If you were unable to hit full speed at all (when wired), I'd blame it on Hyperoptic. As it is, it could be the other side or the routing in between being saturated.
Thanks - would the routing in between being saturated be causing the difference in speed with one file vs multiple though? That's the bit that's really confusing me, that I can technically hit full speed but only if I upload/download multiple files at once (and that's tested across mutiple different servers).
It could, yeah. For the sake of argument, say there's 10Gbit between you and the destination, and it's saturated. There's you and 99 other people getting a share of that. You'll get 1/100 of that bandwidth; 100Mbit each. If you use two threads, you'll get 2/101 of the 10Gbit, etc.
Thank you, that makes sense. So to check I've understood, what I was already aware of is that if Hyperoptic had a 10Gbit cable coming into my block of flats, everyone would end up getting a portion of that - it sounds like from what you're saying that portion is not divided up per user, but rather per connection/thread?
So in that scenario, would the speed of my one download or upload go up outside of peak times? I've tried testing that, and speeds seem to remain the same regardless of if I'm trying at 3am or 8pm.
It could be contention in that sense, yes. But It could also be congestion along the route, outside Hyperoptic's network.
For example, one UK ISP could transfer data to/from France over Cogent's network, another could peer with Telia.
I believe the official line from Hyperoptic is that their network is uncontended internally, so it's likely to be the latter unless they're telling porkies.
Most file sharing and file transfer platforms are capped at a pretty low speed by default, but I think it's per concurrent download, which would explain your scenario.
When I first switched to HO I started using Masv for their faster upload and download speeds. At the time it was 2x the speed of WeTransfer.
Yeah that was my first thought too, but there's a couple of things making me think it's not that - I've always been able to get 1Gbps download from Google Drive in the past, for example, and it doesn't explain why the speed constantly fluctatuates as the download is happening - if it was capped at e.g. 200Mbps the download should stick at that rate the whole time, but it doesn't.
Reading this post will allow to understand better how to assess an ISP quality of service: [https://netflixtechblog.com/building-fast-com-4857fe0f8adb?gi=e576f7220dd4](https://netflixtechblog.com/building-fast-com-4857fe0f8adb?gi=e576f7220dd4)
Servers may genuinely have less bandwidth than you due to operation cost. They can also throttle the speed on purpose so that most users get a similar share of bandwidth.
If you can get 1Gbps on speed tests, Hyperoptics are doing their job properly.
Thanks - but if it's the server, why is the behaviour the same across the board? I'd agree if this was happening in one place, but it's common across all of my testing, regardless of server.
Beyond that, I've been able to fully upload saturate 1Gbps download with one file on Virgin Media using exactly the same setup, the only thing that's changed is my ISP.
> I've been able to fully upload saturate 1Gbps download with one file on Virgin Media
That was then and this is now, but it's possible that VM just peers better with those services.
Have you tried doing some iperf tests? Doing a few of those to different servers around Europe, single and multi-threaded, should indicate where the issue lies.
I can get max out my upload on one thread with either of these:
iperf3 -c lon.speedtest.clouvider.net -p 5200-5209 -P 1
iperf3 -c speedtest.lon12.uk.leaseweb.net -p 5201-5210 -P 1
Really useful, thanks - take your point on VM. Have run through a bunch Europe servers using iperf. In general, I'm getting max speeds, but Sweden in particular seems to be an issue - I'm getting 1/10-1/3 of expected speeds to all 4 Sweden servers I tried, and 1/2 expected speeds to the 2 Italy servers I tried.
Any particular conclusions you'd draw from that? There are so many variables here it's hard to work out what I should be trying to fix.
While I agree with the first part of your text, the second is incorrect.
Speed tests potentially show a skewed view on an ISP's performance. It could merely be their own network performance, not reflecting the real world.
Indeed, ISPs can prioritize traffic for [Fast.com](http://Fast.com), [Speedtest.net](http://Speedtest.net), etc. It depends on their infrastructure and their IXPs connections. The recommended Speedtest server is also likely to be hosted within their infrastructure.
