[GRLUG] An ISP question

[Bob Kline]

As I mentioned once, about 5 years ago I had
wide open access - the full DOCSYS limit up
and down  - 800Kbps up,  9.8Mbps down ( I don't
know what happened to the other 0.2Mbps ).
I was using a 4 port Linksys router at the time.

I could download files from sites like gnu.org,
and get the full 9.8Mbps - I didn't rely on the
little software rate gizmos,  I timed the download
with a watch.  Basic stuff.  File-size/time = rate.

The point being that as I see it,  this is what it
means to have an X Mbps service.  I can download
a big file,  and X = file-size/time.  No gimmicks.
Same with uploads.

The problem seems to be that today I don't know
what Comcast means.   I might not even care 99%
of the time,  except that I am paying for,  in this
case,  an 8Mbps service.  I also know that 98%
of the population has no idea what FTP is,  and
that is the only time a person might actually be
aware of  what their rate really is.

I have tested my setup with and without the
router in place,  and also did some of the tests
that Dave Pembroke suggested - downloads
from the Redhat fedora sites.  I did get 7.2Mbps
or so,  making it clear that I can get within
shooting range of 8Mbps.

What does all this add up to?  Not much.  I'm
still convinced that some sites cap the the rate.
I don't particularly think that Comcast does.
And if I'm going to upload or download a lot of
files on a regular basis, mostly to my own
web hosting service,  I need to make up a
script so I can use parallel streams.

I have not contacted the web hosting to see
whether it is capping rates,  but will tonight.
( How's that for timing.... )

None of this even touches on network
and server loading,  but there's no obvious
way to measure that anyway.  If I get full
rates under any circumstances I can't
blame Comcast.

But when the next Comcast offer comes
around to upgrade my service yet again,
what to do?  Pay for a higher rate that runs
in a vacuum?  e.g., buy a 45Mbps service
but never get more than,  say 10Mbps?

    -Bob


On 8/21/06, Daniel Rysztak <WhtDruid at druids-grove.net> wrote:
> Having previously worked in the Cable industry as a Tier 3 Network
> Engineer (not for Comcast but another of the big 4), typically they
> don't get overly fancy in this stuff.  A lot of KISS goes into it.
>
> We really didn't have time in our day to come up with "fun ways to annoy
> our customers".  I'd doubt that they're limiting per stream (but I don't
> know that for sure.)  It probably has to do with limits of the PC,
> router, switch, server, etc.  As you start to dive down into queues you
> realize that data gets handled differently than you thought.  While you
> may have an 8 Mbps pipe, you may be getting randomly less than 8 Mbps
> per session as other connections need to have use of the queue.  Queues
> are typically smaller than the throughput of their ports (1 Gbps ports
> typically have a 200 Mbps queue available to them in the Cisco world.)
> So it may just be an inherent flaw of the Internet as some pipe between
> you and your server may be backing you down just a smidge to allow for
> other connections.  Now, when you create multiple streams, the routers
> between you and the server would be capping your traffic per flow as
> opposed to per IP (as they don't believe you have a throughput limit per
> IP) so overall you can take more than a single session would get.
>
> That's just my thought....
>
> -Daniel Rysztak
>
> Bob Kline wrote:
> > On 8/11/06, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/11/06, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes,  multiple data streams.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not quite sure what Comcast's game
> >>> would be if it is capping data rates.  I have
> >>> a personal account,  and while it's still
> >>> possible for there to be multiple users,
> >>> I'm not sure why Comcast would fold that
> >>> in to its package.
> >>>
> >> Have you called their tech support lately?  Makes me want to get a
> >> speakerphone.  I'm sure they do anything they can to reduce their call
> >> volume.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they capped individual TCP
> >> streams to keep people with routers with bad QoS rules from adding to
> >> their tech support queue length.  In my experience, the average
> >> computer user blames the service providor for problems without looking
> >> for a cause closer to home.
> >>
> >> Erm...Not that I'm accusing you of that. :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > But,  in your own way,  you bring up a another
> > test.  I am indeed behind a router.  I'll hook my
> > PC up directly to the cable modem and see if
> > that makes any difference.  Good point.
> >
> > And yes,  I would like to find someone to blame.
> > Just not me.....  ;-)
> >
> >     -Bob
> > _______________________________________________
> > grlug mailing list
> > grlug at grlug.org
> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>