:( StarHub is capping intl websites to 10-15KB/sec
-
Originally posted by johnnygamer:
How do you know if an exempt list even exist? I think it's just an excuse for your cause. You can might as well say that any server accessible to a StarHub user at 15kB and above is "in the exempt list".
Just a theory... But wouldn't it make sense to make sure all the testing servers on the http://www.speedtest.net/ website were on the traffic shaping exempt list if you knew in advance that your customers would go to this website and post results about how fast their connections are to various servers in different parts of the world? You always want to present your own ISP in the best possible light(by this I mean from the ISP perspective).Originally posted by johnnygamer:
Do you even know what's a troll? I think you should take some time at Wikipedia to read about it, or maybe just take a quick look at the mirror.
Now thats a troll. its not even a zip file at all.
file 1MB.220.233.0.0..80.chenc.file.zip
1MB.220.233.0.0..80.chenc.file.zip: data
I called it .zip to stop browsers from trying to open the file. By default when they see a .zip extension, they present you with a dialogue box rather than trying to open it automatically. The file was created from random data using this command:
dd if=/dev/urandom of=./1MB.220.233.224.217..80.chenc.file.zip bs=1024k count=1
This website here is the manual page for dd:
man ddOriginally posted by johnnygamer:
So now you're feeling sore that ISPs in SG don't run out of bandwidth?
The reason why I linked to that article is that this could be an ongoing problem(lack of sufficient international bandwidth). They possibly solved the gaming issues using QoS and traffic shaping(shaped web traffic to slow speeds) which means they would not have to have upgraded their backhaul or if they did, not by much. When ISPs in Australia start to run out of International bandwidth, they are exposed in the media, even including the biggest ISPS:
Optus caught short on international bandwidth
Just as a quick side note... The SG Govt. now owns Optus.Originally posted by johnnygamer:
Yea, accept it, StarHub doesn't cap its download speed. Stop opposing the truth.
Just because I'm a newbie at this forum does not mean I am newbie at IT/computers/networking. I made sure my tests and results were bulletproof before coming here and posting. What is that quote they say in relation to the truth?
All truth passes through 3 stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Originally posted by johnnygamer:
Bah, I'm just hostile to your false statements. My motive is to prevent forum newbies to come in and spread rumours without sufficent proof. Hmm, I think a friend of friend of friend of friend of friend of mine is working in either SingNet, StarHub or PacNet.
Now that I have anwered those questions. Time you answered mine(A better question would be, why are you so hostile to the evident truth. What ulterior motives do you have? Do you work for or someone you know work for SingNet/PacNet/other small ISPs in Singapore?)Originally posted by johnnygamer:
Good that you know it too. So why are you still here? (Guess like I need some H2SO4).
I have explained my testing methodology in detail. Take it upon yourself to try it out and DISPROVE IT.
BTW surely you mean "Easy-Off Bam. BAM! And the dirt is gone!" :pOriginally posted by johnnygamer:
God knows.
220.233.*.* is a host in AU that I have administrator access to. I do have the power on this machine to influence the test results either for the negative or postive via stange firewall and/or shaping rules. However I did not do so for theses test.Originally posted by johnnygamer:
It leads to a blank page. If you could tell us that "there's an implicit :80" in URLs, why can't you even decode an "[and]amp"? Or you didn't even bother to proofread your own posts?
I'll explain it a little more simple for you to understand... When you type this into your browser:
http://www.sgforums.com/
http is the protocol
www.sgforums.com is the server
there is an implicit :80 done automatically by your browser. Its done in the background so you don't notice it. Try clicking on this link here:
http://www.sgforums.com:80/?action=forum_display&forum_id=2250
and tell me where you end up.Originally posted by johnnygamer:
Don't worry - I've just came up with one.
Anyway with the release of my new speedtest tool there is a call for more servers to join in.Originally posted by johnnygamer:
I think it's still the former, y'know. You still can't get over that Optus incident?
