*** Official Hyperoptic Discussion Thread ***

[LackyT]

It was by email about 2 weeks before the end of my contract

Cheers for the reply - I've checked and my contract ended at the start of this month, but no reminder email with offer

Was yours an offer code or via a link in the email?

 

[XeNoNF50]

Cheers for the reply - I've checked and my contract ended at the start of this month, but no reminder email with offer

Was yours an offer code or via a link in the email?

Just an email detailing it will end. If I don't renew it will go up to £60. If I renew they have the following two options, £40.50 broadband only and £42.50 with phone too. It said call them if I'm interested in renewing.

I'd just call them up if I was you. That's what I did last year, said I was effectively paying £45 (first year was 3 months free then £60) and can't afford for it to go £60. Can they match the £45 a month a paid for the first year for a 12 month and contract they said yeah sure.

 

[LackyT]

Just an email detailing it will end. If I don't renew it will go up to £60. If I renew they have the following two options, £40.50 broadband only and £42.50 with phone too. It said call them if I'm interested in renewing.

I'd just call them up if I was you. That's what I did last year, said I was effectively paying £45 (first year was 3 months free then £60) and can't afford for it to go £60. Can they match the £45 a month a paid for the first year for a 12 month and contract they said yeah sure.

Thanks very much for that info mate Sorted my renewal a few mins ago, same price as you mentioned, just +£5 p/m for static IP.
I've always had good results with the live chat - I just mentioned I'd received a renewal offer via email at the start of the chat

 

[XeNoNF50]

Thanks very much for that info mate Sorted my renewal a few mins ago, same price as you mentioned, just +£5 p/m for static IP.
I've always had good results with the live chat - I just mentioned I'd received a renewal offer via email at the start of the chat

Glad it worked out for you

 

[Benny]

Those speed tests all look very consistent, it doesn't look like you're suffering any speed loss! You've got the same router as me and I've noticed no slowdowns caused by the router on the gigabit package. I also do numerous port forwards (which all eat into CPU usage on the router) and it doesn't cause any slowdown. I think the ZTE has hardware acceleration for gigabit packet switching as well, so I would expect it to run at full speed with no problems.

When going through the router, any initial spike you're seeing is possibly just due to the router having to set up the session, do port address translation and talk to your computer (whereas when you connect direct your NIC is talking to the Hyperoptic switch in your building). The router may be buffering the initial sent packets then delivering as fast as possible once it's ready to handle the connection, which might be causing that initial 'blip' of higher speeds. Once the router settles down, it can transmit the data at wire speed for the rest of the download, so you notice your speeds immediately return to normal and stay pegged at the true maximum speed.

On the router, you said Firewall you'd tried on various settings - I run mine on Low and leave "anti-hacking" disabled (basically useless). in Filtering, I have everything disabled, DMZ disabled and IPSec switch disabled.

In NetMeter, the very thin spikes (like in https://postimg.cc/K4LpFf47) I'm 99.9999% certain are just Windows or the app misreporting bandwidth utilisation for that instant. Unfortunately this skews the graph maximum value, and the axis lines are not absolute values, so I can't see what the actual speed is measured as. Re-run the tests and take screenshots while they're happening, not afterwards, then you can see the momentary speeds in NetMeter.

The trick with NetMeter is to watch the second-by-second upload / download speeds while testing (in the bar below the graph). Run a Steam and file download test both when direct into the socket and via the router, I believe you'll see your speeds are pretty much the same (excluding that very brief burst at the start when going via the router).


I wouldn't worry about doing speed tests while people are on Netflix, the router will be able to handle both fine. You'd possibly just notice your speed test dipping slightly as new chunks were downloaded by the Netflix player.

Having a very generous upstream speed - you also get (up to) 150 mbit upload - really helps avoid congestion and buffering. You don't typically suffer the same symptoms of overloaded connections that were common with ADSL and slower cable packages (where you might have 16 or 20 megabits down but only half a megabit up, very quickly that can become saturated just from the packet acknowledgements TCP sends for every received packet).


