upgraded the azure VM to a size that now pulls 600Mbit up / 1Gbit down from the 3.testdebit.info server
In response to John Looker's answer
My main purpose of the question was trying to understand why iperf was giving such varied results. I understand that uploads are heavily shared, and aren't too concerned with that (or at least its a different question!)
The Azure servers I was using were in North and West Europe (Amsterdam and Ireland I believe) and with an online speedtest achieved in the area of 240Mb/s
It does however appear that multithreading was the issue, I have just rerun the test, using four threads instead of the default one -
E:tmp>iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R -P 5
Connecting to host 3.testdebit.info, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 3.testdebit.info is sending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 195 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 50 sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 190 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec receiver
networking performance iperf
|
show 6 more comments
I've just had new broadband installed, and wanted to test its throughput using iperf3. However it appears to be giving considerably different results than more conventional speed tests.
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec receiver
Whereas online speed tests show the expected results of ~150 Mbits
3.testdebit.info has been tested from azure and is consistently around 330Mbits (though who knows what that means any more!)
I have tried various different servers, including a linux box hosted on azure - that delivers ~100Mbits to another azure box. This was also performed on port 80, to rule out any ISP throttling. All of those results are comparable.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Can anyone shed any light on why iperf3 might be so low (or am I being really stupid and reading something wrong!)
These are all on the same computer, over ethernet so no wireless etc to get in the way.
edited to add
Performing the same test with iperf2 (on windows client (iPerf 2.0.5-3) and ubuntu (iperf version 2.0.5)) gives these results
E:tmpiperf2> iperf -c <hidden>.cloudapp.net -p 5201
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to <hidden>.cloudapp.net, TCP port 5201
TCP window size: 63.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.0.2 port 51816 connected with <hidden> port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.1 sec 12.1 MBytes 10.0 Mbits/sec
The same performed from a linux based NAS
Nas:~# iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec receiver
And with the -R flag
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 58.0 MBytes 48.6 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 57.0 MBytes 47.8 Mbits/sec receiver
To ensure it isn't a server issue, I have upgraded the azure VM to a size that now pulls 600Mbit up / 1Gbit down from the 3.testdebit.info server
In response to John Looker's answer
My main purpose of the question was trying to understand why iperf was giving such varied results. I understand that uploads are heavily shared, and aren't too concerned with that (or at least its a different question!)
The Azure servers I was using were in North and West Europe (Amsterdam and Ireland I believe) and with an online speedtest achieved in the area of 240Mb/s
It does however appear that multithreading was the issue, I have just rerun the test, using four threads instead of the default one -
E:tmp>iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R -P 5
Connecting to host 3.testdebit.info, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 3.testdebit.info is sending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 195 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 50 sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 190 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec receiver
networking performance iperf
Could you do me a favor and retest with iperf 2.0.x instead of iperf3? iperf3 was a big rewrite that I don't trust, and I wonder if this is further evidence.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 17:36
@Spiff question edited with further results - connecting to public servers gave peculiar results! (values given in bits - it seemed - but they didn't add up)
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 17:51
The values add up, it's just that file sizes are usually given in MebiBytes (MiB), whereas network speeds are usually given in megabits (Mb). So you can't just multiply/divide by 8. It's closer to 8.2 for kb/KiB, 8.4 for Mb/MiB, and 8.6 for Gb/GiB.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:17
I don't understand how it can get from 48.6Mbits to ~130Mbits by multiplying by anything close to eight though! - oddly though, 12Mbits is about upload speed
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:29
Just so I can be sure I'm following you correctly, when you say, "Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit", does that "gb" mean gigabits (1,000,000,000's of individual bits) or does it mean GibiBytes (1,073,741,824's of 8-bit Bytes)?
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 20:33
|
show 6 more comments
I've just had new broadband installed, and wanted to test its throughput using iperf3. However it appears to be giving considerably different results than more conventional speed tests.
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec receiver
Whereas online speed tests show the expected results of ~150 Mbits
3.testdebit.info has been tested from azure and is consistently around 330Mbits (though who knows what that means any more!)
I have tried various different servers, including a linux box hosted on azure - that delivers ~100Mbits to another azure box. This was also performed on port 80, to rule out any ISP throttling. All of those results are comparable.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Can anyone shed any light on why iperf3 might be so low (or am I being really stupid and reading something wrong!)
