• m0ffx (cs)

    Caching I presume?

    And first.

  • JF (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    Caching I presume?

    And first.

    That would be one fast cache section.........

  • iMalc (unregistered)

    I presume that the divisor was far too small when calculating transfer size / time taken

  • mav (unregistered)

    Bandwidth TYPE-R

  • snoofle (cs)

    I suppose it could have been worse:

    You: 1.41NaN MB/sec

  • anon (unregistered)

    That's the bandwith those people with stickers are getting.

    captcha: ninjas - how appropriate

  • Bill (unregistered)

    I really liked the chart with all the values at 1px and then the bar all the way across.

  • KungFu (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • KungFu (unregistered) in reply to KungFu
    Comment held for moderation.
  • SomeCoder (unregistered)

    If I've done my math right, that means he can download at ~11.642e24 Terabytes per second

    That's some pipe! :)

  • Benanov (cs) in reply to KungFu

    Verified. This is bogus; anyone can alter the URL.

    The REAL WTF is using GET for this sort of thing?

  • Joel (unregistered)

    Yeah, and my car's computer tells me I'm getting 99MPG when I coast to a stop. Sampling over a small time span and getting big numbers isn't surprising. I can't tell from the article whether that was the case or whether there was a programming bug. The latter is potentially funny, the former is ho-hum. (OK, the bar graph was fun.)

  • Ken (unregistered)

    Just because you can make up your own "speed" by tweaking the URL doesn't mean there wasn't a quirk in the test that generated the number on its own. I've done ftp's of small files which would complete in less than one clock tick, and ftp reports amazing bandwidth calculations in such cases.

    Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't faked just to get on WTF.

  • benryves (cs)
  • sjs (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • ssprencel (cs) in reply to benryves
    benryves:

    So fast that it's finished downloading before the Mouse_Up event gets fired. Now that's pretty damn quick!

  • Hitsuji (cs) in reply to sjs

    yep definately bogus, don't see how he could have generated http://www.bandwidthmeter.info/results.php?kbps=100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 randomly

  • Rob Sirloin (unregistered)

    Awww. It was fun until you guys ruined it for me:)

    Just modify the URL huh?

    The real "what the fuck?" is that you guys have time to sit around and figure that shit out.

    But this is hardly "Worse than Failure(TM?)".

  • Will (unregistered)

    Another WTF: Looking at KungFu's link, the 28.8 kbps bar is the second-widest -- wider than all the other pre-defined bars.

  • AbbydonKrafts (cs) in reply to benryves
    benryves:

    Bonus!

    Rob Sirloin:
    The real "what the fuck?" is that you guys have time to sit around and figure that shit out.

    Ahh.. but that's what we like doing

  • Dwayne (unregistered)

    HOLY COW I'M TOTALLY GOING SO FAST AW F***

  • Henry (unregistered)

    There are about 10^79 electrons in the universe. A REALLY phat pipe would be able to download them all in 1 second.

  • pauluskc (cs) in reply to Rob Sirloin

    yeah - I stumbled upon this thread while looking for bandwidth measurement tools. I don't really have an account. I don't really get the RSS delivered within moments to my email in box. I don't really program a computer as a job. yeah.

  • m0ffx (cs) in reply to ssprencel

    My results worry me a bit. Seems if I want to download, I end up uploadiing?

  • amtt (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • akatherder (cs)

    I tried changing it to "armpit" kbps and no love. It just goes to 0.

  • Anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    Comment held for moderation.
  • RobertB (cs)

    Aw, you think that's bad? My bandwidth is so small, my hard drive just got sucked into a black hole.

  • mrprogguy (cs) in reply to Henry
    Henry:
    There are about 10^79 electrons in the universe. A REALLY phat pipe would be able to download them all in 1 second.

    Yes, but you'd have to factor in that light-speed latency shuttling them over from the opposite side of the Universe. And stealing all the electrons would really tick off the diners at the Restaurant.

  • Phat Wednesday (unregistered)

    I coulds download tha interwebs in no times!