If the spike isn't caused by the router, it might be due to the PC being very briefly too busy to adequately process bandwidth usage in real time, this can happen when another process requests a CPU interrupt (which then skews Windows' own calculations) - all sorts of possibilities. That's why watching speed over a longer average and filtering out the 'noise' gives you the accurate reading. However in your case, when you go direct you don't get the spike, so that points me back towards the router as being the 'cause', though in truth you're not losing any speed that I can tell (I'd need more bandwidth numbers to confirm though).

Reason I think your speeds are fine is because in the one 'test via router' screenshot you took while a download was actually running, the speed at that moment was almost 20 MB/sec, which is normal. Better than the quoted package speed still. https://postimg.cc/K4LpFf47 Run that 1000GB test again a couple of times via router and via direct connection, and expand the graph to show a longer period of time - chances are you'll see the same brief spikes and dips due to upstream congestion which is fairly normal.

Though you've not mentioned speeds during the tests, all the netmeter graphs during file download tests are basically steadily flat across the top, as you'd expect on a line able to max out at full speed. The steady 20 MB/sec is actually about 160 Mbit/sec so you're doing better than the advertised package speed.



I've occasionally experienced a speed test which won't run, usually it's the browser. Typically I can download files or run speedtests repeatedly without issue. It's usually a browser issue if a web-based speed test won't run. Use Chrome in Incognito or flip-flip between Firefox and Chrome, you'll notice as you add extensions or plug-ins that speed may suffer as well, so best to run them in a completely fresh browser with zero extensions.

I had good results with a fresh Firefox install when Chrome started losing about 10% of my speedtest speeds, eventually realised one particular extension was causing Chrome to internally lag and lose efficiency.


If your console or other device is not always achieving full speed, unfortunately, welcome to ultrafast internet. The ISP's network is capable of doing full speeds all the time, but (as they've said to me) as soon as your data passes over the internet, all bets are off. Basically they're not paying for 100% guaranteed maximum bandwidth throughput for every customer from their upstream providers at all times, understandable due to the economics of it. However as a result the providers (who also make their own decisions about how to route traffic through their network) sometimes end up compromising our maximum real world available speeds. Not really anything we can do to improve this, unless you have a server on the far end which also gets its connection via one of those providers, then you can complain to the carriers as a direct customer. Not possible for most people though.


You also notice that many remote systems are incapable of running at your connection's max speed, especially when you start to get above 100 Mbit/sec internet connections. In some cases, servers won't be able to serve content as fast as your connection, or they might be throttling their own speeds to serve multiple users.

Add to this upstream peering agreements your ISP has with 'transit providers' (bandwidth providers to other networks), available bandwidth capacity inside the third party provider networks, plus overall 'busyness' of the systems all contribute to slower than expected speeds. Many factors.


It may be that the XBox downloads from Microsoft's CDN using single-thread downloads (vs. multi-thread downloads like Steam, Ubisoft and others do), at which point you'll notice your speed fluctuating or not maxing out, because it's rare that a single threaded TCP session can utilise the maximum theoretical bandwidth of a link, especially when it has to travel via the Internet taking weird routes through several networks. Nothing you can do about this really.


Am I missing anything else, have you noticed bad speeds at certain times or to specific things, or does this explain what you're seeing? Forgive me if any of it seemed condescending, difficult to know sometimes how much experience people have in networking or the weird ways TCP behaves sometimes.

(Obviously these are only my personal opinions and views as a punter, I have nothing to do with Hyperoptic except they take my money each month for internet)

Sorry for the extreme delay in replying ~cw been busy at work then had some private work in the evenings has just wiped me out. I haven't really had much time to run additional tests but when I have been online. I have adjusted the router settings inline with yours. So will keep an eye on things to see how they go. Downloaded a few large patches on the Xbox and the connection was looking pretty solid with the odd dip here and there but nothing like steam was behaving. Downloaded Red Dragon via STEAM on the friday night and got a solid download took around 15 minutes for 17gig.