These are all on the same computer, over ethernet so no wireless etc to get in the way.
edited to add
Performing the same test with iperf2 (on windows client (iPerf 2.0.5-3) and ubuntu (iperf version 2.0.5)) gives these results
E:tmpiperf2> iperf -c <hidden>.cloudapp.net -p 5201
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to <hidden>.cloudapp.net, TCP port 5201
TCP window size: 63.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.0.2 port 51816 connected with <hidden> port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.1 sec 12.1 MBytes 10.0 Mbits/sec
The same performed from a linux based NAS
Nas:~# iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec receiver
And with the -R flag
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 58.0 MBytes 48.6 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 57.0 MBytes 47.8 Mbits/sec receiver
To ensure it isn't a server issue, I have upgraded the azure VM to a size that now pulls 600Mbit up / 1Gbit down from the 3.testdebit.info server
In response to John Looker's answer
My main purpose of the question was trying to understand why iperf was giving such varied results. I understand that uploads are heavily shared, and aren't too concerned with that (or at least its a different question!)
The Azure servers I was using were in North and West Europe (Amsterdam and Ireland I believe) and with an online speedtest achieved in the area of 240Mb/s
It does however appear that multithreading was the issue, I have just rerun the test, using four threads instead of the default one -
E:tmp>iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R -P 5
Connecting to host 3.testdebit.info, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 3.testdebit.info is sending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 195 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 50 sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 190 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec receiver
networking performance iperf
I've just had new broadband installed, and wanted to test its throughput using iperf3. However it appears to be giving considerably different results than more conventional speed tests.
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 13.1 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec receiver
Whereas online speed tests show the expected results of ~150 Mbits
3.testdebit.info has been tested from azure and is consistently around 330Mbits (though who knows what that means any more!)
I have tried various different servers, including a linux box hosted on azure - that delivers ~100Mbits to another azure box. This was also performed on port 80, to rule out any ISP throttling. All of those results are comparable.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Can anyone shed any light on why iperf3 might be so low (or am I being really stupid and reading something wrong!)
These are all on the same computer, over ethernet so no wireless etc to get in the way.
edited to add
Performing the same test with iperf2 (on windows client (iPerf 2.0.5-3) and ubuntu (iperf version 2.0.5)) gives these results
E:tmpiperf2> iperf -c <hidden>.cloudapp.net -p 5201
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to <hidden>.cloudapp.net, TCP port 5201
TCP window size: 63.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.0.2 port 51816 connected with <hidden> port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.1 sec 12.1 MBytes 10.0 Mbits/sec
The same performed from a linux based NAS
Nas:~# iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 14.5 MBytes 12.2 Mbits/sec receiver
And with the -R flag
E:tmp> iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 58.0 MBytes 48.6 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 57.0 MBytes 47.8 Mbits/sec receiver
To ensure it isn't a server issue, I have upgraded the azure VM to a size that now pulls 600Mbit up / 1Gbit down from the 3.testdebit.info server
In response to John Looker's answer
My main purpose of the question was trying to understand why iperf was giving such varied results. I understand that uploads are heavily shared, and aren't too concerned with that (or at least its a different question!)
The Azure servers I was using were in North and West Europe (Amsterdam and Ireland I believe) and with an online speedtest achieved in the area of 240Mb/s
It does however appear that multithreading was the issue, I have just rerun the test, using four threads instead of the default one -
E:tmp>iperf3 -c 3.testdebit.info -R -P 5
Connecting to host 3.testdebit.info, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 3.testdebit.info is sending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 195 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 50 sender
[SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 190 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec receiver
networking performance iperf
networking performance iperf
edited Aug 21 '15 at 8:32
Michael B
asked Aug 13 '15 at 17:32
Michael BMichael B
624517
624517
Could you do me a favor and retest with iperf 2.0.x instead of iperf3? iperf3 was a big rewrite that I don't trust, and I wonder if this is further evidence.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 17:36
@Spiff question edited with further results - connecting to public servers gave peculiar results! (values given in bits - it seemed - but they didn't add up)
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 17:51
The values add up, it's just that file sizes are usually given in MebiBytes (MiB), whereas network speeds are usually given in megabits (Mb). So you can't just multiply/divide by 8. It's closer to 8.2 for kb/KiB, 8.4 for Mb/MiB, and 8.6 for Gb/GiB.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:17
I don't understand how it can get from 48.6Mbits to ~130Mbits by multiplying by anything close to eight though! - oddly though, 12Mbits is about upload speed
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:29
Just so I can be sure I'm following you correctly, when you say, "Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit", does that "gb" mean gigabits (1,000,000,000's of individual bits) or does it mean GibiBytes (1,073,741,824's of 8-bit Bytes)?