  • codemoose (unregistered) in reply to mav
    mav:
    Bandwidth TYPE-R

    Except in the States, where it's Bandwidth TYPE-S

  • themagni (cs) in reply to Ken

    Even if the URL was altered by the submitter, aren't you not supposed to send data in plain text in URLs? The guy who wrote this page might go on to make another page and assume that plain-text changeable URLs are the way to go.

    yourbank.com?loginname=admin&passwordchecked=yes

    I dunno. I don't write web pages. It just seems like it's the kind of thing that's bad practice. Sure, no harm on this particular page, but that's not the point, is it?

    Oh, what about:

    http://www.bandwidthmeter.info/results.php?DROP_TABLE

    -- I wonder where my signature and avatar went. I can see them on the sidebar, but not here.

  • Simen (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    Comment held for moderation.
  • MOD (unregistered) in reply to Rob Sirloin

    that's not really a WTF... most of us are coders... many of use are web developers... if we didn't think of a bogus query string, or post situation as the likely cause within a few seconds of seeing the results, well... that wouldn't say much for our troubleshooting skills.

    Rob Sirloin:
    Awww. It was fun until you guys ruined it for me:)

    Just modify the URL huh?

    The real "what the fuck?" is that you guys have time to sit around and figure that shit out.

    But this is hardly "Worse than Failure(TM?)".

  • RobertB (cs) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    Even if the URL was altered by the submitter, aren't you not supposed to send data in plain text in URLs? The guy who wrote this page might go on to make another page and assume that plain-text changeable URLs are the way to go.

    yourbank.com?loginname=admin&passwordchecked=yes

    I dunno. I don't write web pages. It just seems like it's the kind of thing that's bad practice. Sure, no harm on this particular page, but that's not the point, is it?

    Oh, what about:

    http://www.bandwidthmeter.info/results.php?DROP_TABLE

    -- I wonder where my signature and avatar went. I can see them on the sidebar, but not here.

    SPACE.com is bad about putting everything in the URL. Especially when they have so many cool images that are begging to be re-purposed.

    Example: Ooh, pretty! vs. We're all gonna die!

  • Mr. Impartial Pants (cs) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    Even if the URL was altered by the submitter, aren't you not supposed to send data in plain text in URLs? The guy who wrote this page might go on to make another page and assume that plain-text changeable URLs are the way to go.

    Yes or how about the fact that he obviously thinks that there is a factor of 1024 between Mbps and kbps. So this WTF is kind of giving and giving, a real showboat of how not to program web-pages.

    Anybody finding other funny things that you can do with it?

  • savar (cs) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    My results worry me a bit. Seems if I want to download, I end up uploadiing?

    Pretty slick that it can interpret negatives and even scientific notation. I never noticed before that PHP would interpret post or get parameters in that way.

    Try this:

    http://www.bandwidthmeter.info/results.php?kbps=0xff

  • mkb (cs) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    Even if the URL was altered by the submitter, aren't you not supposed to send data in plain text in URLs?

    It's more that every query string should identify a unique and permanent document. That's what REST really means.

  • Satanicpuppy (cs) in reply to MOD
    MOD:
    that's not really a WTF... most of us are coders... many of use are web developers... if we didn't think of a bogus query string, or post situation as the likely cause within a few seconds of seeing the results, well... that wouldn't say much for our troubleshooting skills.

    Pretty much.

    1. He used Get, and didn't bother to hash the display string at the very least.

    2. He didn't put rational parameters on the number returned. It should have been obvious that the number couldn't be negative, or infinite either, but both of those are perfectly valid in his code.

    3. He didn't bother to put a transaction ID or anything in his foolishly obvious Get parameters, so the data can be changed and changed and changed again and the program won't care.

    Just a mess.

