My New UFB Fibre Connection Speedtest Results
Posted by tomachi on December 2nd, 2013 filed in TechnologyOn the left is my speed before the Fibre - on ADSL2+, and on the right is the new improved Fibre connection.
Before: via ADSL2+ on a Siemens router![]() |
After:Â via Fibre on a Fritz! Box router![]() |
--- snap.net.nz ping statistics ---
100 packets transmitted, 99 packets received, 1.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 18.170/53.645/180.602/36.932 ms
This one was at 6pm on a Thursday, doing a download of XCode - an entire Gigabyte in under 9 minutes showing, with an average speed of 3.4 MB/sec:

Solid 3.4 MB/sec
Here is an shot of my test done at http://speedof.me/

jb:~ tom$ ping snap.net.nz
PING snap.net.nz (202.37.100.24): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=17.206 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=21.932 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=19.442 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=18.951 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=18.305 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=18.035 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=17.707 ms
64 bytes from 202.37.100.24: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=20.250 ms
^C
--- snap.net.nz ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 17.206/18.979/21.932/1.443 ms
jb:~ tom$ traceroute snap.net.nz
traceroute to snap.net.nz (202.37.100.24), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 fritz.box (10.0.0.1) 1.700 ms 1.684 ms 1.354 ms
2 16.17.69.111.static.snap.net.nz (111.69.17.16) 5.927 ms 7.263 ms 3.838 ms
3 54.32.69.111.static.snap.net.nz (111.69.32.54) 4.235 ms 3.416 ms 4.270 ms
4 30.100.37.202.static.snap.net.nz (202.37.100.30) 17.567 ms 16.954 ms 19.959 ms
5 *^C
jb:~ tom$ ping 16.17.69.111.static.snap.net.nz
PING 16.17.69.111.static.snap.net.nz (111.69.17.16): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=0 ttl=126 time=6.862 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=1 ttl=126 time=5.734 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=2 ttl=126 time=9.467 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=3 ttl=126 time=7.587 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=4 ttl=126 time=7.067 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=5 ttl=126 time=11.726 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=6 ttl=126 time=5.335 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=7 ttl=126 time=8.435 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=8 ttl=126 time=7.965 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=9 ttl=126 time=7.327 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=10 ttl=126 time=6.341 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=11 ttl=126 time=5.666 ms
64 bytes from 111.69.17.16: icmp_seq=12 ttl=126 time=4.146 ms
^C
--- 16.17.69.111.static.snap.net.nz ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 13 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 4.146/7.204/11.726/1.883 ms
jb:~ tom$
Samsung SSD 840 Series Speed Test Result: 229.6 MB/sec!
Posted by tomachi on August 29th, 2013 filed in Technology
Samsung SSD 840 Series 229.6 MB/sec Performance Result
This is run on my Macbook Pro - I was shocked to watch it verify a multi-Gigabyte dmg file at such speed and had time to fire up Activity Monitor. Made a good test tho since the verify is just a read checksum so it should make the drive go at its full speed.
Results 463.66
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.8.4 (12E55)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro6,2
Drive Type Samsung SSD 840 Series
Disk Test 463.66
Sequential 297.96
Uncached Write 423.66 260.12 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 332.37 188.06 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 176.96 51.79 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 415.91 209.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 1044.54
Uncached Write 1479.11 156.58 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 546.59 174.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2797.02 19.82 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 1034.84 192.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Intel 5 Series Chipset:
Vendor: Intel
Product: 5 Series Chipset
Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Samsung SSD 840 Series:
Capacity: 250.06 GB (250,059,350,016 bytes)
Model: Samsung SSD 840 Series
Revision: DXT06B0Q
Native Command Queuing: Yes
Medium Type: Solid State
TRIM Support: No
Partition Map Type: GPT (GUID Partition Table)
S.M.A.R.T. status: Verified
File System: Journaled HFS+
Zeald does NOT support GA ecommerce tracking
Posted by tomachi on August 27th, 2013 filed in Google Adwords, Google Analytics, Online MarketingDear Zeald,