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 20:33
|
show 6 more comments
Could you do me a favor and retest with iperf 2.0.x instead of iperf3? iperf3 was a big rewrite that I don't trust, and I wonder if this is further evidence.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 17:36
@Spiff question edited with further results - connecting to public servers gave peculiar results! (values given in bits - it seemed - but they didn't add up)
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 17:51
The values add up, it's just that file sizes are usually given in MebiBytes (MiB), whereas network speeds are usually given in megabits (Mb). So you can't just multiply/divide by 8. It's closer to 8.2 for kb/KiB, 8.4 for Mb/MiB, and 8.6 for Gb/GiB.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:17
I don't understand how it can get from 48.6Mbits to ~130Mbits by multiplying by anything close to eight though! - oddly though, 12Mbits is about upload speed
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:29
Just so I can be sure I'm following you correctly, when you say, "Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit", does that "gb" mean gigabits (1,000,000,000's of individual bits) or does it mean GibiBytes (1,073,741,824's of 8-bit Bytes)?
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 20:33
Could you do me a favor and retest with iperf 2.0.x instead of iperf3? iperf3 was a big rewrite that I don't trust, and I wonder if this is further evidence.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 17:36
Could you do me a favor and retest with iperf 2.0.x instead of iperf3? iperf3 was a big rewrite that I don't trust, and I wonder if this is further evidence.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 17:36
@Spiff question edited with further results - connecting to public servers gave peculiar results! (values given in bits - it seemed - but they didn't add up)
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 17:51
@Spiff question edited with further results - connecting to public servers gave peculiar results! (values given in bits - it seemed - but they didn't add up)
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 17:51
The values add up, it's just that file sizes are usually given in MebiBytes (MiB), whereas network speeds are usually given in megabits (Mb). So you can't just multiply/divide by 8. It's closer to 8.2 for kb/KiB, 8.4 for Mb/MiB, and 8.6 for Gb/GiB.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:17
The values add up, it's just that file sizes are usually given in MebiBytes (MiB), whereas network speeds are usually given in megabits (Mb). So you can't just multiply/divide by 8. It's closer to 8.2 for kb/KiB, 8.4 for Mb/MiB, and 8.6 for Gb/GiB.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:17
I don't understand how it can get from 48.6Mbits to ~130Mbits by multiplying by anything close to eight though! - oddly though, 12Mbits is about upload speed
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:29
I don't understand how it can get from 48.6Mbits to ~130Mbits by multiplying by anything close to eight though! - oddly though, 12Mbits is about upload speed
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:29
Just so I can be sure I'm following you correctly, when you say, "Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit", does that "gb" mean gigabits (1,000,000,000's of individual bits) or does it mean GibiBytes (1,073,741,824's of 8-bit Bytes)?
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 20:33
Just so I can be sure I'm following you correctly, when you say, "Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit", does that "gb" mean gigabits (1,000,000,000's of individual bits) or does it mean GibiBytes (1,073,741,824's of 8-bit Bytes)?
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 20:33
|
show 6 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
- Good conventional speed tests are multi-threaded and create multiple connections to the speed test server. Thus maxing out your connection to its full potential.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#324
iPerf3 appears to only create two connections (using the default options), which may not be enough to max out your 152Mb broadband, particularly when congestion comes into play.
Your download test also suggests multi-threaded connections.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Your calculation is wrong however.
((3.5GB x 8bits x1024x1024x1024 ) / 210s ) / 1000000Mbit = 143Mb/s average.
An average speed of 143Mb/s is good for a download on the 152Mb tier.
While the 152Mb tier will max out at 161Mb/s burst download speed (your modem is over-profiled to guarantee speeds), average speeds will often be slightly lower due to several factors.
- Rate limiting by the server.
- TCP Receive Window needs time to ramp up speed.
- Cable modem request-grant cycle.
