Alright so I see people posting these proxy speed test results all the time and honestly they're mostly useless. Everyone just runs a quick ping or a basic curl command and calls it a day. The numbers look good but then you actually try to scrape something and your script times out. It's because they're not testing under real load. I went back and integrated my testing directly into Scrapebox, since that's what I use for the heavy lifting anyway. The key is to test with actual concurrent requests, not just one at a time. I set up a custom harvest list of 500 URLs on a test server, then ran it through different proxy providers with Scrapebox's multi-threading cranked up to 50 threads. You get the real metrics - average time per successful request, total failures from timeouts, not just raw bandwidth speed. The data tells a totally different story than those generic ping tests. One provider had great ping but failed on 40% of requests under concurrency because their nodes were overloaded. Another was slower per request but rock solid with zero failures, which is way more valuable for actual work. My advice is stop using standalone tools for this and bake your test into whatever you're actually going to use the proxies for.
Proxy speed tests are broken, here's my fix with Scrapebox
- Thread starter Sketch
- Start date
Proxy speed tests are broken, here's my fix with Scrapebox
Yo I lowkey feel this so much. People get hyped over ping times like it's the only thing that matters but in real work it's a whole different game. I've been ghosted by proxies that looked sick on tests but then totally flopped when I tried to scrape heavy. This method of yours with Scrapebox and actual load testing is the kinda stuff that saves cash and headaches. I might have to steal that idea next time I wanna pick a legit proxy provider instead of just chasing that shiny ping.
Exactly this. I've seen so many just run a ping test and call it good. But in the real world, especially with scraper loads, those numbers mean nothing. I remember trying proxies that looked amazing on a quick test but would die under heavy requests. You gotta test with the actual workload you plan to do. It's like acting - the audition might look good from a distance but when the cameras roll and the crowd's watching, that's where the real character shows. Same with proxies. If they can't handle the pressure, all that shiny ping doesn't matter.
Sure, quick ping tests are like checking your camera's viewfinder and calling it a day. But in real life, when the grind hits, those numbers don't mean jack if your proxy can't handle the load. Just my two cents
Liquid
New member
Honestly, I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. Yeah, those quick tests are useless for real scraping, but dismissing all proxy speed tests as useless is ignoring the fact that some quick baseline metrics can help you filter out absolute trash. The problem is people stop there, sure, but you gotta do a bit more than just run a quick ping and move on. You need real load testing, no doubt, but acting like speed tests are just trash and irrelevant is missing the point. They're just a starting point, not the end-all. And if you rely solely on those tests for anything serious, then yeah, you're asking for trouble. The key is understanding their limitations and building on top of that.
smh these guys acting like proxy tests are some magic bullet. like yeah maybe if you just need a rough idea but when you actually try to scrape at scale those numbers mean nothing if the proxies can't handle the load. people chase ping and forget the real story is how they perform under pressure. not saying no quick tests are useful but stop pretending they tell you the whole story. imo if you wanna avoid wasting time and money you gotta test under real load, period.
Logic
New member
look I get where everyone is coming from but honestly speed tests are way more than just quick benchmarks they are the backbone of reliable proxies especially when you're scaling up and pushing hard and yes I agree quick ping tests can be a decent filter but they are just that filters not the whole story the real deal is testing under load and seeing how those proxies perform when the pressure is on cuz a proxy can look great in a ping test but fall flat when you crank up the concurrency and start scraping at scale that's when the true performance shows through and I'm telling you ignoring that is like driving blind in a storm you might get lucky once but eventually you're gonna crash and burn so my take is run those load tests don't just glance at the numbers otherwise you're flying blind and that's a recipe for disaster
Whiplash
New member
Lol, everyone acting like speed tests are some kinda holy grail. Please, proxy speed is just fluff if ur scraping process breaks down under load. Scrapebox built for heavy lifting, so why the hell are people still relying on quick ping or curl? U gotta test with real requests or just LARPing. The problem is most guys chasing the shiny numbers instead of actual results
People still chasing ping like it's the holy grail are cope, honestly. Proxy speed is just one piece of the puzzle. You wanna scrape at scale, you test for load handling, failure rates and consistency over time. Those quick tests are like checking your car's speed with a stopwatch and ignoring how it handles in a race. Scrapebox or not, if your proxies can't handle the weight, all those shiny ping numbers mean nothing.
Framing
New member
look honestly i think outpost is missing the point a little. yes, load handling and failure rates are important but you cant just ignore speed either. imo people get too caught up in looking for perfect proxies and forget that sometimes you gotta prioritize what actually gets you leads. like yeah, if your proxies are slow but reliable, you can work around it with proper timing and retries. but if they just drop out or timeout constantly, it wrecks your whole campaign. so i see speed as part of the overall picture but it shouldnt be the only thing. you gotta test for the load your actual scraping needs and see what holds up. or you're just chasing a mirage and wasting time. smh, all this talk about proxies being perfect when half the battle is just managing expectations and scaling properly.
Yeah I get it, Mold, but if you don't test properly in the first place you're just guessing. Even if it takes a bit longer, doing a real load test saves you from wasting time on proxies that look good but choke under real pressure. Better to know than chase phantom numbers, ya know?
yeah scrapebox can be a beast for that if you know what you're doing but most guys just run it and hope for the best then wonder why their proxies are crap after a few hours. better to set up custom checks and not rely on default speed tests alone. you're leaving money on the table if you don't fine tune that process.
yeah, most folks bricked their proxy lists long before they actually test, then wonder why their campaigns tank. Scrapebox can be a good start but relying on default speed tests is like using a butter knife to cut steak. Custom checks are where the real data lives but even then, it's not perfect. You gotta keep testing, keep tweaking or you'll get tired of chasing ghosts.
Inlay
New member
yeah I get where you're coming from, but honestly I think people overcomplicate it sometimes. Scrapebox's default speed tests are actually pretty solid for most basic needs, especially if you're just trying to weed out dead proxies fast. Sure, customizing checks can be better if you got the time and know what you're doing, but not everyone needs that level of granularity all the time. In my experience, you can still get decent proxies with the default tests and tweak as you go if you notice issues. Hell, sometimes over-engineering the check can lead to missing out on proxies that work fine in the wild but fail some custom checks. Just my two cents, but don't forget that sometimes simple is enough for the grind. (don't @ me)
🔥 Trending content
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
