It's hard to believe, but we've hit the tail end of July, when Netflix's new releases run dry until the calendar flips into August, when a new season of Alone: Australia lands alongside Big Chicken: A Fast Food Conspiracy, in which comedian Mo Gilligan eats nothing but fried chicken for a month.
A spacecraft fitted with two flexible robotic arms is on the way to geosynchronous orbit after launching earlier this week on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, kicking off a planned decade-long mission to open new frontiers in satellite servicing.
The Mission Robotic Vehicle, owned and built by Northrop Grumman, rocketed into orbit from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on Tuesday. Three small propulsion pods, each functioning as standalone spacecraft, accompanied the MRV aboard the Falcon 9 rocket.
The Falcon 9 deployed all four payloads within about an hour of liftoff. It will take about a year for the satellites to maneuver from their initial elliptical drop-off orbit into a circular orbit more than 22,000 miles (nearly 36,000 kilometers) over the equator. At this altitude, the MRV and the three Mission Extension Pods (MEPs) will travel in lockstep with Earth's rotation, operating in the same kind of orbit as numerous civilian and military communications satellites, missile warning platforms, and a growing number of spy satellites.
© US Navy/Sarah Peterson
Welcome to Edition 9.04 of the Rocket Report! We've had to wait an extra week for SpaceX to get its 13th Starship test flight off the ground. A last-second abort on July 16 led engineers to roll the booster back to its hangar in South Texas to swap out engines. Starship is now back on the launch pad. Liftoff is set for Friday evening. A flawless launch and reentry will put SpaceX on the cusp of an orbital flight later this year. Ars will have a comprehensive recap story after the completion of the test flight.
As always, we welcome reader submissions. If you don't want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets, as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.
India's first private rocket reaches orbit. Indian space officials celebrated the debut flight of Skyroot Aerospace’s Vikram-1 rocket, India’s first fully commercial satellite launcher, as a “grand success” Saturday after an on-target climb into a 280-mile-high orbit following liftoff from an island spaceport in the Bay of Bengal, Ars reports. The Vikram-1 lifted off from India’s primary spaceport on Sriharikota Island around midday local time. The launch was delayed more than a half-hour to resolve a last-minute technical problem. The countdown resumed, culminating in the command to ignite Vikram-1’s solid-fueled first stage booster to propel the rocket off the launch pad.
© Zhou Quan/VCG via Getty Images
Windows gets a lot of criticism, and plenty of people have switched to Linux because of the issues with the OS. While Microsoft doesn't have the best track record with Windows 11, thanks to all the bugs, the company has done a good job bringing in features that make me think twice about running to Linux entirely. This round of updates actually added many features I liked.
For decades, buying a luxury SUV usually meant choosing between BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Audi. But rising prices and higher ownership costs are giving buyers a reason to look elsewhere.
Yes, I know that Samsung Galaxy devices are basically the iPhones of the Android world, and there are other, less polished, but more interesting options out there. But Samsung has this market domination for a reason, and part of it comes from its genuinely useful bespoke features.
Self-hosting is really a hobby in itself. Once you get the bug, it's hard to stop adding more and more self-hosted services or spending even more money on your home lab setup. Self-hosting also makes several hobbies possible that wouldn't really work without it.
Awards are certainly not the most important aspect for judging a movie's quality. Other elements, including box office and cultural impact, can help influence how an audience reacts to a movie. However, awards can influence your decision when choosing a movie, especially on Netflix, a streaming service with thousands of movies to watch.
For a very long time, if you wanted to try Linux on a semi-permanent basis, you needed to shrink your Windows partition, install a Linux distro of some variety, and just suffer through any of the numerous problems that can occur with dual booting.
For over a decade, Plex was the undisputed choice for anyone looking to self-host a media server. Unlike its alternatives, Plex was polished, feature-rich, and years ahead of the competition.
If you have ever worked with two or three monitors, you have probably run into the same problem. You arrange your workspace exactly the way you like it. Your editor sits on the main display, documentation is open on another monitor, and Slack, Discord, or a terminal stays visible on a third. Everything feels organized until you switch to another virtual desktop.