- Congestion at the node. You're sharing your cable connection (and therefore your downstream channels) with hundreds of other people. The 8 x 256 QAM downstream channels you have locked on your cable modem have a maximum usable bandwidth of 400Mb in total, coming from the node. This is shared between you and all the other users on your cable with the same channels as you. When other users are using their connection during your download, the speeds will naturally vary a bit.
- Congestion on the route.
- Congestion at the server.
- Any packet loss and re-transmission.
Upstream bandwidth is highly contended with other users on your cable to the node.
If you have 2 x 16 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 17Mb = 34Mb with many other users.
If you have 2 x 64 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 27Mb = 54Mb with many other users.
- Over long distances latency will become a factor in the speeds you can achieve.
You didn't state which Azure server you were using, whether UK, Europe or America.
Your iPerf3 server is in France and may or may not route through LINX, depending on your location. Congestion on the route could be a problem sometimes, once it leaves the VM network, particularly at peering points.
- Non-standard ports will often be treated as P2P traffic.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#323
Although there is no downstream traffic management on downloads, streaming, gaming and so on, on the 30Mb and above tiers, if your traffic is classed as P2P then it will be traffic managed and the speed reduced during peak hours.
The reason is that the upstream bandwidth is very scarce as it's shared by hundreds of users, and so any program that might swamp the upstream would be very bad for everybody on your cable. That's also why the upstream is still traffic managed.
Outside peak-time you should be able to max out your connection in any way you like.
Beware tests that use small file sizes.
There are a range of test files you can use here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/Your download was unlikely to be delivered by a CDN or cached inside the VM network. When I was on 152Mb I regularly downloaded and streamed at 161Mb directly from servers. CDN's tend to make delivery slower rather than faster!
You need to provide further specifics on your testing strategy in order to answer the original question.
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
add a comment |
Beware that IPerf defaults to an "upload" test: The IPerf client (-c
) sends TCP data to the IPerf server (-s
). It looks like you were running the client on your LAN and connecting to an IPerf server hosted on the public Internet, so you were testing your new broadband connection's upload, not download, speed.
To test its download speed, either reverse which end you invoke as -s
/-c
, or use -r
to specify that you want it to do a "reverse" (download) test after it does the normal test.
Beware that if your LAN machine is behind a NAT or firewall, you may have to open/map/forward a port appropriately for the download test to work.
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f956665%2fiperf-giving-incorrect-results%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
- Good conventional speed tests are multi-threaded and create multiple connections to the speed test server. Thus maxing out your connection to its full potential.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#324
iPerf3 appears to only create two connections (using the default options), which may not be enough to max out your 152Mb broadband, particularly when congestion comes into play.
Your download test also suggests multi-threaded connections.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Your calculation is wrong however.
((3.5GB x 8bits x1024x1024x1024 ) / 210s ) / 1000000Mbit = 143Mb/s average.
An average speed of 143Mb/s is good for a download on the 152Mb tier.
While the 152Mb tier will max out at 161Mb/s burst download speed (your modem is over-profiled to guarantee speeds), average speeds will often be slightly lower due to several factors.
- Rate limiting by the server.
- TCP Receive Window needs time to ramp up speed.
- Cable modem request-grant cycle.
- Congestion at the node. You're sharing your cable connection (and therefore your downstream channels) with hundreds of other people. The 8 x 256 QAM downstream channels you have locked on your cable modem have a maximum usable bandwidth of 400Mb in total, coming from the node. This is shared between you and all the other users on your cable with the same channels as you. When other users are using their connection during your download, the speeds will naturally vary a bit.
- Congestion on the route.
- Congestion at the server.
- Any packet loss and re-transmission.
Upstream bandwidth is highly contended with other users on your cable to the node.
If you have 2 x 16 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 17Mb = 34Mb with many other users.
If you have 2 x 64 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 27Mb = 54Mb with many other users.
- Over long distances latency will become a factor in the speeds you can achieve.
You didn't state which Azure server you were using, whether UK, Europe or America.
Your iPerf3 server is in France and may or may not route through LINX, depending on your location. Congestion on the route could be a problem sometimes, once it leaves the VM network, particularly at peering points.
- Non-standard ports will often be treated as P2P traffic.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#323
Although there is no downstream traffic management on downloads, streaming, gaming and so on, on the 30Mb and above tiers, if your traffic is classed as P2P then it will be traffic managed and the speed reduced during peak hours.
The reason is that the upstream bandwidth is very scarce as it's shared by hundreds of users, and so any program that might swamp the upstream would be very bad for everybody on your cable. That's also why the upstream is still traffic managed.
