Use a more reliable speed test site. The correct answer is you can’t, after some overhead a gigabit port caps out around 940mbps. Anything being reported over that is a bad measurement or a bug.
I respectfully disagree with this. Not all ISPs are scumbags. Every service I build, I overbuild for this exact reason. For example, if I built you a 500 Mbps service today, I would “fudge” your service to 500240, in an attempt to make sure you’re getting what you pay for. I understand I’m the exception and not the rule, but the “good guys” are still out here doing what we can.
At 500mbps it’s not an issue, you get 500mbps. But lots of ISP’s are claiming gigabit and then only giving routers or ONT’s with gigabit ports, gigabit Ethernet can only do ~940mbps after overheads
Ignoring the use of fiber here, the IEEE 802.3ab defines Gigabit Ethernet over UTP at 1000Base-T over 100 meters. But, this standard was created around the use of CAT-5 cabling. As tech has progressed, it became easily possible to achieve faster data transfer rates with what is still considered “Gigabit Capable” ports and cables. Just because something is rated as Gigabit, does not in any way mean that is the max it is capable of. MystiCom was able to use CAT-5 for 10Gb/s transfer back in 2002.
Notwithstanding that you completely omitted any other hardware capabilities/limitations such as backplanes or line cards, you simply saying “you can’t” and that gigabit ports “cap out around 940mbps” is simply incorrect. What you seem to be referring to are the data rates that ISP’s offer in their brochures where they throw up an asterisk and say that over head may reduce their gigabit plan to 940mbps max.
So yes, while the above is not incredibly in-depth, you way oversimplified what gigabit entails and what impacts that performance. And telling someone that “anything reported over that is a bad measurement or a bug” is just incorrect information.
I think you need to remember we are in /HomeNetworking and not /Networking. I am very aware that spec does not dictate hardware capability. I am very aware that you can run 10gig over cat 5 (and other various configs beyond the “spec”) in certain cases. I am very aware that IPSs overprovision. What I am NOT aware of is anyone who has gone to best buy, purchased a modem and wifi-router with gigabit NICs, gone home to their gigabit ISP plan, plugged and played, and magically gotten 1.2Gbps to their client device. Simplifying for the purposes of home networking to say that given a standard Gig NIC > Cat whatever cable > Gig NIC negotiated at 1000Base-T will run ~940Mbps is perfectly valid, especially in the context of this post where the user has one data point showing 1.2Gbps, all other sites showing ~940Mbps, and his set up is what I described above. You are reading way to far into my (I’ll agree here) aggressive use of the word “cant” and trying to apply it en masse to all possible situations. In the context of home networking, the OPs issue, and anyone else experiencing similar things, this is quite clearly a bad measurement or a bug. Also, I am not referring to data rates in the brochure. Go run some Iperf tests on the setup I described above and let me know what you get. Verizon does clearly say 940, but I suspect this is because they know when they drop off their ONT with a Gig interface, they know dam well its expected to be ~940Mbps on the top end. They didn’t pull this number out of their ass.
Well, while what you are saying is not false, it’s not the way some isp work. Comcrap, for example, you have a “1 gig” package, but in reality, the package is provisioned for 1.25g, so getting 1.2 is actually very normal. Not saying fast.com is accurate or the op has comcast, just providing a example.
The 1 gig wan interface on his router will not run at 1.2gigs. It does not matter if he is over provisioned on the ISP side, that is not the cause of this speedtest saying 1.2.
Use a more reliable speed test site. The correct answer is you can’t, after some overhead a gigabit port caps out around 940mbps. Anything being reported over that is a bad measurement or a bug.
I respectfully disagree with this. Not all ISPs are scumbags. Every service I build, I overbuild for this exact reason. For example, if I built you a 500 Mbps service today, I would “fudge” your service to 500240, in an attempt to make sure you’re getting what you pay for. I understand I’m the exception and not the rule, but the “good guys” are still out here doing what we can.
His router has a 1 gig wan interface. This has nothing to do with over-provisioning.
At 500mbps it’s not an issue, you get 500mbps. But lots of ISP’s are claiming gigabit and then only giving routers or ONT’s with gigabit ports, gigabit Ethernet can only do ~940mbps after overheads
This is a gross oversimplification and, resultantly, an overall false statement.
Lol, yeah sure buddy.
Good one. Couldn’t have lived without this input….
Please explain.
Ignoring the use of fiber here, the IEEE 802.3ab defines Gigabit Ethernet over UTP at 1000Base-T over 100 meters. But, this standard was created around the use of CAT-5 cabling. As tech has progressed, it became easily possible to achieve faster data transfer rates with what is still considered “Gigabit Capable” ports and cables. Just because something is rated as Gigabit, does not in any way mean that is the max it is capable of. MystiCom was able to use CAT-5 for 10Gb/s transfer back in 2002. Notwithstanding that you completely omitted any other hardware capabilities/limitations such as backplanes or line cards, you simply saying “you can’t” and that gigabit ports “cap out around 940mbps” is simply incorrect. What you seem to be referring to are the data rates that ISP’s offer in their brochures where they throw up an asterisk and say that over head may reduce their gigabit plan to 940mbps max. So yes, while the above is not incredibly in-depth, you way oversimplified what gigabit entails and what impacts that performance. And telling someone that “anything reported over that is a bad measurement or a bug” is just incorrect information.
I think you need to remember we are in /HomeNetworking and not /Networking. I am very aware that spec does not dictate hardware capability. I am very aware that you can run 10gig over cat 5 (and other various configs beyond the “spec”) in certain cases. I am very aware that IPSs overprovision. What I am NOT aware of is anyone who has gone to best buy, purchased a modem and wifi-router with gigabit NICs, gone home to their gigabit ISP plan, plugged and played, and magically gotten 1.2Gbps to their client device. Simplifying for the purposes of home networking to say that given a standard Gig NIC > Cat whatever cable > Gig NIC negotiated at 1000Base-T will run ~940Mbps is perfectly valid, especially in the context of this post where the user has one data point showing 1.2Gbps, all other sites showing ~940Mbps, and his set up is what I described above. You are reading way to far into my (I’ll agree here) aggressive use of the word “cant” and trying to apply it en masse to all possible situations. In the context of home networking, the OPs issue, and anyone else experiencing similar things, this is quite clearly a bad measurement or a bug. Also, I am not referring to data rates in the brochure. Go run some Iperf tests on the setup I described above and let me know what you get. Verizon does clearly say 940, but I suspect this is because they know when they drop off their ONT with a Gig interface, they know dam well its expected to be ~940Mbps on the top end. They didn’t pull this number out of their ass.
Well, while what you are saying is not false, it’s not the way some isp work. Comcrap, for example, you have a “1 gig” package, but in reality, the package is provisioned for 1.25g, so getting 1.2 is actually very normal. Not saying fast.com is accurate or the op has comcast, just providing a example.
The 1 gig wan interface on his router will not run at 1.2gigs. It does not matter if he is over provisioned on the ISP side, that is not the cause of this speedtest saying 1.2.