For years, Microsoft has leaned heavily into extensive backward compatibility across multiple generations of Xbox hardware as a major selling point for its consoles. Today, that effort expands past the console ecosystem, making select original Xbox titles officially playable (and purchasable) on Windows PCs for the first time.
The appropriately and bluntly named "Xbox Backward Compatibility on PC" program kicks off today with compatibility for BLiNX: The Time Sweeper, Conker: Live and Reloaded, Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, and Fuzion Frenzy. PC players can download each title for $10, but those with Xbox Game Pass subscriptions or existing digital licenses for these games on console will have instant access without an additional purchase (no such luck if you simply stick an original Xbox disc in your PC drive, alas).
Playing these older Xbox titles on PC enables some bonus graphical features like Vsync support, anisotropic filtering, enhanced anti-aliasing, and up to 4x resolution scaling of the original SD signal (to 2560x1920). Games are limited to their original frame rates and aspect ratios, though, which means a 30 fps 4:3 image in most cases. Microsoft says this first batch of games should be playable with 11-year-old GTX 950 graphics hardware, but recommends a 2017-era GTX 1070 Ti with 8GB of VRAM for best performance.
Apple is reportedly testing a 6.96-inch iPhone screen for its 2027 anniversary lineup, a change that could make the Pro Max feel nearly 7 inches.
The post Apple Tests Nearly 7-Inch Screen for Future iPhone Pro Max Model appeared first on TechRepublic.
Car enthusiasts want to know how quickly they can make a quarter mile. Weightlifters are forever trying to add one more plate to the bar. Internet denizens have their own favorite number to brag about: the result from a speed test.
The ritual is familiar. Close a few browser tabs, click the big “Go” button, and watch the needle climb. Perhaps you pay for gigabit service and see 940 megabits per second, which produces a satisfied nod. Perhaps you see 299 megabits and begin obsessing over network hardware. But before you get too excited either way, try another test. There is a fair chance it will give you a different answer.
That does not necessarily mean one test is lying. “Internet speed” is not a single physical quantity waiting to be measured. A speed test measures the performance of a particular device, over a particular local connection, through a particular ISP route, to a particular server, at a particular time using a particular test method. Change any of those things and the answer can change too.
Speedtest by Ookla is probably the best-known test. It selects a nearby server, although you can choose another. It attempts to saturate the connection with multiple simultaneous transfers. That makes it good at answering the question most consumers are asking: approximately how much aggregate bandwidth can this Internet connection deliver?
Running several connections matters. A single TCP connection must gradually increase its sending rate while reacting to round-trip time, packet loss, receive-window limits, and congestion-control behavior. On a high-bandwidth or high-latency path, one connection may not fill the available pipe. Several parallel connections can ramp up independently and make it easier to reach the link’s aggregate capacity. That number is valid, but it represents something like a busy household, a large segmented download, or several applications operating at once. It does not necessarily predict the speed of one file transfer from one distant server.
Google’s built-in search speed test (search “speed test”) uses Measurement Lab’s Network Diagnostic Tool, or NDT. M-Lab describes NDT as a single-stream measurement of bulk-transport capacity. That makes it an interesting counterpoint to Ookla. A single flow may expose latency, loss, or TCP-window limitations that a multi-stream test can partially conceal. You can also use M-Lab’s own speed test directly.
While you may get similar numbers between the two approaches, you also may not get similar numbers, especially on high-latency connections where Ookla’s multiple streams will help hide latency.
Netflix’s Fast.com is deliberately simple. Open the page, and it immediately begins transferring data from Netflix infrastructure. By default it emphasizes download performance, since its original purpose was to answer a practical question: can this connection deliver Netflix video properly? Selecting “Show more info” adds upload speed and both unloaded and loaded latency.
The use of Netflix servers is significant. Fast.com measures the route between you and Netflix’s content-delivery network, while Ookla may test against a server operated by your ISP only a few network hops away. A superb Ookla result and a poor Fast.com result do not prove deliberate throttling, but they do tell you that the destinations — or the routes to them — are behaving differently.