Outside peak-time you should be able to max out your connection in any way you like.
Beware tests that use small file sizes.
There are a range of test files you can use here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/Your download was unlikely to be delivered by a CDN or cached inside the VM network. When I was on 152Mb I regularly downloaded and streamed at 161Mb directly from servers. CDN's tend to make delivery slower rather than faster!
You need to provide further specifics on your testing strategy in order to answer the original question.
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
add a comment |
- Good conventional speed tests are multi-threaded and create multiple connections to the speed test server. Thus maxing out your connection to its full potential.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#324
iPerf3 appears to only create two connections (using the default options), which may not be enough to max out your 152Mb broadband, particularly when congestion comes into play.
Your download test also suggests multi-threaded connections.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Your calculation is wrong however.
((3.5GB x 8bits x1024x1024x1024 ) / 210s ) / 1000000Mbit = 143Mb/s average.
An average speed of 143Mb/s is good for a download on the 152Mb tier.
While the 152Mb tier will max out at 161Mb/s burst download speed (your modem is over-profiled to guarantee speeds), average speeds will often be slightly lower due to several factors.
- Rate limiting by the server.
- TCP Receive Window needs time to ramp up speed.
- Cable modem request-grant cycle.
- Congestion at the node. You're sharing your cable connection (and therefore your downstream channels) with hundreds of other people. The 8 x 256 QAM downstream channels you have locked on your cable modem have a maximum usable bandwidth of 400Mb in total, coming from the node. This is shared between you and all the other users on your cable with the same channels as you. When other users are using their connection during your download, the speeds will naturally vary a bit.
- Congestion on the route.
- Congestion at the server.
- Any packet loss and re-transmission.
Upstream bandwidth is highly contended with other users on your cable to the node.
If you have 2 x 16 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 17Mb = 34Mb with many other users.
If you have 2 x 64 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 27Mb = 54Mb with many other users.
- Over long distances latency will become a factor in the speeds you can achieve.
You didn't state which Azure server you were using, whether UK, Europe or America.
Your iPerf3 server is in France and may or may not route through LINX, depending on your location. Congestion on the route could be a problem sometimes, once it leaves the VM network, particularly at peering points.
- Non-standard ports will often be treated as P2P traffic.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#323
Although there is no downstream traffic management on downloads, streaming, gaming and so on, on the 30Mb and above tiers, if your traffic is classed as P2P then it will be traffic managed and the speed reduced during peak hours.
The reason is that the upstream bandwidth is very scarce as it's shared by hundreds of users, and so any program that might swamp the upstream would be very bad for everybody on your cable. That's also why the upstream is still traffic managed.
Outside peak-time you should be able to max out your connection in any way you like.
Beware tests that use small file sizes.
There are a range of test files you can use here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/Your download was unlikely to be delivered by a CDN or cached inside the VM network. When I was on 152Mb I regularly downloaded and streamed at 161Mb directly from servers. CDN's tend to make delivery slower rather than faster!
You need to provide further specifics on your testing strategy in order to answer the original question.
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
add a comment |
- Good conventional speed tests are multi-threaded and create multiple connections to the speed test server. Thus maxing out your connection to its full potential.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#324
iPerf3 appears to only create two connections (using the default options), which may not be enough to max out your 152Mb broadband, particularly when congestion comes into play.
Your download test also suggests multi-threaded connections.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Your calculation is wrong however.
((3.5GB x 8bits x1024x1024x1024 ) / 210s ) / 1000000Mbit = 143Mb/s average.
An average speed of 143Mb/s is good for a download on the 152Mb tier.
While the 152Mb tier will max out at 161Mb/s burst download speed (your modem is over-profiled to guarantee speeds), average speeds will often be slightly lower due to several factors.
- Rate limiting by the server.
- TCP Receive Window needs time to ramp up speed.
- Cable modem request-grant cycle.
- Congestion at the node. You're sharing your cable connection (and therefore your downstream channels) with hundreds of other people. The 8 x 256 QAM downstream channels you have locked on your cable modem have a maximum usable bandwidth of 400Mb in total, coming from the node. This is shared between you and all the other users on your cable with the same channels as you. When other users are using their connection during your download, the speeds will naturally vary a bit.
- Congestion on the route.
- Congestion at the server.
- Any packet loss and re-transmission.
