Not true at all. Google is the biggest developer of malware. Very few of Google's software projects have little or no malware (I'm thinking of Kubernetes, Go and others).
Surveillance capitalism and advertising is malware. Ask Richard Stallman, he will confirm this.
This my provider advertises
100 Mbit/s max. Download
100 Mbit/s max. Upload
How to do that? That's a great idea.
You should probably read up on the definition of the word malware ...
Then you're spot on.
That's how it was, by default, you need to undo what you've done with the WAN DNS settings.
If you're on a 100/100 connection, you're fine.
However, you're testing from the router to the endpoint.
You may get different results on a client device such as a laptop or smartphone...and using a tool like Ookla's Speedtest app, and Waveform's bufferbloat/speedtest site.
I was just about to mention that running the script on a low-power router can skew the results quite heavily, like e.g. I get completely different results on a real, proper PC on the network than when running the script on a MT7621A-based Xiaomi-router. The router could only get to around ~130Mbps download-speeds and it also got higher ping-latencies, whereas the PC got ~500Mbps and around 16ms ping-latencies for all the different fields.
Quick note, better speedtest allows you to specify the histnameIP-address to use for the latency/RTT measurements:
# Usage: sh betterspeedtest.sh [ -4 -6 ] [ -H netperf-server ] [ -t duration ] [ -p host-to-ping ] [ -i ] [ -n simultaneous-sessions ]
# “H” and “host” DNS or IP address of the netperf server host (default: netperf.bufferbloat.net)
# “t” and “time” Time to run the test in each direction (default: 60 seconds)
# “p” and “ping” Host to ping for latency measurements (default: gstatic.com)
The default gstatic.com is IMHO a decent choice as Google takes care to use anycast to make sure gstatic.com is reasonably close and well connected to your link. But if you prefer different ping-reflector hosts, betterspeedtest.sh has you covered, you just need to find a reasonable alternative. Typically hosts like 8.8.8.8, 1.1.1.1, 9.9.9.9, mensura.cdn-apple.com tend to be heavily anycasted and hence suitably close (at least in some parts of the world) but in the end you will need to pick your poison and decide which of the companies you are willing to stomach taking "services" from.
In Germany you could use 'breitbandmessung.de' which appears to be hosted by AS8767 M-Net (or you could try to get the IP addresses of actual measurement hosts) or lookingglass.telekom.com.
The bigger issue to keep in mind is that the host running the remote netperf servers is operated/financed by a private volunteer, so please do not over use betterspeedtest.sh with the default servers for stuff like automated repeating measurements...
Its available bandwidth appears to be limited as well. As mentioned, I only got ~500Mbps down on it, whereas I get ~980 using Speedtest/Dslreports/etc. It's ok on a low-bandwidth connection, but with anything faster I'd say it merely serves to indicate whether there is something extremely wrong with the connection or not and nothing more.
@frollic "Use DNS servers advertised by peer" will use the DNS of my provider? My provider does censorship.
thanks for heads up. Will test on a Raspberry when at home.
thanks for the heads up. Didnt know that. Did a web search for netperf and found out this is developed before I was born 
Doesn't have to be, but some other DNS that works from where you are, like 8.8.8.8 or 1.1.1.1, etc.
I doubt your IPS is censoring the sites your router needs to access, and please note there's a difference here, between your router, and the router's clients.
I would guess that it is located on the east side of the US of A, and probably connected via a 1 Gbps link, but depending on what else the server does and how congested the path from there to ones client is one can expect to see results considerably smaller than the link speed...
Yes, it will act as forwarder to your ISPs DNS servers with that setting. All ISPs in Europe "do censorship" because they all follow the applicable laws... You can try to run your own DNS resolver and sort of side-step the ISP DNS servers, but that will likely result in sub-optimal anycast servers. Also some services require ISPs DNS servers (in my case O2 VoIP will only work using the ISPs DNS servers, I simply configured these explicitly in my VoIP base station and run my own resolver for the rest).
I may be missing something, but...why would they need to run some separate resolver? Just pointing the router to use e.g. Namecheap's DNS will skip the ISP's censorship. Namecheap's DNS-servers are pretty damn fast as well, at least for me.
theoretically, the ISP might be intercepting all outgoing DNS requests.
If one is worried about that, then one can always use DNS-over-TLS with Namecheap's servers.
No need, but an independent resolver that goes to the root servers (as deep as necessary) is one way to avoid an ISP's DNS manipulations (that said sometimes these are justified/required), I did not say it is the only way.
Well, then I need to trust Namecheap... I can not avoid a certain amount of trust, but both with the ISP's or Namecheap's DNS servers there is going to be a single point where manipulations seem possible. That said personally I am less concerned about my ISP's (partly legally required) censorship* and more about other DNS shenanigans like serving junk pages for non-existent domain names.... and their lack of support for DNSSEC (which might have changed, I have not tried their servers in a while)
now, that would be seriously annoying ...
/me runs his pi-holes in the free for life oracle cloud servers
There's literally always going to be at least some points of possible manipulation whenever you're relying on information provided by anyone other than yourself. Personally, I haven't found Namecheap to engage in any sort of DNS-shenanigans nor come across anything they'd have censored, so I am perfectly happy with them.
in fairness to me current ISP it was the ISP before that that considered that a great idea (albeit one that could be disabled in their customer center, but even then, what where they thinking...)
Yes, exactly, but with any forwarder solution that is going to be the same single point for all DNS traffic, while with a resolver, as far as I understand, that will depend on which downstream server responds to a given query, no?
And that is fine, I am not wanting to diss Namecheap in any way, I simply know too little about their DNS service to have a useful opinion.
Well, sure, if one really insists. Pfsense, for example, by default queries root-servers directly instead of using any ISP-provided DNS-servers, but I found that approach to often result in failed lookups and/or terribly slow lookups, which is why I use forwarding with DoT + local cache now.