Cloudflare offers two related tests. Its Radar Network Quality Test provides a quick summary, while speed.cloudflare.com gives an extremely detailed breakdown. The latter reports download and upload throughput, idle and loaded latency, jitter, packet loss, server location, and application-oriented quality estimates.
Loaded latency is especially useful. An otherwise fast connection can become miserable when a large upload or download fills an oversized queue in the modem or router. Your idle ping might be 12 milliseconds, but under load it may jump to several hundred milliseconds. That is the classic symptom usually called bufferbloat.
If you want more options, there is testmy.net, which allows you to test upload and download speeds separately, and speedof.me, which keeps a history for you, among others. It isn’t always obvious which ones are measuring a single connection vs multiple ones, so you may have to dig through whatever documentation you can find.
A browser speed test cannot automatically tell you what’s hurting your speed. A laptop connected through marginal WiFi may report 180 megabits per second even though the router has a flawless gigabit Internet connection.
In fact, once incoming Internet service reaches several hundred megabits per second, WiFi is frequently the limiting factor. The link rate displayed by the operating system is not the same thing as usable throughput. Wireless protocols have framing overhead, acknowledgments, contention, retransmissions, and half-duplex operation. The advertised 866, 1200, or 2400 megabit link rate is therefore not a promise that application data will move at that rate.
The numbers printed on WiFi boxes add another layer of optimism. A router sold as “AC1800,” for example, does not provide an 1800-megabit connection to one device. The figure is normally the sum of the maximum advertised PHY rates on separate radios — perhaps 1300 Mb/s on 5 GHz plus 450 Mb/s on 2.4 GHz — with some rounding for marketing. A conventional WiFi client connects to one band at a time, so it cannot combine those rates. The total is better understood as the router’s theoretical aggregate capacity while serving multiple devices across both bands. Even then, protocol overhead, contention, signal quality, and client limitations make actual data throughput considerably lower. Newer WiFi 7 equipment can sometimes combine links using Multi-Link Operation, but that exception does not make the old ACxxxx arithmetic any less misleading.
WiFi also uses shared airtime. Devices on the same channel — including neighboring access points that can hear one another — must contend for opportunities to transmit. A slow or distant client takes longer to send a given amount of data and can consume disproportionate airtime while doing so. Modern access points may provide airtime fairness and other mitigations. One old device does not invariably drag every client down to its rate, but it can still reduce the capacity available to the rest of the network. Interference has a similar effect. A weak signal, a crowded channel, microwave noise, or an overlapping neighboring network causes frames to be delayed or retransmitted. Those retries consume airtime without delivering additional data.
Repeaters and wireless mesh backhaul add another complication. A simple same-channel repeater must receive each packet and then transmit it again over the same shared medium. In the worst case, each repeated hop can roughly halve the available throughput. Modern tri-band mesh systems can avoid much of that penalty by using a dedicated backhaul radio, and Ethernet backhaul avoids it almost entirely.
This means it is entirely reasonable to buy gigabit Internet service and obtain only 300 or 500 megabits per second from a WiFi laptop. Whether that represents a problem depends on the client, radio band, channel width, signal level, backhaul, and local RF environment.
For a meaningful ISP test, begin with a computer connected directly to the router by Ethernet. Stop large transfers and temporarily disable any VPN. Record the chosen server, latency, upload speed, and download speed rather than preserving only the most flattering number. Then run the same tests over WiFi. The difference is an approximate measurement of what the wireless portion of the network is costing you.
Better still, remove the ISP from the test completely. OpenSpeedTest is a self-hostable, browser-based test. Run its server on a wired computer, NAS, or container, then visit it from laptops, phones, and tablets around the house. Because the traffic remains on your LAN, a slow result points toward WiFi, switching, cabling, or the client rather than the Internet connection.
It is possible to run this on the uhttpd server used with OpenWRT, although you’ll need to coax it to measure upload speeds since the server can’t handle the default method. The trick is to create a CGI script that accepts a large amount of data successfully and then configure uhttpd to run that.