In terms of covering off everything, yes that is everything and more mate big thanks. No fear of sounding condescending I know next to nothing other than basics when it comes to Networking and connectivity, just information I glean from the internet or from friends. It is interesting to get feedback in such detail as some of it wedges itself into the ole grey matter.

‘have you noticed bad speeds at certain times or to specific things, or does this explain what you're seeing?’
No it has been pretty consistent at all times of the day, I have been up early in the morning and tested about 6.40am tested all through the day when I have powered on my pc.
Even early morning sessions at 3.30am. Always hitting the rated speeds or thereabouts never less.

I’m really happy with the service from HO to be honest. Their support has been really good. Had a top bloke who was in pretty much constant comms over email checking how things have been going.
He did some tests on Steam himself as he was also a gamer. He was happy for me to get back in touch should anything arise in the future.

Cheers

B

 

[Jonny K]

Hi all, i have been in an epic battle with my management agency and despite them stonewalling hyperoptic and I, I should finally be having this installed sometime before xmas.

Im looking to get the 1gbs service, and thinking of getting a 10gbe router and a 10gbe switch. My imac and NAS both have 10gbe
,ost of the tests I've seen on YT have been the router directly to a pc. Would be using an ethernet switch still allow such high speeds of 1gbs?

Anyone here has experience of using the 1gbs hyperoptic with an ethernet switch?
is 10gbe switches overkill? since my nas and imac are 10gbe Tbase it makes sense to upgrade to a decent switch

 

[BongoHunter]

Hi all, i have been in an epic battle with my management agency and despite them stonewalling hyperoptic and I, I should finally be having this installed sometime before xmas.

Im looking to get the 1gbs service, and thinking of getting a 10gbe router and a 10gbe switch. My imac and NAS both have 10gbe
,ost of the tests I've seen on YT have been the router directly to a pc. Would be using an ethernet switch still allow such high speeds of 1gbs?

Anyone here has experience of using the 1gbs hyperoptic with an ethernet switch?
is 10gbe switches overkill? since my nas and imac are 10gbe Tbase it makes sense to upgrade to a decent switch

It makes sense to have a switch in your setup so you can get 10gbps between mac and nas - just plug into you router and away you go - should not be a performance penalty from having a switch - it will probably be the fastest bit of the incredibly long journey any Internet traffic will be taking on its way to your machine anyway

 

[~cw]

Short answer, yes. The ZTE Hyperoptic router has basic hardware acceleration to give you line speed on traffic. I also disable the router firewall and some of the 'security' features (so I can ping the router from my third-party monitoring service). Just throw a dumb switch on one of the ports.

Absolutely stick a 10GigE switch in if you can afford it, you'll get the benefits of Mac-to-NAS fast traffic and there's no negative effect on the internet connection speed. I've done exactly what you propose with a trusty Prosafe GS108 in the living room where my NAS, Sky box, TV etc all sit. You won't notice any difference in speed going via the switch, provided the ethernet cable between the Hyperoptic router and the switch is in good nick. I have a 35 metre run between mine, no problems.

You will notice that Windows machines generally aren't capable of a reliable consistent gigabit/gigabit throughput, whereas Macs and Linux machines will generally always be able to max out the line no problems. It's a symptom of Windows' poor TCP congestion algorithm implementation and there's no getting round it. Trust me, I've tried. I'm even running a 10GigE NIC and it makes no difference The problem is most evident when running iperf3 speed tests to a public test server. However, having gigabit up+down is just sheer bliss as soon as you have multiple devices on the connection or for running any servers. Hyperoptic's routing typically gives you 100-400 mbit/sec per thread in average network conditions, and they now run IPv4/IPv6 dual stack which is quite convenient if you want to familiarise yourself with IPv6.

