xerobank speed

I wanted to ask about what kind of performance most people are getting through the xerobank vpn. First off, my straight connection (no vpn) is running 16-17 mbps. Ran a couple tests through speedtest.net. I know speedtest sites are relative and there's a lot of variables, but wanted to get a basic idea of whats happening with the vpn. When connected through the vpn, I average 400-500 kbps on the tests. Should I be getting better than that? Are there some configurations I should look into? thanks!

Didn't see anything come up in search, but if there's a thread already floating around, let me know.

 

There are lots of things you can do. What is your physical location?

 

I'm in Ohio on an at&t u-verse connection.

 

Try using Canada connection and seeing how your tests go. btw, 16mbps isn't 16mbps to the world, only your uplink to your ISP.

 

I've been testing using Canada and US. Both seem to get me anywhere from 600-900 kbps. I know my 16mbps isn't what I'm touching the outside world at, but I'm just trying to get a bench mark on what everyone else is able to get from the vpn.

 

Dan901, I have used xB VPN for many months, and see no difference in speed whether xB VPN is enabled or disabled.

Stated differently, xB VPN appears to have no noticeable negative impact on the speed with which I am able to use the web, based upon my subjective experiential assessment.

 

I get up to 1,000 kb/s second through the VPN. I get up to 3,000 kb/s second on my bare connection. But I pay extra for super fast internet. I think 500 to 1,000 kb/s is pretty darn fast.

I don't use a speed test. Free Download Manager lets me know. I love it. I use rapidshare for everything. FDM breaks the links up into pieces so it is download several parts all at once. Fast!

 

Thanks for the info everyone. Anyone else that has any thing good or bad about the speed, please share. I'd like to hear.

 

I notice a fairly significant slowdown in my speed when I use Xerobank vpn on my Windows XP system, but virtually no slowdown at all when I'm on my Arch Linux system using OpenVPN (I dual boot).

I can get over 1 MB/s (that's megabyte) download speed using xerobank vpn on Arch and maybe 100-150 KB/s on Windows XP. I've used Wireshark to make sure that I'm actually connected properly through the vpn and checked my IP address on the Shields Up! site (among others).

I can't figure out why my speed is so much slower using Windows. I would love to hear if anyone knows why this is.

edit: When on Windows, I can get a speed of around 250 KB/s using a download manager (DownThemAll addon for Firefox), and I've also gotten around 250KB/s download speed on Bittorrent using the uTorrent client.

 

I tried a couple of different security suites that slowed my downloads. Now I just use Eset Nod 32 and Zone Alarm Free. Some firewalls seem to cause problems for me.

 

Windows counts traffic differently while linux has a better throughput, which is Epoll and FIO for linux and Select and DIO in windows.

 

For a ‘big picture’ view of Internet speed, readers of this thread may be interested in the Internet Health Report and the Internet Traffic Report.

 

I'm getting great speeds from the Netherlands server, 9 MB/s. So I'm satisfied. I'm pretty close to the server thou.

 

What's your setup? windows/linux/etc?

 

9MB/s? Thats 72 Mbps. Even if it was only 9Mbps that's still great.

 

Windows. I have 100 Mbit/s connection. I've increased my TCP receive window with TCPOptimizer as well.

 

Yes, 9 MB/s (72 Mbit/s). We have fast connections in Sweden.

 

~Snip~ How long does it take to download a 100MB rapidshare link?

 

~12 seconds

 

I am completely dumbfounded. I would love to experience that. But it's not possible where I live. And I have never heard of that being possible anywhere in the US. That is truly amazing.

 

I get great speeds with XeroBank. I start out with Cox Premier which is advertised at up to 20Mbps. In reality, I usually average around 15-17. I have never run a speed test with XeroBank as honestly I have never noticed that much of a difference to bother.

Totally off-topic for a minute>>> but it's ridiculous how far behind the US is in broadband infrastructure. I have to pay extra for the 20Mbs from "preferred to "premier" and it's considered superfast. In many parts of Europe and Asia, that's poking slow.

 

Thats the thing about the internet. It is not flat. 20Mbps isn't 20Mbps to anywhere. For example, people talk about japan has 100Mbps. Well guess what, they have 100Mbps inside japan, and once you get outside jp they get maybe 2Mbps. Same with China, USA, EU. In northern EU you get some good peering like sweden to netherlands. Why? close together, shared peering at ISPs yadda yadda yadda. Internet access is all about perspectives. For example, I have one guy who has XeroBank in Germany, using a route from the USA to Netherlands. He gets only 500Kbps on his 16Mbps pipe. Why? His ISP has 16Mbps to the EU, but has 1) not 16Mbps to USA, and 2) some bad route through an ISP somewhere that is sending his 16Mbps through a bottleneck somewhere on a transatlantic cable. He complains. As far as he can tell its our network, because he gets 16Mbps everywhere else he goes.

In truth, the Mbps doesn't really matter. What matters is latency. Most websites are under 100k. What difference does downloading at 0.001 vs 0.01 seconds make? None really unless you are google. What you DO notice is the latency. Latency is how *long* it takes for you to receive the data the servers are sending sending your computer, and bandwidth his how fat the data pipe is. What you want is low latency. That's why one-hop networks, or weakly anonymous networks are faster than international relay... less hops = less latency. So if you had a network with 1 Mbps @ 100ms latency, nearly every website and websurfing would load faster than 1000 Mbps @ 1000ms latency.

 

That's all very true, for most of us. Streaming true high definition video inside the US is a dream for most, we don't have the pipes to handle it. It's a given for most in Japan, and all done wirelessly! Sometimes bandwidth does matter. But Steve, you make an excellent point about latency.