not so much for users, but for installers, if you have your own locally hosted copy of speedtest mini:
https://github.com/sivel/speedtest-cli http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/speed-test-nerds On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm certainly not opposed to a self-hosted speedtest if you can find a > good one. I may implement whatever this thread determines. However, none of > the speedtest servers in my area do a particularly terrible job. Several > WISPs run them around here as well. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Timothy D. McNabb via Af" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:32:55 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest replacements? > > I'm not sure why this diverted to upstream providers over a viable > self-hosted speedtest? > > Regardless if your upstream sucks or not, you cannot control the bandwidth > availability (or reliability) of some anonymous speed test server you > yourself do not control. > > -Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen via Af > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest replacements? > > On 10/21/14, 16:19, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: > > 1) You are responsible if your upstream sucks. > > > Why wouldn't you be? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H3rdfI28s0 > > > > >