PAY THE EXTRA FOR A STATIC IP otherwise you'll likely have problems negotiating their CG-NAT. Unless you have a static IP you won't be able to host anything publicly accessible on your IP, and CG-NAT causes some issues for outbound connections. That's the only ripoff (£5 per month) but a necessary evil to avoid much frustration down the line.

 

[Jonny K]

many thanks for your reply. My fear is if the router is only 1gigs bit/s ethernet, will this not slow the internet down to circa 120 megabytes [appolgies if this is a dumb question]

I think ill bite the bullet and get the upgraded switch with 3 10gbe and 5 1gbs tbase

So it will be routher ->switch
switch->nas and mac 10gbe
switch-> everything else

For wifi i have a ubiquiti AP which is awesome and I will likely keep and that will also go into the switch. I currently have tplink archer m600 as my modem and use the ubiquitin as the ap via a netgear manged switch

Finally. I'm in flat. everything will pretty much be in a small area luckily.

 

[~cw]

Well, you will only get gigabit/sec internet speeds regardless of what equipment you hang off the end of it. Hyperoptic's upstream switch ports in my complex are all configured for gigabit ethernet and will not negotiate any faster, which makes sense.

Connect one of the Hyperoptic's four ethernet ports to your 10gigE switch and you will still have 10Gbit/sec LAN for everything on that switch + 1Gbit/sec internet access.

Gigabit internet on Hyperoptic is realistically anything between 110 and 120 MB/sec (megabytes) at max, which is essentially 1 Gigabit/sec. You will notice some slight loss of absolute throughput due to real world conditions, you will rarely see anything faster than a few hundred megabits per second on a single threaded connection due to onward peering, internet conditions, etc. However if you torrent or use Steam/Origin/Epic you will easily max out your line at >100MB/sec.

You won't have any slowdown by using an unmanaged Layer 2 switch into one of the Hyperoptic router ethernet ports. The Hyperoptic router can effectively offer line speed through any/all of its switch ports simultaneously. You can't just plug a switch directly into the Hyperoptic socket, though you can connect a single device (which will receive the 'public' IP address). Some people get a more robust device like a UDM and use that as their router.

Whatever you do, keep the Hyperoptic router as they always want that in the 'master' socket for any diagnostics or fault finding should you ever have a problem.

 

[Jonny K]

thanks so much

 

[neverminder]

Question about throttling.

I've had Hyperoptic 1 Gbps for over 2 years now and up until now it was more or less fine. I have a file storage server on Hetzner (Germany) and over 95% of my total traffic is with that particular server. Yesterday the download/upload speed suddenly dropped tenfold and hasn't recovered, it tops out to something like 6-7 MBit/s. I've tried everything - different PC, different OS, different remote server, different broadband connection combinations and narrowed it down to Hyperoptic throttling speed to that one particular IP. Is this what they do now?

 

[ralv585]

Question about throttling.

I've had Hyperoptic 1 Gbps for over 2 years now and up until now it was more or less fine. I have a file storage server on Hetzner (Germany) and over 95% of my total traffic is with that particular server. Yesterday the download/upload speed suddenly dropped tenfold and hasn't recovered, it tops out to something like 6-7 MBit/s. I've tried everything - different PC, different OS, different remote server, different broadband connection combinations and narrowed it down to Hyperoptic throttling speed to that one particular IP. Is this what they do now?

I've always found that their customer service to be very helpful, so just give them a call to see what is going on if you haven't already.

 

[~cw]

It's probably not throttling, AFAIK they don't do that - it's probably a change in routing, or new contention on your local network segment. If on Windows, get WinMTR Redux and test over v4 and v6 to your server. (otherwise just mtr it).