Previously it would have been tempting to blame it on the other end for being under heavy load or not having enough bandwidth. Now it turns out to be the opposite, the server is fine, its the ISP who does not have enough bandwidthOriginally posted by johnnygamer:
Why should I bother to even try out your "testing procedures" when:
I found out two weeks ago when out 2 of the 3 Singaporeans who happened to be on the same ISP both complained of slow speeds while the other Singaporean on a different ISP had lightening fast speeds. Immediately I thought it was a little strange and needed investigating. Furthermore in this thread alone it has only been two people who have stepped up to confirm what I have been saying LyonK(technically inclined yes/no?) and chenc(who already admitted they didn't know about the specific issues we have been talking about) and these two should be congratulated for their bravery in a clearly hostile environment. The 3 most technically inclined users here, LatecomerX, ndmmxiaomayi, and kenn3th(who recently participated in a speed test yet refuses to participate in this one) all refuse at point blank to confirm or deny these speed tests. Not one of these 3 have duplicated my testing procedures even though full details of the testing tools and methodology has been given. One has to wonder why(my turn for a conspiratorial viewpoint)?
1. you have just joined the forum yesterday
2. the zips are of unknown origin - you could be trying to spread a virus/malware
3. you are just a stranger floating on the net whereas StarHub has buildings all over SingaporeOriginally posted by johnnygamer:
Eew. I guess you're still at Stage 1 of accepting the fact that StarHub didn't cap its DL/UL for port 80.
A gamble, a risk, one they were willing to take. One they have successed in getting away with for who knows how long until I exposed what is going on here. When you consider the motive of money, it makes perfect logical sense. As for the irked customers, the ones outside a contract of course, tell me, that have they done so far? About the only thing I've seen here is denial of the reality of what is occuring(looks at 3 amigos) - stage 1 of the truth process. -
Oh well, here's the speed test I have cooked up just to entertain that TS. JavaScript needs to be enabled on your browser.
http://dl.latecomerx.com/starhub_test/
It generates a random image per test, so that you will not be downloading from whatever cache the TS is talking about. And F(TS)I, the chances of generating the same image is 1/2^24 + the fact that the filenames are unique to the extent of 1/10000 per second (that means filenames will never be the same in any two instances of the test if both are started on different seconds. And the filesize varies due to PNG compression.
I have double-checked the timings of each download by the script against the ones by Firebug (a Firefox add-on), and it's accurate to the nearest 0.02 sec.
There's no doubt regarding the filesize either. So I would say, in conclusion, that the script is 99.9999% accurate.
The web host had previously told me that its servers' bandwidth is around 1.5 mbps, though I have not confirmed this yet. The server involved is an overseas one (US). I'm currently on SingNet, and am able to download the test images at 70 - 90 kB/sec on average.
If the image did not load or you wish to re-take the test, simply reload the page will do.
If anyone is interested in taking the test, please remember to cease or pause any ongoing downloading activity beforehand and post your results here. Please be reminded once again that JavaScript needs to be enabled on your browser before taking the test.
Man, if I'm wrong about you, TS, you can go on and say whatever you like about StarHub. But if otherwise, please stop this crap. You are just wasting data and bandwidth on SGF's server, unless you'll be joining SGF as a premium member at 9.90 SGD for 6 months. I hope you do. lol. -
Try two people(count them :p). Apparently even though my instructions were written in English and were pretty concise, no one has yet duplicate the same test I have been performing. I guess its because quite a bit of technical knowledge is required to setup said test. To make things more easier for the average punter I have setup an online speedtest that only requires visiting said website and clicking the download link and then posting their results in the forum.
