I want to find the cause of my internet slowdown and un-responsiveness.
I want to find out if it is a browser problem or maybe a virus or malware.
I recall that at one time Linux had one anti-virus utility and updates were rare.
To test responsiveness (latency) try this
ping -c10 8.8.8.8
the IP address used is the Google DNS which is quite reliable for this test.
To test raw speed, go to this site:
Or, if you don't trust your browser you can install and use:
speedtest-cli
Command line interface for testing internet bandwidth using speedtest.net
2 Likes
What is this telling me other than their was no packet loss?
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=114 time=586 ms
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 566.975/588.708/606.775/13.774 ms
rtt = round trip time, ping shows min, average, max, & standard deviation.
Your average is 588 ms, min is 566 ms, max is 606 ms, and stdev is 13 ms
You have a slow connection (that has to do with your ISP) compared to mine which is about 20 ms.
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9011ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 19.950/20.615/21.479/0.470 ms
man ping
4 Likes
To compare, mine:
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9017ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 10.457/10.655/10.952/0.166 ms
@fixit7 , this could explain why your internet feels sluggish.
Are you on sattelite link or something ?
1 Like
You could also try traceroute to check if there is a problem on your local network or ISP, e.g. open a terminal (Ctrl + Alt + T):
sudo apt install traceroute
traceroute 8.8.8.8
Output:
traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 _gateway (192.168.1.1) 4.505 ms 4.445 ms 4.416 ms
2 next.domain (123.456.789.012) 6.382 ms 6.811 ms 6.905 ms
...
8 dns.google (8.8.8.8) 4.034 ms 3.983 ms 3.937 ms
The number of 'hops' is the first column, so the first row in the output contains 'round trip time' (RTT) for the local network (i.e. up until the packets leave my apartment), then after that it has the RTT to a local ISP (the second row), and so on, until it hits google's DNS. The RTT can seem glitchy - I guess that's a story for another time - but it should provide some guide as to where the delay is.
2 Likes
Hmmm.
Hosted by Pioneer Internet (Kingfisher, OK) [358.02 km]: 458.951 ms
Testing download speed................................................................................
Download: 31.28 Mbit/s
Testing upload speed......................................................................................................
Upload: 3.40 Mbit/s
**Terminal/Gateway Connectivity Test**
Connectivity Test in progress... 100%
---
|IP Gateway|J3SSV8RNOIGW0614|
| --- | --- |
|Packet Loss|0%|
|Average Delay|590 ms|
|Minimum Delay|538 ms|
|Maximum Delay|617 ms|
You have good connectivity to the gateway.
indeed:
speeds are fine
connection is good
however:
the delay is pretty horrible.
1 Like
Dear tkn,
Can you give details?
What is delay?
And possible solutions.
I use HughesNet, satellite internet.
I live in the country, and a satellite was the only way to get internet.
It is very hilly where I live.
I also get crappy FM radio reception as well.
Very simplified it comes down to this:
delay / latency / roundtriptime is the time you have to wait between clicking on a link and getting its result.
This is, ofcourse, extremely simplified because:
when you click on a link, your browser connects to a DNS to get the IP-address of the URL and then it connects to the site using the IP-address to download the HTML
As you can see, these are two queries and in your case 2x 590ms which is more than a second.
Now, the catch is that a lot of modern sites have a lot of links (javascript libraries, fonts, ads and such) incorporated that must be loaded first. It's not uncommon to have to load like 15 URLs before it can display anything.
That is more than 15 seconds between mouseclick and a HTMLpage displaying*
(* if loaded sequentially and 100% DNScache misses)
I have encountered sites with more than 60 external links so yeah, it would be nice to be able to limit that ridiculous amount.
The solution would be to switch from sattelite to landline but in your case that is impossible.
So a reasonable workaround would be to minimize the number of 3rd party sites that gets loaded:
- Disable javascript and only enable it the moment you need it.
- Also Disable links to adware/crap sites
Best way to do that is to install a browserplugin like 'uBlock Origin' or, from the same author, 'uMatrix'
uMatrix is more powerful but also more complex to operate while uBlock Origin is a 'set it and forget it' plugin.
4 Likes
This might be an quite illustrating for the deplorable state of "modern" websites nowadays:
quote:
Earlier this month, Danluu.com released an exhaustive 23-page analysis/op-ed/manifesto on the current status of unoptimized web pages and web app performance, finding that just loading a web page can even bog down an entry-level device that can run the popular game PUBG at 40 fps. In fact, the Wix webpage requires loading 21MB of data for one page, while the more famous websites Patreon and Threads load 13MB of data for one page. This can result in slow load times that reach up to 33 seconds or, in some cases, result in the page failing to load at all.
2 Likes
Not sure if Starlink is an option for you.
The Standard Starlink broadband package promises download speeds of between 25 and 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 5-10 Mbps. It also offers latency times of 25-50 ms.
3 Likes
+1 for uBlock Origin or uBlock matrix; also certain browsers (e.g. Brave, FireFox etc) might be better than others at blocking some unnecessary third-party assets.
1 Like
my rtt is 32 ms, so yours is very high compared to that. I also have download speed of 98 Mbps, (I pay for 100 Mbps from my ISP) what is your download speed?
Brian, my ISP is Cox Communications.
user@cw:~$ speedtest --simple
Ping: 28.555 ms
Download: 534.17 Mbit/s
Upload: 57.24 Mbit/s
user@cw:~$
For comparison, I'm on cable internet. My numbers are as follows:
# speedtest --simple
Ping: 33.03 ms
Download: 34.89 Mbit/s
Upload: 2.24 Mbit/s
That is a residential hookup with basic capability, no extras, no employer-supported infrastructure. Compared to yours, you have a bit more upload.
We don't use cable for video/TV. We've chosen to limit ourselves to OTA HDTV, so no need for the higher bandwidths. 
Yes indeed. Out of the box, Brave seems to block the most crap due to its build-in 'shields' function.
For @fixit7, who suffers from cognitive disengagement syndrome, it might be an attractive choice.
1 Like
Remember, the speed between your router and ISP may differ from the speed from your computer to your ISP. I have Gb Internet up to my router, but most everything inside it is wireless, which means there is a difference, since Ethernet is faster than wi-fi, albeit if you have 802.11ax . Even then, wi-fi tends to be less stable than wired, so consider the speed of your connection when determining throughput speed.
1 Like
What about fiber optics? We just got it and for streaming it is much better. As for speed you get what you pay for. It seems much faster than what we had for the computers too. We went with 1 gig per second download speeds. Still a few bucks cheaper than our old cable provider. Biggest thing was how often service was out on cable and having to reset the modem all the time. We have a very good Netgear nighthawk router. The biggest thing ways they just put it in our village and to get new customers they gave us they by contract they will never raise our rates as long as we remain their customer. We often run up to six devices, TVs, phones and computers.
I have cognitive problems, but not as bad as cognitive disengagement syndrome.
I have cognitive-impairment which does share some of the symptons.
I have had falls. An E.R. NP said that as we age, our brain shrinks and a fall slams the brain around in the skull.
1 Like