A browser-based local test is convenient, but for serious diagnosis it is hard to beat iperf3, the client/server tool we recently used while testing mesh routers. On one machine (say, 192.168.1.100), start the server:
iperf3 -s
From another machine, run:
iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100
By default, iperf3 uses one TCP connection. Add -P 4 to try four parallel streams, or -R to reverse the direction so that the server sends and the client receives. Those variations can tell you something. If four streams are much faster than one, the network may have enough aggregate capacity but a single TCP flow is being limited by latency, loss, window growth, CPU performance, or offload behavior. If the reverse test is much faster, examine the weaker machine’s transmit path, drivers, antennas, or CPU.
iperf3 can also generate UDP traffic at a specified rate and report packet loss and jitter. That is often more informative for evaluating a wireless link than merely chasing the largest TCP number.
Linux offers an impressive array of network tuning knobs, which naturally tempts us to turn them. But first, you need to understand what needs tweaking.
Check the negotiated Ethernet rate and interface counters:
ethtool eth0 ip -s link show eth0
A gigabit adapter that has negotiated 100 megabits per second usually has a cabling, connector, or switch-port problem. Increasing TCP buffers will not repair it. Rising interface errors and drops point toward a physical, driver, or congestion problem. TCP retransmits (view with ss -ti) may indicate loss elsewhere on the path.
You can inspect the active queue discipline with:
tc qdisc show
Linux supports queue disciplines such as fq_codel, which combines per-flow queueing with active queue management. It attempts to prevent one large transfer from building an enormous queue and delaying unrelated interactive packets. The kernel documentation specifically lists fq_codel as a sensible queue discipline that works without extensive configuration.
It can be selected as the default for newly created interfaces with:
sudo sysctl -w net.core.default_qdisc=fq_codel
That may improve queueing on traffic leaving the Linux machine. It does not, however, fix a large queue in the cable modem or Internet router. Queue management must be applied at the bottleneck. If the ISP link is limited to 20 megabits upstream, controlling a queue on a gigabit Ethernet interface after it has already handed packets to the router is too late.
For a home connection, the most effective bufferbloat treatment is usually Smart Queue Management on the router. OpenWrt’s SQM system supports both fq_codel and CAKE. CAKE generally provides better performance. However, fq_codel requires less CPU overhead.
High-latency paths introduce a different problem. TCP must keep enough data in flight to fill the bandwidth-delay product. Modern Linux generally autotunes TCP buffers, so the old advice to assign enormous fixed values to tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem is less universally useful than it once was. Before changing them, use ss -ti during a transfer and look for retransmissions, round-trip time, congestion-window size, and whether the receiver window is actually limiting the connection.
Linux also supports selectable TCP congestion-control algorithms:
sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_available_congestion_control sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control
Algorithms such as BBR can improve throughput and queue behavior on some long-distance or lossy paths. But changing the algorithm affects connections sent by that Linux machine; it does not control the remote speed-test server, repair poor WiFi, or eliminate a queue in the router. Congestion-control tuning is therefore a useful experiment for a server, VPN endpoint, or long-haul transfer machine — not a universal solution to slow networking.
Finally, inspect hardware offload features when a Linux system cannot keep up with a fast LAN:
ethtool -k eth0
Advanced network tuning is a bit beyond the scope of this post, but there are plenty of roadmaps down this rabbit hole.
The lesson here is that there is no universally correct speed-test result. Ookla tests how effectively multiple transfers can fill a route to one of its servers. M-Lab examines a single bulk flow. Fast.com tests the path to Netflix. Cloudflare pays unusual attention to latency under load and overall connection quality. OpenSpeedTest and iperf3 can determine whether the Internet connection is even the problem.
Run enough tests, and you will eventually obtain a number worth bragging about. Run the right tests, though, and you may find ways to truly increase real-world performance. If you want to chase that extra 1 kbit per second speed, be our guest — we know how it is. But the truth is that if the Internet is doing what you want it to do, then it is fast enough.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Login