As I've said, you need a reasonable sample size.This line of reasoning would quickly develop into a paranoid conspiratorial viewpoint. 3 different servers, all speedlimiting StarHub IPs on port 80 only? It must be a conspiracy :p
Conspiracy? Maybe. There are so many servers out there. I still don't buy that quote.I have already told you my theory on why. It was so they could put off upgrading their international bandwidth. My theory is that this has been ongoing since or shortly after that article's news report when StarHub must have introduced QoS and traffic shaping. By making sure applications that need low latency are giver a higher priority and making sure that applications which aren't time sensitive(web surfing) are given a low priority and speed, they can fake network improvements. Don't get me wrong, QoS and traffic shaping can give you network improvements, but International websites at dialup and ISDN speeds is not an improvement, its a step backwards. By the way it would not be too noticeable if the majority your traffic was already been cached beforehand. But what happens when it hasn't been, it would be extremely slow. Previously it would have been tempting to blame it on the other end for being under heavy load or not having enough bandwidth. Now it turns out to be the opposite, the server is fine, its the ISP who does not have enough bandwidth
That is possible... but still, it's anyone's guess. Also, they have just settled a lawsuit. I don't think they will pour in money to upgrade... if this is true.A gamble, a risk, one they were willing to take. One they have successed in getting away with for who knows how long until I exposed what is going on here. When you consider the motive of money, it makes perfect logical sense.
As I've said... it won't take long for people to discover it...I'm not sure where you are going with this... Perhaps its that conspiratorial viewpoint again :p *hides*
It's a bit far-fetched for now... not much sense in explaining.Anyway as I mentioned I coded a new speedtest tool which I will announce in my next post. ndmmxiaomayi be sure to try it out and post in here your results of what speed your SingNet connection gets. Be sure to include your result as a screenshot of a wget session.
When I get back to my Linux machine. -
i'd recommend you to put a up a htaccess for your main directory.. or at least limit it on your fedora box..Originally posted by LatecomerX:Oh well, here's the speed test I have cooked up just to entertain that TS. JavaScript needs to be enabled on your browser.
http://dl.latecomerx.com/starhub_test/
It generates a random image per test, so that you will not be downloading from whatever cache the TS is talking about. And F(TS)I, the chances of generating the same image is 1/2^24 + the fact that the filenames are unique to the extent of 1/10000 per second (that means filenames will never be the same in any two instances of the test if both are started on different seconds. And the filesize varies due to PNG compression.
I have double-checked the timings of each download by the script against the ones by Firebug (a Firefox add-on), and it's accurate to the nearest 0.02 sec.
There's no doubt regarding the filesize either. So I would say, in conclusion, that the script is 99.9999% accurate.
The web host had previously told me that its servers' bandwidth is around 1.5 mbps, though I have not confirmed this yet. The server involved is an overseas one (US). I'm currently on SingNet, and am able to download the test images at 70 - 90 kB/sec on average.
If the image did not load or you wish to re-take the test, simply reload the page will do.
If anyone is interested in taking the test, please remember to cease or pause any ongoing downloading activity beforehand and post your results here. Please be reminded once again that JavaScript needs to be enabled on your browser before taking the test.
Man, if I'm wrong about you, TS, you can go on and say whatever you like about StarHub. But if otherwise, please stop this crap. You are just wasting data and bandwidth on SGF's server, unless you'll be joining SGF as a premium member at 9.90 SGD for 6 months. I hope you do. lol. -
Erm...what limit are you referring to?Originally posted by FightinForLove:i'd recommend you to put a up a htaccess for your main directory.. or at least limit it on your fedora box..
And seems like TS is dead. So is his test tool. gg? -
you are under singnet and thus not related.Originally posted by venny: -
Singapore - Singapore:
Singapore - Jakarta, Indonesia:
Singapore - Canberra, Australia:
Singapore - Washington DC:
Singapore - Los Angeles:
-
i use latercomer de webby
i starhub
my results
Start: 1189432937781
End: 1189432960968
Image size: 508.52 kB
Time: 23.187 second(s)
DL speed: 21.93 kB/sec
but still slow to me zzzzzz -
Maybe now server busy ba. I also got quite a few low speed counts at times.
Results
Start: 1189435736296
End: 1189435746609
Image size: 515.16 kB
Time: 10.313 second(s)
DL speed: 49.95 kB/sec
Results
Start: 1189435802140
End: 1189435816796
Image size: 642.6 kB
Time: 14.656 second(s)
DL speed: 43.85 kB/sec
Results
Start: 1189435842687
End: 1189435849859
Image size: 579.04 kB
Time: 7.172 second(s)
DL speed: 80.74 kB/sec -
Hello,
My SpeedTest is now back online. I moved it to a slightly different URL. You can access the SpeedTest here:
SpeedTest Server #0
Please post your results and remember to include which ISP you are with. -
You need to reach this page by coming in via the front page.
