Return to Question

Testing network connectivity on a server with Gigabit Ethernet

Let me quote the bolded out part from the question:

• only control one server
• tool that would let me download a 100MB file in several simultaneous TCP streams over HTTP

Now, let's just do some common-sense math in regards to the concept of Bandwidth Delay Product, based on the 20MB/s from the question and 25 ms from my comment as a reply to someone else's comment.

20 MB/s * 25 ms ≈ 512 KB

Wow, quite a round number and quite a big buffer, I wonder whether it's a coincidence that one's throughput is indeed limited by 200Mbps in one's tests with single-stream downloads?

Now, a bunch of yahoos came in, and flooded the question with irrelevant answers about internet pipes, about how connection speed is irrelevant, about how networks have congestion, and just about all kinds of variables other than what the question has been asking for -- command-line tool similar to wget with simultaneous download support.

I didn't babysit these answers, and the "community" has then decided to put my question on hold with the following reason:

• "Questions must demonstrate a **minimal understanding of the problem being solved**. Try including attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See How can I ask better questions on Server Fault? for further guidance." – MDMarra, Scott Pack, mdpc, Falcon Momot, Nathan C
  

Oh, pardon me, yes, I'm obviously a clueless monkey that has no understand of bandwidth delay product or some beyond-basic internet connectivity issues like speed of the interface vs. the speed of the overall connection.

Shouldn't people who vote to close a question demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved?

BTW, thanks to one humble user, tomodachi, I was able to confirm that my connection is indeed 1Gbps, since he actually answered what I was asking for. :-)

But I'm overall disappointed that this situation happens so often on various SE sites: people have no clue what the question is about, so, they just vote to close it in their own ignorance, especially after their own misinformed answers have received a negative attention or rating.

And it is a problem.

Testing network connectivity on a server with Gigabit Ethernet

Let me quote the bolded out part from the question:

• only control one server
• tool that would let me download a 100MB file in several simultaneous TCP streams over HTTP

Now, let's just do some common-sense math in regards to the concept of Bandwidth Delay Product, based on the 20MB/s from the question and 25 ms from my comment as a reply to someone else's comment.

20 MB/s * 25 ms ≈ 512 KB

Wow, quite a round number and quite a big buffer, I wonder whether it's a coincidence that one's throughput is indeed limited by 200Mbps in one's tests with single-stream downloads?

Now, a bunch of yahoos came in, and flooded the question with irrelevant answers about internet pipes, about how connection speed is irrelevant, about how networks have congestion, and just about all kinds of variables other than what the question has been asking for -- command-line tool similar to wget with simultaneous download support.

I didn't babysit these answers, and the "community" has then decided to put my question on hold with the following reason:

• "Questions must demonstrate a **minimal understanding of the problem being solved**. Try including attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See How can I ask better questions on Server Fault? for further guidance." – MDMarra, Scott Pack, mdpc, Falcon Momot, Nathan C
  

Oh, pardon me, yes, I'm obviously a clueless monkey that has no understand of bandwidth delay product or some beyond-basic internet connectivity issues like speed of the interface vs. the speed of the overall connection.

Shouldn't people who vote to close a question demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved?

BTW, thanks to one humble user, tomodachi, I was able to confirm that my connection is indeed 1Gbps, since he actually answered what I was asking for. :-)

But I'm overall disappointed that this situation happens so often on various SE sites: people have no clue what the question is about, so, they just vote to close it in their own ignorance, especially after their own misinformed answers have received a negative attention or rating.

And it is a problem.