PingTest.Net
By Barry Ritholtz - December 4th, 2009, 3:00PM
http://www.pingtest.net
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
Comments
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Not entirely sure as to why this was posted but even less sure about the B* ranking considering those amazing scores… 2ms is awesome, I’m envious. My stats don’t even come close:
http://www.hansr.net/myndir/ZZ252C176D.jpg
December 4th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“Unable to test packet loss”? Maybe the low latency is because nothing was received!
Anyway:
Comcast’s Speed Test: http://speedtest.comcast.net/
DSL Reports Speed Test: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest
December 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Perhaps a more meaningful test might be using simple-ping.com> which gives you ping times from (currently) 47 locations worldwide. It’s a useful tool in seeing what it takes for people to reach your site in terms of raw time;
http://just-ping.com/index.php?vh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2F&c=&s=ping!
This is infinitely more significant than any of those so-called (charlatan and mostly worthless) “speed tests” out there. If you’re a site operator, you need to know how rapidly your site is resolved by your target audience (and where it might NOT be successfully resolved) and so, then, a broad based “star ping” set of results is much more important.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Perhaps a more meaningful test might be using simple-ping.com/a> which gives you ping times from (currently) 47 locations worldwide. It’s a useful tool in seeing what it takes for people to reach your site in terms of raw time;
http://just-ping.com/index.php?vh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2F&c=&s=ping!
This is infinitely more significant than any of those so-called (charlatan and mostly worthless) “speed tests” out there. If you’re a site operator, you need to know how rapidly your site is resolved by your target audience (and where it might NOT be successfully resolved) and so, then, a broad based “star ping” set of results is much more important.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Sorry all, I’m on a flaky connection, keystrokes are not echoed correctly, BR: pls delete duped comment. I
do apologize to everyone, that URL screwup was the result of bad typing, and not seeing the result immediately in my interface.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
too lazy to type it in?
$ ping http://www.ritholtz.com
PING ritholtz.com (97.107.138.xxx): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 97.107.138.xxx: icmp_seq=0 ttl=46 time=175.675 ms
64 bytes from 97.107.138.xxx: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=170.815 ms
from tel aviv – still pretty good speed
December 4th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
sory for the dupe – something put http:// in my above comment – just sayin
December 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
It’s very important if you’re playing Left4.dead.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
BR. are the great unwashed masses really ready for packet loss and jitter?
December 5th, 2009 at 4:21 am
I’ve been using it’s developer’s site, SpeedTest.net, for quite a while – it also performs upload and download tests which most ISP allocate at different bandwidths.
The feature I find most useful for both sites is not the actual test but that it archives your results so that you can compare the results from the current test to previous results. While they don’t yet let one test multiple preconfigured sites (star test) , one can select from a large variety of test hosts world wide.
http://www.speedtest.net
December 5th, 2009 at 5:32 am
start
cmd
ping ritholtz.com
107ms (Comcast, left coast)
December 5th, 2009 at 5:57 am
uhhh, speaking of ‘pings’ Barry:
Feds ‘Pinged’ Sprint GPS Data 8 Million Times Over a Year
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/gps-data