  • Michael (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Michael (unregistered) in reply to Satanicpuppy
    Satanicpuppy:
    1) He used Get, and didn't bother to hash the display string at the very least.
    Why hash a string that doesn't have sensitive information? Thats like saying this forum should hash the value of ArticleId.
    2) He didn't put rational parameters on the number returned. It should have been obvious that the number couldn't be negative, or infinite either, but both of those are perfectly valid in his code.
    The test should never produce a negative number, but the display page needn't care so long as the parameter is cast to a numeric value and any numeric value could be processed without error.
    3) He didn't bother to put a transaction ID or anything in his foolishly obvious Get parameters, so the data can be changed and changed and changed again and the program won't care.
    Exactly, the program won't care. If you want to screw with the paramater, you get a screwed up result, GIGO, but the program doesn't crash, you can't run any code or inject arbitrary SQL, so there is nothing wrong with this.
  • Juggler (unregistered)

    I guess it will be cool (AGAIN) to have an AOL e-mail address. :^)

  • Lockejaw (unregistered)

    Looks like we finally beat the station wagon full of tapes!

  • reptar (cs)

    Bandwidth: Nullity

  • Joseph Newton (unregistered) in reply to Michael
    Michael:
    Satanicpuppy:
    1) He used Get, and didn't bother to hash the display string at the very least.
    Why hash a string that doesn't have sensitive information? Thats like saying this forum should hash the value of ArticleId.
    2) He didn't put rational parameters on the number returned. It should have been obvious that the number couldn't be negative, or infinite either, but both of those are perfectly valid in his code.
    The test should never produce a negative number, but the display page needn't care so long as the parameter is cast to a numeric value and any numeric value could be processed without error.
    3) He didn't bother to put a transaction ID or anything in his foolishly obvious Get parameters, so the data can be changed and changed and changed again and the program won't care.
    Exactly, the program won't care. If you want to screw with the paramater, you get a screwed up result, GIGO, but the program doesn't crash, you can't run any code or inject arbitrary SQL, so there is nothing wrong with this.

    You're right on the money here. The posting was cute, to be sure. It doemonstrates that a user can get information as bad as he or she likes. The fact is that the site also provides a retest link that seems to return pretty accurate information, and to take its time i doing so.

    So, it is cute, but not really a WTF.

  • webhamster (cs) in reply to Anonymouse
    Anonymouse:
    Your flux capacitor is plugged in backwards.

    That made my day. I love that line!

  • Madcow3891 (unregistered) in reply to Dwayne
    Dwayne:
    HOLY COW I'M TOTALLY GOING SO FAST AW F***

    WTF are you kids doing on my lawn?!

    CAPTCHA: paint- my world with 1's and 0's.

  • Roger Leong (unregistered)

    Now we can download the whole internet :)

  • MichaelWojcik (cs) in reply to mkb
    mkb:
    themagni:
    Even if the URL was altered by the submitter, aren't you not supposed to send data in plain text in URLs?

    It's more that every query string should identify a unique and permanent document. That's what REST really means.

    RFC 2616 only requires that a GET request be idempotent. There's no need for it to identify a "unique and permanent document". In fact, there are a number of provisions in HTTP/1.1 for that assume GET targets generally won't be permanent, such as the expiration date mechanism.

    There's nothing wrong with using GET to implement a calculator, for example. (It'd be largely pointless, but not wrong.)

    -- Michael Wojcik

  • Chris Travers (unregistered) in reply to Satanicpuppy
    Satanicpuppy:
    MOD:
    that's not really a WTF... most of us are coders... many of use are web developers... if we didn't think of a bogus query string, or post situation as the likely cause within a few seconds of seeing the results, well... that wouldn't say much for our troubleshooting skills.

    Pretty much.

    1. He used Get, and didn't bother to hash the display string at the very least.

    2. He didn't put rational parameters on the number returned. It should have been obvious that the number couldn't be negative, or infinite either, but both of those are perfectly valid in his code.

    3. He didn't bother to put a transaction ID or anything in his foolishly obvious Get parameters, so the data can be changed and changed and changed again and the program won't care.

    Just a mess.

    Well, sort of. I am not sure that post v. get buys you anything except this sort of embarrassment. Anyone with Firefox and Webdeveloper can alter what is being posted anyway.

    The real WTF is that this was not designed with any real awareness of good coding practices. The best way to do this would have been to:

    1. store the beginning and end of the download on the server connected to a session id and
    2. Have the browser retrieve the graph via the session id.

    This would have been trivial to do but many software engineers have no engineering skills.

Leave a comment on “A Really Really Phat Pipe”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article