On Thursday 01 June 2006 9:29 pm, Mitchell Brown wrote: > Why don't you guys just use www.testmy.net or something? >
There are more possible un-shaw-related bottlenecks than testing straight off a Shaw server. > On 6/1/06, Nick Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 01 June 2006 8:44 pm, Jesse Kline wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-01-06 at 17:31 -0600, Gustin Johnson wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > I have this little script that I use to test Shaw (and it works > > > > reasonably well for other ISPs, especially if they peer with Big > > > > Pipe/Shaw): > > > > > > 20:43:17 (780.01 KB/s) - `download.dat' saved [20989433/20989433] > > > > > > Is this decent for X-treme? It's my upload speeds that don't seem to be > > > up to snuff. Is there any way to compare those with other Shaw users? > > > > 21:04:47 (814.37 KB/s) - `download.dat' saved [20,989,433/20,989,433] > > > > Shaw X-treme as well. > > > > I'd be interested in comparing upload speeds - perhaps uploading to > > another > > shaw machine would be a 'reasonable' test? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > clug-talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