I've noticed that Hyperoptic's transit and peering partners (Level3/GlobalCrossing, Telia, Zayo, HE etc) seem to offer less bandwidth per TCP connection than some other providers. Whether that's due to upstream routing policies, the level of service they are paying for, or some other conditions, but certainly on a single threaded download I've never seen anything close to gigabit speeds. On VPN the most I can get even over Wireguard on most occasions is 600-700 Mbit/sec. I can max the line out, but only with iperf, P2P protocols or multi-threaded connections.

Also open a browser and run multiple tests to http://speedtest.hyperoptic.com/ - the results are apparently logged on their end so they can refer to them if you contact with a speed issue.

As you have a server you know should be a fairly steady state, run iperf3 and do single- and multi-threaded connections to and from it, see if you can max it out or observe any patterns in traffic (bearing in mind any local contention of your uplink, so best to try out of peak hours). Then compare with iperfs to speed.hyperoptic.com and a couple of other public iperf servers (sometimes they're busy so you have to try several port numbers to get a slot). On Windows, I tend to use NetMeter Evo to monitor momentary bandwidth (on Linux there's programs like BitMeter OS).

Also check with Hetzner, not out of the question that there's an issue to them.

if you want to PM me with some test links (1 GB or 10 GB test files?) or if you want to run an iperf3 server, I can run some speed tests and diagnostics from here so you have some comparisons...

Peering and contention can make a stupidly big difference, moreso on HO where it's more noticeable.

For example, testing a 1GB file just now from one of my servers in a Milan DC, hardly a premium server but it's on a decent line with an alright provider.



First burst was test 1, connected to random NordVPN server using NordLynx, I think to a server in a DC with a nearby peering with Hyperoptic. Good, stead speeds around 50-60 MB/sec.

Disconnected, ran same test direct over Hyperoptic. Transited via Zayo, bounced around between their LHR switches for a while, then over to Milan, not a very optimum route. Speeds slowly improved but ugh, not great by the time it finished.

Then reconnected to NordVPN, just went "UK Quickest" each time. First three times were slooooooooooow. Then connected again, this time to a VPN server hosted on ukservers, blazingly quick.

Did another test again just now, UK quickest random choice - it's put me on to a Zare/HydraCom server and it's less than 2 MB/sec throughput. Trickling through slowly and the route is Hyperoptic -> AS25369 -> Cogent (London, Paris, Marseilles, finally Milan)...

Reconnecting again, a brief spike to 20/30 MB/sec then back to 1MB/sec. Reconnected AGAIN, given an M247 server in London, started at 20 MB then sank to about 5 MB/sec before ramping back up to about 40 MB/sec.

Fishing around for more UKServers VPN servers, I noticed I was always getting 40-55 MB/sec via those and almost nothing over other randomly assigned servers hosted by Zare or M247. And this appears to be entirely due to transit and onward peering. In this case, UKServers seems to win - bot they and M247 peer with Hyperoptic in Sovereign House but for whatever reason, I suspect contention, I get more via the UKServers VPN.

It's all quite frustrating.

WinMTR is useful for analysing traffic paths but the ping responses are for guidance only, many router hops will deprioritise or drop ICMP.


Chances are, you may find that with the right combination of VPN server (if you have a VPN service) your connection to your server may be faster and/or more consistent than it is directly. It's what I find sometimes with some of my servers. I gave up arguing with Hyperoptic ages ago, their standard line is "we do not control the peering and transit decisions of our upstream providers" which to me is code for "we get it cheap, we can't make them improve it, stop complaining".

 

[neverminder]

It's probably not throttling, AFAIK they don't do that - it's probably a change in routing, or new contention on your local network segment. If on Windows, get WinMTR Redux and test over v4 and v6 to your server. (otherwise just mtr it).