you call yourself an ecommerce website builder - but you do not support the native ecommerce tracking features of Google Analytics - certainly the most popular web analytics package available in 2013.
This is an open letter to Zeald to try to convince you to consider supporting this feature, by default, for no extra charge for your existing customers. If you did support it, the thanks page for a conversion mite include calls to _addTrans, _addItem and _trackTrans, and would allow your clients to see the last traffic source before a conversion - whether it be from any source, Bing, Facebook, Yellow etc, not just Google Adwords. Not only that, but they would be able to see a plethora of multi-dimensional reports that could show average order value, top products, and feed the conversion value easily back into Adwords to enable true ROI calculations to be made for all traffic sources.
Once you have got this working - I'll convert this blog post into a thank you message.
Yet I see no mention of support in your help files, only this one which is about a different tracking method that only works for Adwords:
Adwords Conversion Tracking != Google Analytics Ecommerce Tracking.
https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/gajs/gaTrackingEcommerce
To help you get going, below is an example of what the tracking scripts look like:
<html><head><title>Receipt for your clothing purchase from Acme Clothing</title><scripttype="text/javascript">  var _gaq = _gaq ||[];  _gaq.push(['_setAccount','UA-XXXXX-X']);  _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);  _gaq.push(['_addTrans',   '1234',      // transaction ID - required   'Acme Clothing',  // affiliation or store name   '11.99',      // total - required   '1.29',      // tax   '5',        // shipping   'San Jose',    // city   'California',   // state or province   'USA'       // country  ]);   // add item might be called for every item in the shopping cart   // where your ecommerce engine loops through each item in the cart and   // prints out _addItem for each  _gaq.push(['_addItem',   '1234',      // transaction ID - required   'DD44',      // SKU/code - required   'T-Shirt',     // product name   'Green Medium',  // category or variation   '11.99',      // unit price - required   '1'        // quantity - required  ]);  _gaq.push(['_trackTrans']);//submits transaction to the Analytics servers  (function(){   var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type ='text/javascript'; ga.async =true;   ga.src =('https:'== document.location.protocol ?'https://ssl':'http://www')+'.google-analytics.com/ga.js';   var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);  })();</script></head><body>  Thank you for your order.  You will receive an email containing all your order details. </body></html>
Bidding by ROI Percentage in Adwords
Posted by tomachi on August 8th, 2013 filed in Google Adwords, Google Analytics, Online MarketingUPDATE: on August 8 this year I posted this initial blog post, now I see Google is announcing the feature! Cool -Â http://adwords.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/new-flexible-bid-strategy-and-webinar.html
Feature request: Dear Google, I would love to be able to bid by target ROI percentage in Adwords. The idea would be to set a target at the campaign level using a percentage ROI you would like. I have a client who doesn't want to run ads at less than 500% ROI, and this is something I am getting done using Google Analytics, but it is kinda tricky as I need to switch between GA and AW, boosting ad groups with high ROI, and pulling back on ad groups with poor ROI, working to increase the overall campaign ROI in order to acquire an increase in budget, and turn AW into a money printing machine.
ROI = return on investment.
ROAS = return on ad spend.
Thanks, Tom.
GA Bug: Internal Site Search tracking doesn't work with URLs rewritten by filter
Posted by tomachi on July 16th, 2013 filed in Google AnalyticsSo I thought I was being cunning by putting in a filtered profile which would have an advanced custom filter to re-write incoming URLs into the format expected by GA site search tracking.
But it doesn't work.
Here's the incoming URLs that won't track:

And here is the after they are rewritten, all nice and tidy with just the keyword:

However, with site search tracking enabled, nothing is showing in the site search report.
Here is the filter config:

And the URL Rewrites are done with regex:Â /search/jobs/(.*)\?job
The capture group is output to a Request URI like this:Â /\?q=$A1
But perhaps the Internal Site Search tracking is applied before the filters: which is a bug right?

Thanks to Student Job Search for allowing me to publish this blog.
Congrats NZ You Got Screwed
Posted by tomachi on May 7th, 2013 filed in PoliticsThis graphs says everything:
Taken from: New Zealand’s failing experiment in electricity reform by Geoff Bertram
Get the PDF here:Â Chapter 21 Bertram - Electricity Fail
Credit:Â http://www.geoffbertram.com/


