I understand latency, image size, etc., but that does not explain the extended "waiting" times to access sites.
Does it take 2 minutes for you to load myhughesnet.com????
Sometimes. Again, image sizes are usually in the k. Their size is where the download speed kicks in. But that's not the problem. The problem is that each one takes time. Some items are "above the fold" items that block page display until they are loaded. For example, just in the <head> section alone, you have:
1. a favicon.ico image and four separate resolutions of apple-touch-icon (for Safari)
2. a dynamic php-driven stylesheet (rescon.css) in a script
3. a query-driven database script (sadlib)
Each of those has to load, run, and/or get information from a database with your customized site info before the page display can even start (this is called "blocking") and each database querie takes several pings too.
Then in the <body> you have several images, external links and scripts (hopefully run asynchronously) which still have to be accessed and loaded.
See where I'm going with this? It's not the latency of one item that's causing the overall speed issue. It's the compounded latency of everything in serial.
All very valid points - Thanks. However, I visit several web sites that are generally static on the first page (i.e: image content can change, but the size and number of images remain the same and sourced by the site itself) and the load time can vary wildly. Same is true when retrieving an online "logbook" I have - and I know when it changes (and it is only a little text when it does). Also, is sitting with inactivity while the browser reports "waiting" on aws (Amazon Web Services) for 10s of seconds to a minute all from blocking?
The past couple of days myhughrenet.com has finished loading in 45 +- seconds. OTOH, just before that was a slow period that took 2-3x longer. Must have been a huge content change between days?
What you are saying is very true, but does not logically fit my exact symptoms...
I certainly wish HN would fix the problems! Service tonight has gone from awful to hardly able.
The waiting times remain the same. It can take quite a while to just do a TLS handshake exchange.
To add insult to injury, the download times dropped to 1 meg tonight per testmy.net.
Even timed out once loading email...
Raining, but signal strength hovering around 75 - 80.
Here is my sat data:
Woody - KZ4AK
Thursday nights during football season are especially bad. Sunday and Monday evenings as well, just not as much.
Hello Felicia, et all...
Thanks for commenting... Last night (even very late) my connection was so poor that it was essentially unusable. I received a text message indicating a service tech is scheduled for 26 DEC.
However, I don't think there is anything service can do on my end. This morning, my speed is fine and the extended "wait" times (no data exchange activity) are minimal.
testmy.net results - https://testmy.net/db/KsjFpWAGN
Since nothing has changed at my location, it would seem the problem is not here, but resides with HN.
Given the circumstances, how do you think a service call would help?
Thanks for asking. I wish I could say yes, but web load performance is still poor. Even with ethernet to modem, a 110 signal strength, and great speeds reported by testmy.net, it sometimes takes a minute or more to load a very simple (minimal images) web page. Any improvement is too subtle to notice. I will say that the issue can vary. Sometimes it isn't really what I would expect, but is OK, at other times, seems like half my usage is spent "waiting". CNN.com just loaded in 15 seconds - Right now it is good, not so much earlier tonight.
Poor overall performance is still poor. Signal >100 testmy.net = 40 MB and faster.
Experiencing long download times that should download very quickly.
For example, just updated Mozilla Thunderbird. Watching the download progression readout, was running a paltry zero point one (0.1) meg bytes /second. Downloading a simple 1.4 meg data file can also be equally sluggish.
Why is the "actual" download stream so much slower than what should be, given the reported speed?
If I could attach one, a video would show the issue, albiet a long, boring video