Click here to go to the SpeedTest. -
As I started in my opening post, international web traffic(port 80) is being being shaped to these crippling speeds. Games are on a different port. BTW most games have low transfer of 4-10KB/s anyway.Originally posted by kenn3th:To Ts: Why Dont I Feel Any Lag Or Slowness While Playing an MMORPG on an America, Uk, Netherlands Sever?
http://supportwiki.steampowered.com/wiki/Optimizing_a_Dedicated_ServerA good rule of thumb for HLDS is 35.6Kbits per player.
35.6Kbits = 4.45KB/s
A good rule of thumb for SRCDS (CS:S and HL2DM) is 53.4KBits per player (about 1.5x more then HLDM).
53.4KBits = 6.68KB/s
As you can see, games have a low transfer rate so even if you game port was being traffic shaped down to 7-15KB/sec, you would not notice.
BTW SpeedTest server moved again. New url here:
SpeedTest Server #0 -
You need to reach this page by coming in via the front page.
2nd day in a row.
Click here to go to the SpeedTest.
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
I think you are seeing a cached and older version of this page. When you reach the speedtest.php page try using these browser commands to force a refresh and get a new copy, rather than one from a cache.
2nd day in a row.
F5
Ctrl + F5
Shift + F5
Ctrl + Shift + F5
I can't remember which keyboard shortcut it was, but on of those should force a new page to be fetched. -
No cache. I tried a few other PCs already, all same errors.Originally posted by johnnygamer:I think you are seeing a cached and older version of this page. When you reach the speedtest.php page try using these browser commands to force a refresh and get a new copy, rather than one from a cache.
F5
Ctrl + F5
Shift + F5
Ctrl + Shift + F5
I can't remember which keyboard shortcut it was, but on of those should force a new page to be fetched. -
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
It could be cached at the server level.
No cache. I tried a few other PCs already, all same errors.
Please let me how you are getting this error. What url are you visiting? What do you do to produce this error? -
The URL you posted.
-
I just clicked on the link. It works fine. Have a look at this screenshot:
There is now a button instead of a link to take you to the next page. The old version of speedtest.php used a link instead. Also the old version had a meta refresh tag, which cause the above problem but this tag has now been removed.
Try the link again:
SpeedTest Server #0
If you see a link instead of a button, you are seeing an older page which has been cached somewhere. -
Your verification very nice. I will try to read it when I'm feeling well.
-
Yes i can definitely feel that starhub is capping our speed to certain international websites. I think it happened 3 months ago or something. Maybe longer.
Eg of sites which lag a lot now:
www.crucial.com
www.whatis.com
i frequented this sites last time but now the loading is too slow. -
Singnet results. -
Singnet is faster at where i stay.
Now my Starhub is crawling
But my friend staying in another district of Pasir Ris is experiencing high dl speed with Starhub. -
Thanks. Results from SingNet members are also useful as it proves that the hosting server is capable of more than 7-15KB/s.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Singnet results.
Just a reminder to anyone posting wget screenshots.... Please use:
--progress=dot
with wget as it provides a snapshot over time of your transfer speed. E.g.
wget --progress=dot -
Intresting thread...
ok i have a question
is it possible that connections are hopped differently to the detination when using different ISP?(apply this to SG only. and ignore the few initial hops).
if so, server which are being hopped(eg, the middle man) may have limit their connection.
need someone to test the hop route of the servers above with different ISP, using a similar program which i've done the test below:======================================================
sorry, i've been very inactive in sgforums. dont mind i post this in advance ignore it ifits not to be needed.