Upstream bandwidth is highly contended with other users on your cable to the node.
If you have 2 x 16 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 17Mb = 34Mb with many other users.
If you have 2 x 64 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 27Mb = 54Mb with many other users.
- Over long distances latency will become a factor in the speeds you can achieve.
You didn't state which Azure server you were using, whether UK, Europe or America.
Your iPerf3 server is in France and may or may not route through LINX, depending on your location. Congestion on the route could be a problem sometimes, once it leaves the VM network, particularly at peering points.
- Non-standard ports will often be treated as P2P traffic.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#323
Although there is no downstream traffic management on downloads, streaming, gaming and so on, on the 30Mb and above tiers, if your traffic is classed as P2P then it will be traffic managed and the speed reduced during peak hours.
The reason is that the upstream bandwidth is very scarce as it's shared by hundreds of users, and so any program that might swamp the upstream would be very bad for everybody on your cable. That's also why the upstream is still traffic managed.
Outside peak-time you should be able to max out your connection in any way you like.
Beware tests that use small file sizes.
There are a range of test files you can use here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/Your download was unlikely to be delivered by a CDN or cached inside the VM network. When I was on 152Mb I regularly downloaded and streamed at 161Mb directly from servers. CDN's tend to make delivery slower rather than faster!
You need to provide further specifics on your testing strategy in order to answer the original question.
- Good conventional speed tests are multi-threaded and create multiple connections to the speed test server. Thus maxing out your connection to its full potential.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#324
iPerf3 appears to only create two connections (using the default options), which may not be enough to max out your 152Mb broadband, particularly when congestion comes into play.
Your download test also suggests multi-threaded connections.
Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit
Your calculation is wrong however.
((3.5GB x 8bits x1024x1024x1024 ) / 210s ) / 1000000Mbit = 143Mb/s average.
An average speed of 143Mb/s is good for a download on the 152Mb tier.
While the 152Mb tier will max out at 161Mb/s burst download speed (your modem is over-profiled to guarantee speeds), average speeds will often be slightly lower due to several factors.
- Rate limiting by the server.
- TCP Receive Window needs time to ramp up speed.
- Cable modem request-grant cycle.
- Congestion at the node. You're sharing your cable connection (and therefore your downstream channels) with hundreds of other people. The 8 x 256 QAM downstream channels you have locked on your cable modem have a maximum usable bandwidth of 400Mb in total, coming from the node. This is shared between you and all the other users on your cable with the same channels as you. When other users are using their connection during your download, the speeds will naturally vary a bit.
- Congestion on the route.
- Congestion at the server.
- Any packet loss and re-transmission.
Upstream bandwidth is highly contended with other users on your cable to the node.
If you have 2 x 16 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 17Mb = 34Mb with many other users.
If you have 2 x 64 QAM upstream channels locked, then you're sharing 2 x 27Mb = 54Mb with many other users.
- Over long distances latency will become a factor in the speeds you can achieve.
You didn't state which Azure server you were using, whether UK, Europe or America.
Your iPerf3 server is in France and may or may not route through LINX, depending on your location. Congestion on the route could be a problem sometimes, once it leaves the VM network, particularly at peering points.
- Non-standard ports will often be treated as P2P traffic.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#323
Although there is no downstream traffic management on downloads, streaming, gaming and so on, on the 30Mb and above tiers, if your traffic is classed as P2P then it will be traffic managed and the speed reduced during peak hours.
The reason is that the upstream bandwidth is very scarce as it's shared by hundreds of users, and so any program that might swamp the upstream would be very bad for everybody on your cable. That's also why the upstream is still traffic managed.
Outside peak-time you should be able to max out your connection in any way you like.
Beware tests that use small file sizes.
There are a range of test files you can use here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/Your download was unlikely to be delivered by a CDN or cached inside the VM network. When I was on 152Mb I regularly downloaded and streamed at 161Mb directly from servers. CDN's tend to make delivery slower rather than faster!
You need to provide further specifics on your testing strategy in order to answer the original question.
edited Aug 21 '15 at 13:47
answered Aug 21 '15 at 3:50
John LookerJohn Looker
1263
1263
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
add a comment |
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
It appears that it was a multithreading issue, after setting iperf to multithread it gave consistent results - see amended question (and thank you!)