I've noticed that Hyperoptic's transit and peering partners (Level3/GlobalCrossing, Telia, Zayo, HE etc) seem to offer less bandwidth per TCP connection than some other providers. Whether that's due to upstream routing policies, the level of service they are paying for, or some other conditions, but certainly on a single threaded download I've never seen anything close to gigabit speeds. On VPN the most I can get even over Wireguard on most occasions is 600-700 Mbit/sec. I can max the line out, but only with iperf, P2P protocols or multi-threaded connections.

Also open a browser and run multiple tests to http://speedtest.hyperoptic.com/ - the results are apparently logged on their end so they can refer to them if you contact with a speed issue.

As you have a server you know should be a fairly steady state, run iperf3 and do single- and multi-threaded connections to and from it, see if you can max it out or observe any patterns in traffic (bearing in mind any local contention of your uplink, so best to try out of peak hours). Then compare with iperfs to speed.hyperoptic.com and a couple of other public iperf servers (sometimes they're busy so you have to try several port numbers to get a slot). On Windows, I tend to use NetMeter Evo to monitor momentary bandwidth (on Linux there's programs like BitMeter OS).

Also check with Hetzner, not out of the question that there's an issue to them.

if you want to PM me with some test links (1 GB or 10 GB test files?) or if you want to run an iperf3 server, I can run some speed tests and diagnostics from here so you have some comparisons...

Thanks for the help. I've sent you a link to a 1 GB test file on my server. I sent it to my friend who's on Virgin and he was able to more or less max out his 350 MBit/s while downloading. Same file downloads at ~800 KB/s for me on my 1 Gbps Hyperoptic. It doesn't really matter what protocol, I've tested SFTP, FTPS and HTTP, speeds are consistent. Server to server speed maxes out as well. I cannot come to any other conclusion than Hyperoptic is selectively thottling me with my Hetzner server.

 

[neverminder]

It's probably not throttling, AFAIK they don't do that - it's probably a change in routing, or new contention on your local network segment. If on Windows, get WinMTR Redux and test over v4 and v6 to your server. (otherwise just mtr it).

I've noticed that Hyperoptic's transit and peering partners (Level3/GlobalCrossing, Telia, Zayo, HE etc) seem to offer less bandwidth per TCP connection than some other providers. Whether that's due to upstream routing policies, the level of service they are paying for, or some other conditions, but certainly on a single threaded download I've never seen anything close to gigabit speeds. On VPN the most I can get even over Wireguard on most occasions is 600-700 Mbit/sec. I can max the line out, but only with iperf, P2P protocols or multi-threaded connections.

Also open a browser and run multiple tests to http://speedtest.hyperoptic.com/ - the results are apparently logged on their end so they can refer to them if you contact with a speed issue.

As you have a server you know should be a fairly steady state, run iperf3 and do single- and multi-threaded connections to and from it, see if you can max it out or observe any patterns in traffic (bearing in mind any local contention of your uplink, so best to try out of peak hours). Then compare with iperfs to speed.hyperoptic.com and a couple of other public iperf servers (sometimes they're busy so you have to try several port numbers to get a slot). On Windows, I tend to use NetMeter Evo to monitor momentary bandwidth (on Linux there's programs like BitMeter OS).

Also check with Hetzner, not out of the question that there's an issue to them.

if you want to PM me with some test links (1 GB or 10 GB test files?) or if you want to run an iperf3 server, I can run some speed tests and diagnostics from here so you have some comparisons...

Peering and contention can make a stupidly big difference, moreso on HO where it's more noticeable.

For example, testing a 1GB file just now from one of my servers in a Milan DC, hardly a premium server but it's on a decent line with an alright provider.



First burst was test 1, connected to random NordVPN server using NordLynx, I think to a server in a DC with a nearby peering with Hyperoptic. Good, stead speeds around 50-60 MB/sec.

Disconnected, ran same test direct over Hyperoptic. Transited via Zayo, bounced around between their LHR switches for a while, then over to Milan, not a very optimum route. Speeds slowly improved but ugh, not great by the time it finished.

