their servers?The servers keep hanging up, clearly they need more equipment or better equipment.I find it tedious to get on the boards because of this continuous problem.LD
The servers keep hanging up, clearly they need more equipment or better equipment.Their servers have been known to hang up, but this is, in my experience, quite rate. And I spend more time at TMF than is good for me, so I probably have a good intuitive feel for when their systems are running, and when they are not.Sometimes I get poor response when no one else complains. More often, I get good response when others complain, sometimes bitterly. From this, I infer that some people get good service, and some get bad. Perhaps a majority get adequate service and remain silent.There seem to be three ways to account for this.1.) The Internet is not uniform and some people get better (or worse) service at different times.2.) Some people have worse software or hardware on their own computers, or their ISP does.3.) Some people like to complain more than others.I suppose it is a combination of all three.
Until recently my internet connection was a slow DSL line, and I regularly found the sort of horrible performance with TMF described at the beginning of this thread. Of course I blamed TMF. Since I upgraded to something far faster I only occasionally see performance problems with TMF, and it is never as bad as it was. Somehow I don't think that TMF was the original problem.
so is this board conducive to complaining to TMF or is there another way?I have High SPeed Internet through Comcast.
LuckyDog,We constantly monitor the performance of our servers, and those that aren't keeping up are taken out of the rotation. But it's not an express train; there are a lot of stops along the Internet between the Fool and you, and we can't do anything about bottlenecks and slowdowns along the way.You might try clearing your browser cache to see if that's affecting your performance, or ask your ISP to check the condition of your connection.Richard
I have High SPeed Internet through Comcast.So do I, but I don't seem to have the same problem you do. In general the pages load very quickly. Yes, there are times here and there when there are problems, but in general everything works. And when there are problems, everyone seems to have the same problem.Nancy
I sometimes use an old MSN TV dialup rig to get on TMF, and that can be slow. But most of the time these days I use an Android 3.1 powered tablet, and when I have a problem with it, it is usually similar to problems I have on other sites, so I suspect it's on my end instead of TMF's, and that may be true of the problems other Fools have as well.
Of those four items, the least important is the Internet local connection speed. Mine is 500 MBS, T-1.That is strange. T-1, when I worked at Bell Labs, was about 1.536 megabits per second, not 500 Megabytes per second. The actual bit-rate was slightly higher than that, but the additional bits were used for synchronization and control purposes and not available to revenue customers. 500 MBS would be 4000 Megabits per second, 4 Gigabits per second. I doubt anyone is getting this.I agree that once you get over dial-up speed, the local connection speed is of little importance.
Of those four items, the least important is the Internet local connection speed. Mine is 500 MBS, T-1.An interesting thing about performance bottlenecks is that the most important one is whichever point is the narrowest/slowest. So Internet connection speed is the least important only when other factors are worse. When I was on a poor DSL connection it was quite important. Once is it fast enough to keep up with the next bottleneck it makes little difference.As for your connection speed, "500 MBS, T-1", I find it hard to make sense of it. First capital B is the standard representation for bytes rather than bits. It is normal for data transfer rates to be measured in bits, not bytes. The difference, a factor of 8, is not trivial - about the same as confusing the US dollar with the South African Rand. The lack of the "per" expression (bps, or b per s or b/s) reflects still more uncertainty about what is trying to be said.)Second, a T1 line is (according to Wikipedia) 1.544 Mbit/s. Even if we assume that "500 MBS" was intended to represent "500 Mbits/s" there is that difference between 500 (claimed) and 1.544 (T1) to contend with. Perhaps it is actually one of the higher T carriers? The highest I found is T5 at 400.352 Mbit/s, which at 80% of the number we are trying to reach is at least in the ballpark.But there is nothing like empirical data - why hypothesize when it can be measured? A moment's Googling turned up several sites for speed testing in Hawaii you might find worth trying out. Here is one: http://www.hibroadbandmap.org/speed-test/. If your speed is as high as stated then the limits of the testing site would probably be the bottleneck - wouldn't it be fun to give them some numbers they can't believe?
I could have used the baud transmission rate.Which would have been meaningless without substantial obscure details about the signal, details nobody cares about except engineers. Thankfully nobody uses the term any more, since it isn't meaningful for the end user; bps is the measure that reflects the actual amount of data transmitted.
I could have used the baud transmission rate.Except for the fact that "baud" is not a transmission rate. It merely refers to the number of level shifts in a modulated protocol. There was a brief period of time when "baud" was synonymous with "bits per second" but that hasn't been the case since 2400 baud modems (2400 bits per second) were the top of the line.When the industry shifted to 9600 bps modems, they still used 2400 baud signaling underneath, increasing bitrate by complexity and not a raw increase in baud rate. As a consequence, the term "baud" fell out of favor since it was no longer representative of bitrate, although it took several years of ambiguity and inaccurate references before bps took hold.The bottom line is this -- in this crowd you can't just mezmerize your audience with meaningless technical mumbo-jumbo and expect that to distract us from your silly and inaccurate claim of a "500MBS T-1" which is a thing that doesn't even exist. You boasted and blustered, and it was a lie, and you got caught.
That is strange. T-1, when I worked at Bell Labs, was about 1.536 megabits per second, not 500 Megabytes per second. The actual bit-rate was slightly higher than that, but the additional bits were used for synchronization and control purposes and not available to revenue customers. 500 MBS would be 4000 Megabits per second, 4 Gigabits per second. I doubt anyone is getting this.I agree that once you get over dial-up speed, the local connection speed is of little importance. - JeanDavid | Date: 10/21/2012 8:43:41 AM | Number: 87123There are orbiting Communication assets that achieve those speeds for classified, real-time imaging data. It is used to adjust flight patterns during launch using GPS and other classified assets. The Defense systems of the United States are very robust -- Now way, way more than in the seventies. People do not, of course ever tell me that directly. They will sometimes "play 6 questions." Cold, warmer, colder, HOT, etc. If your questions are designed well, about half of the data set gets eliminated with each question with even Yes/No answers. Part of a Branch of Mathematics called Information Theory -- a branch of Logical inference. I always like to hear the No Comment answers.The discussion was not about what orbiting Communication assets can achieve. You had stated that you were getting 500 megabyte transmission rate through a T-1, and no one could get that rate, or anywhere near that rate, through a T-1. Even if you mistyped and claimed you were getting 500 megabit transmission, that is physically impossible.Your extraneous remarks about information theory are just plain bizarre.
I could have used the baud transmission rate.So what if you did? Since a T-1 link is straight binary, the baud rate and the bit rate are the same. They would differ only on a multi-level transmission system, and T-1 is not one of those.
I tried that speed test. Mine is no where near as fast as one poster claimed for his results. DOWNLOAD SPEED:15.72 Mbps UPLOAD SPEED:3.87 MbpsThat is from New Jersey to Hawaii.
DOWNLOAD SPEED:15.72 Mbps UPLOAD SPEED:3.87 Mbps
I've been on these boards for years with no problems.Raleigh1208
Richard, I regularly get time-out errors with TMF. I hardly ever see this on other sites.But I love you guys anyway.Peter
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 1