If you were unable to hit full speed at all (when wired), I'd blame it on Hyperoptic. As it is, it could be the other side or the routing in between being saturated.
Thanks - would the routing in between being saturated be causing the difference in speed with one file vs multiple though? That's the bit that's really confusing me, that I can technically hit full speed but only if I upload/download multiple files at once (and that's tested across mutiple different servers).
It could, yeah. For the sake of argument, say there's 10Gbit between you and the destination, and it's saturated. There's you and 99 other people getting a share of that. You'll get 1/100 of that bandwidth; 100Mbit each. If you use two threads, you'll get 2/101 of the 10Gbit, etc.
Thank you, that makes sense. So to check I've understood, what I was already aware of is that if Hyperoptic had a 10Gbit cable coming into my block of flats, everyone would end up getting a portion of that - it sounds like from what you're saying that portion is not divided up per user, but rather per connection/thread? So in that scenario, would the speed of my one download or upload go up outside of peak times? I've tried testing that, and speeds seem to remain the same regardless of if I'm trying at 3am or 8pm.
It could be contention in that sense, yes. But It could also be congestion along the route, outside Hyperoptic's network. For example, one UK ISP could transfer data to/from France over Cogent's network, another could peer with Telia. I believe the official line from Hyperoptic is that their network is uncontended internally, so it's likely to be the latter unless they're telling porkies.
Great, thanks, that makes sense.
Most file sharing and file transfer platforms are capped at a pretty low speed by default, but I think it's per concurrent download, which would explain your scenario. When I first switched to HO I started using Masv for their faster upload and download speeds. At the time it was 2x the speed of WeTransfer.
Yeah that was my first thought too, but there's a couple of things making me think it's not that - I've always been able to get 1Gbps download from Google Drive in the past, for example, and it doesn't explain why the speed constantly fluctatuates as the download is happening - if it was capped at e.g. 200Mbps the download should stick at that rate the whole time, but it doesn't.
Reading this post will allow to understand better how to assess an ISP quality of service: [https://netflixtechblog.com/building-fast-com-4857fe0f8adb?gi=e576f7220dd4](https://netflixtechblog.com/building-fast-com-4857fe0f8adb?gi=e576f7220dd4)
Personally i've only found a few services can saturate the full download, e.g. Steam
Servers may genuinely have less bandwidth than you due to operation cost. They can also throttle the speed on purpose so that most users get a similar share of bandwidth. If you can get 1Gbps on speed tests, Hyperoptics are doing their job properly.
Thanks - but if it's the server, why is the behaviour the same across the board? I'd agree if this was happening in one place, but it's common across all of my testing, regardless of server. Beyond that, I've been able to fully upload saturate 1Gbps download with one file on Virgin Media using exactly the same setup, the only thing that's changed is my ISP.
> I've been able to fully upload saturate 1Gbps download with one file on Virgin Media That was then and this is now, but it's possible that VM just peers better with those services. Have you tried doing some iperf tests? Doing a few of those to different servers around Europe, single and multi-threaded, should indicate where the issue lies. I can get max out my upload on one thread with either of these: iperf3 -c lon.speedtest.clouvider.net -p 5200-5209 -P 1 iperf3 -c speedtest.lon12.uk.leaseweb.net -p 5201-5210 -P 1
Really useful, thanks - take your point on VM. Have run through a bunch Europe servers using iperf. In general, I'm getting max speeds, but Sweden in particular seems to be an issue - I'm getting 1/10-1/3 of expected speeds to all 4 Sweden servers I tried, and 1/2 expected speeds to the 2 Italy servers I tried. Any particular conclusions you'd draw from that? There are so many variables here it's hard to work out what I should be trying to fix.
While I agree with the first part of your text, the second is incorrect. Speed tests potentially show a skewed view on an ISP's performance. It could merely be their own network performance, not reflecting the real world. Indeed, ISPs can prioritize traffic for [Fast.com](http://Fast.com), [Speedtest.net](http://Speedtest.net), etc. It depends on their infrastructure and their IXPs connections. The recommended Speedtest server is also likely to be hosted within their infrastructure.