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 8:33
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
You're welcome. It would be useful for you to run a comparison with thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html and post the graph result. You may find that shows congestion at certain times of the day on the green HTTP x 1 test, whereas the HTTP x 6 test maxes out.
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 13:54
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
After the initial confusion of forgetting I was logged into Azure! (how am I getting 200mb upload!) they are also giving results consistent with the other's I've seen Results here - My initial idea for wanting iperf consistent was that I was thinking of running a scripted test to check the performance by the hour - which I can now do!
– Michael B
Aug 21 '15 at 14:14
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
Register for Samknows. Does the same thing but from a Whitebox router and provides the analysis tools. samknows.com
– John Looker
Aug 21 '15 at 18:13
add a comment |
Beware that IPerf defaults to an "upload" test: The IPerf client (-c
) sends TCP data to the IPerf server (-s
). It looks like you were running the client on your LAN and connecting to an IPerf server hosted on the public Internet, so you were testing your new broadband connection's upload, not download, speed.
To test its download speed, either reverse which end you invoke as -s
/-c
, or use -r
to specify that you want it to do a "reverse" (download) test after it does the normal test.
Beware that if your LAN machine is behind a NAT or firewall, you may have to open/map/forward a port appropriately for the download test to work.
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
add a comment |
Beware that IPerf defaults to an "upload" test: The IPerf client (-c
) sends TCP data to the IPerf server (-s
). It looks like you were running the client on your LAN and connecting to an IPerf server hosted on the public Internet, so you were testing your new broadband connection's upload, not download, speed.
To test its download speed, either reverse which end you invoke as -s
/-c
, or use -r
to specify that you want it to do a "reverse" (download) test after it does the normal test.
Beware that if your LAN machine is behind a NAT or firewall, you may have to open/map/forward a port appropriately for the download test to work.
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
add a comment |
Beware that IPerf defaults to an "upload" test: The IPerf client (-c
) sends TCP data to the IPerf server (-s
). It looks like you were running the client on your LAN and connecting to an IPerf server hosted on the public Internet, so you were testing your new broadband connection's upload, not download, speed.
To test its download speed, either reverse which end you invoke as -s
/-c
, or use -r
to specify that you want it to do a "reverse" (download) test after it does the normal test.
Beware that if your LAN machine is behind a NAT or firewall, you may have to open/map/forward a port appropriately for the download test to work.
Beware that IPerf defaults to an "upload" test: The IPerf client (-c
) sends TCP data to the IPerf server (-s
). It looks like you were running the client on your LAN and connecting to an IPerf server hosted on the public Internet, so you were testing your new broadband connection's upload, not download, speed.
To test its download speed, either reverse which end you invoke as -s
/-c
, or use -r
to specify that you want it to do a "reverse" (download) test after it does the normal test.
Beware that if your LAN machine is behind a NAT or firewall, you may have to open/map/forward a port appropriately for the download test to work.
answered Aug 13 '15 at 18:10
SpiffSpiff
78k10119163
78k10119163
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
add a comment |
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
Good point! I'd forgotten about that - it does improve matters, though not substantially. to ~45Mbit
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:15
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
@Michael Please update your Question with these latest results. I like when you paste in IPerf output so I can see the Mb vs. MiB for myself.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f956665%2fiperf-giving-incorrect-results%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Could you do me a favor and retest with iperf 2.0.x instead of iperf3? iperf3 was a big rewrite that I don't trust, and I wonder if this is further evidence.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 17:36
@Spiff question edited with further results - connecting to public servers gave peculiar results! (values given in bits - it seemed - but they didn't add up)
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 17:51
The values add up, it's just that file sizes are usually given in MebiBytes (MiB), whereas network speeds are usually given in megabits (Mb). So you can't just multiply/divide by 8. It's closer to 8.2 for kb/KiB, 8.4 for Mb/MiB, and 8.6 for Gb/GiB.
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 18:17
I don't understand how it can get from 48.6Mbits to ~130Mbits by multiplying by anything close to eight though! - oddly though, 12Mbits is about upload speed
– Michael B
Aug 13 '15 at 18:29
Just so I can be sure I'm following you correctly, when you say, "Downloading a 3.5gb file in 210 seconds, works out to approximately 130Mbit", does that "gb" mean gigabits (1,000,000,000's of individual bits) or does it mean GibiBytes (1,073,741,824's of 8-bit Bytes)?
– Spiff
Aug 13 '15 at 20:33