Then reconnected to NordVPN, just went "UK Quickest" each time. First three times were slooooooooooow. Then connected again, this time to a VPN server hosted on ukservers, blazingly quick.

Did another test again just now, UK quickest random choice - it's put me on to a Zare/HydraCom server and it's less than 2 MB/sec throughput. Trickling through slowly and the route is Hyperoptic -> AS25369 -> Cogent (London, Paris, Marseilles, finally Milan)...

Reconnecting again, a brief spike to 20/30 MB/sec then back to 1MB/sec. Reconnected AGAIN, given an M247 server in London, started at 20 MB then sank to about 5 MB/sec before ramping back up to about 40 MB/sec.

Fishing around for more UKServers VPN servers, I noticed I was always getting 40-55 MB/sec via those and almost nothing over other randomly assigned servers hosted by Zare or M247. And this appears to be entirely due to transit and onward peering. In this case, UKServers seems to win - bot they and M247 peer with Hyperoptic in Sovereign House but for whatever reason, I suspect contention, I get more via the UKServers VPN.

It's all quite frustrating.

WinMTR is useful for analysing traffic paths but the ping responses are for guidance only, many router hops will deprioritise or drop ICMP.


Chances are, you may find that with the right combination of VPN server (if you have a VPN service) your connection to your server may be faster and/or more consistent than it is directly. It's what I find sometimes with some of my servers. I gave up arguing with Hyperoptic ages ago, their standard line is "we do not control the peering and transit decisions of our upstream providers" which to me is code for "we get it cheap, we can't make them improve it, stop complaining".

Thanks for the effort. I've tested download of 1GB file from your Milan server and the speed averaged at 50 MB/s, so quite good. I think I am left with one last option - I can get an identical server on the same Hetzner datacenter with different IP and do another test. If it is fast then it will 100% confirm my original suspicion of IP throttling. If it's slow then if will confirm there's a fresh peering issue between Hetzner and Hyperoptic.

 

[~cw]

Thanks for the effort. I've tested download of 1GB file from your Milan server and the speed averaged at 50 MB/s, so quite good. I think I am left with one last option - I can get an identical server on the same Hetzner datacenter with different IP and do another test. If it is fast then it will 100% confirm my original suspicion of IP throttling. If it's slow then if will confirm there's a fresh peering issue between Hetzner and Hyperoptic.

No problem, drop me a line if you want more diagnostics on the PM.

I'd also be interested to hear your findings, if HO admit anything or give you some technical feedback Also worth contacting Hetzner and making a parallel enquiry if you can, given the other results.

 

[Scythe]

@~cw I’m ordering hyperoptic at the weekend for my house move. Have you got the referral? Email in trust.

 

[~cw]

@~cw I’m ordering hyperoptic at the weekend for my house move. Have you got the referral? Email in trust.

PMed

 

[neverminder]

No problem, drop me a line if you want more diagnostics on the PM.

I'd also be interested to hear your findings, if HO admit anything or give you some technical feedback Also worth contacting Hetzner and making a parallel enquiry if you can, given the other results.

I did some more practical testing. I've added an additional IP to my existing server. No change, the issue is still there. Then I ordered a new identical server in the same data center, the issue is still there. Hetzner also has it's own download test file, I tried it and the speed was fine: https://speed.hetzner.de/1GB.bin . This makes it even more confusing.

So the only 2 remaining possibilities now are:

• Hyperoptic has serious peering issues with Hetzner
• Hyperoptic is throttling me to (a part of) Hetzner network

Incidentally, when you did those download tests from my server, was any one of them by just using Hyperoptic broadband? Unfortunately I personally don't know anyone who has Hyperoptic broadband to narrow this down to the final answer.

EDIT: I just got an account on IPVanish and tested with their NL based SOCKS5 proxy, the average sustained speed was about 90 MB/s. I still don't know who to blame, but I suspect Hyperoptic is at fault here.