=== VisualRoute report on Sep 14, 2007 3:37:28 AM ===
======================================================
Report for www.blacksburgpower.com [65.98.40.162]
Analysis: Node 'www.blacksburgpower.com' was found in 19 hops (TTL=49). It is a HTTP server (running Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) PHP/5.2.3 mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4
FrontPage/5.0.2.2635.SR1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.28 OpenSSL/0.9.7a).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hop | % Loss | IP Address | Node Name | Location | Timezone | ms | Graph | Network |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | | 192.168.1.101 | acer-6ba9526ca7 | ... | | | | (private use) |
| 1 | | 192.xxx.x.xx | - | ... | | 0 | x | (private use) |
| 2 | | 10.xx.xx.x | - | ... | | 9 | x | (private use) |
| 3 | | 172.xx.xx.xx | - | ... | | 8 | x | (private use) |
| 4 | 10 | 172.xx.xx.x | - | ... | | 9 | x | (private use) |
| 5 | | 172.x.x.xx | - | ... | | 18 | x | (private use) |
| 6 | | 172.xx.x.x | - | ... | | 9 | x | (private use) |
| 7 | | 203.xxx.x.xx | atm0-0-0-13-r10.cyberway.com.sg | ?(Singapore) | +8.0 | 10 | x | Starhub Pte Ltd |
| 8 | | 203.xxx.x.xxx | - | ?(Singapore) | +8.0 | 17 | x | Starhub Pte Ltd |
| 9 | | 157.130.211.153 | POS3-0-0.GW4.SJC7.ALTER.NET | San Jose, CA, USA | -8.0 | 223 | x | 157.130.211.0 |
| 10 | | 152.63.48.242 | 0.so-6-0-0.XL1.SJC7.ALTER.NET | San Jose, CA, USA | -8.0 | 223 | x | 152.63.48.0 |
| 11 | | 152.63.57.113 | 0.so-5-0-3.XT1.SCL2.ALTER.NET | Santa Clara, CA, USA | -8.0 | 224 | x | 152.63.57.0 |
| 12 | | 152.63.57.49 | 0.so-6-0-0.BR1.SCL2.ALTER.NET | Santa Clara, CA, USA | -8.0 | 231 | x | 152.63.57.0 |
| 13 | | 208.175.172.169 | cpr2-pos-9-0.sanjoseequinix.savvis.net | San Jose, CA, USA | -8.0 | 226 | x | 208.175.172.0 |
| 14 | 20 | 206.24.211.77 | cr2-pos-0-3-0-1.SanFrancisco.savvis.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -8.0 | 232 | x | 206.24.211.0 |
| 15 | 70 | 206.24.194.71 | cr2-loopback.nyr.savvis.net | - | | 448 | x------- | 206.24.194.0 |
| 16 | | 204.70.197.9 | - | | | 315 | x- | 204.70.197.0 |
| 17 | | 206.24.195.134 | fortressitx.NewYork.savvis.net | - | | 298 | x | 206.24.195.0 |
| 18 | | 208.116.63.244 | - | | | 294 | x | 208.116.63.0 |
| 19 | | 65.98.40.162 | www.blacksburgpower.com | | | 302 | x- | 65.98.40.0 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VisualRoute Report for www.blacksburgpower.com produced at 3:37 AM on September 14, 2007.
Roundtrip time to www.blacksburgpower.com (65.98.40.162) average = 302ms min = 295ms max = 349ms -
Originally posted by johnnygamer:
I think starhub now offer 100mbps(ultimate), 12mbps(premium) and 6mbps(express).
StarHub are capping international websites down to a measly to 10-15KB/sec which is barely 2 to 3 times faster than a dial up modem connection
On a 1.5Mbps plan you should be getting ~150KB/sec(>10 times faster than current speed), 6Mbps should be getting ~600KB/sec, 12Mbps should be getting ~1200KB/sec, and 100Mbps should be getting ~10,000KB/sec. Read about about it here:
StarHub is capping intl websites to 10-15KB/sec
[b]Its important that you post within that thread instead of here as StarHub would not be monitoring this third party forum.
Spread the word. Post that link to other forums and threads, blogs, emails, irc, etc. Substandard web speeds has got to stop.[/b]
Anyway i guess you are right.
I test my connection to new york and it is so slow
I connect to new york because it is a highly established city. I remember it used to be at least 1500kbs to new york a few months ago. I am on maxonline express 6mpbs
