View Full Version : should ntl introduce seperate upload cap
Chrysalis
18-01-2006, 13:42
Ok we all know it costs a lot more to provide upload bandwidth then download and from what I heard there is no local download capacity problems but upstream problems so should ntl introduce seperate upload caps rather then bundling in with the the download cap.
So on the 10 meg tier say 5 gig upload reducing to 64kbit after reach cap.
Bottom 2 tiers 1 gig and 2 gig upload respectively even tho the download is unmetered again capping to 64kbit when reached.
Peer 2 peer is a stupid protocol which takes the job away from what should be serving downloads (server) to other consumers and making broadband work in a manner it was not designed for, I have had 100ms+ pings since last week as a result of I can only presume students in my area leaving p2p apps running all day, my download speeds are below what my sister gets on her 1meg and I have a noticeable delay on each web request. Very frustrating. I have also been starting to get timeouts most noticeably on ssl pages.
neoapple
18-01-2006, 14:15
god no! bad idea!
i'd vote for some type of traffic shaping. The congestion caused by saturated uploads is out of control these last 2 months.
People would take no notice / or wouldn't even be aware that there is an upload cap and carry on anyway.
sharpygreen
18-01-2006, 15:43
gets my vote as we are all suffering from these dam p2p pirates
dogzilla
18-01-2006, 16:01
Ok we all know it costs a lot more to provide upload bandwidth then download....
It does? In my experiance bandwidth is bandwidth. If you were to buy 10mbit of transit from any big supplier they dont care how you split it, whether you are sending or recieving traffic.
Since NTL is a very large ISP alof of the traffic will be through mutual peering arrangements. So NTL + BT for example will have an arrangement for sharing traffic, as apposed to going through a 3rd party ISP (eg level3, telia whatever) that will charge them both for the privalage.
The reason we have a limited upload is because home users dont NEED to be sending alot of data. Soon as we get 10mbit upload imagine the extra load on the network because of P2P/filesharing etc..
AbyssUnderground
18-01-2006, 16:41
It does? In my experiance bandwidth is bandwidth. If you were to buy 10mbit of transit from any big supplier they dont care how you split it, whether you are sending or recieving traffic.
Since NTL is a very large ISP alof of the traffic will be through mutual peering arrangements. So NTL + BT for example will have an arrangement for sharing traffic, as apposed to going through a 3rd party ISP (eg level3, telia whatever) that will charge them both for the privalage.
The reason we have a limited upload is because home users dont NEED to be sending alot of data. Soon as we get 10mbit upload imagine the extra load on the network because of P2P/filesharing etc..
I doubt youd ever get 10Mbps upload anyway. As I have found its not NTL not giving it to you, its the restrictions in the equipment.
dogzilla
18-01-2006, 16:47
We arent getting 10mbit upload because we dont need it..... if we can get 10mbit download the possibility is there for our upload speeds to be alot faster.... IF ntl wanted to kill its network even more.
Nobody needs a much more than 512k upload imo anyway.
AbyssUnderground
18-01-2006, 17:02
We arent getting 10mbit upload because we dont need it..... if we can get 10mbit download the possibility is there for our upload speeds to be alot faster.... IF ntl wanted to kill its network even more.
Nobody needs a much more than 512k upload imo anyway.
You dont understand. The system used to deliver the broadband was only ever designed for high bandwidth downstream for your television. It was never designed for broadband use, eg uploading. Because of this the equipment was never designed for uploading, so they cant get the equipment to do uploads at that speed.
512Kbps for me is no where near enough because I run a server. The faster the better. Some people have different needs. Maybe for you 512Kbps is perfectly fine.
EDIT: P.S Im going by what cableforum members have told me. Not what I have made up.
gets my vote as we are all suffering from these dam p2p pirates
:tu:
SMHarman
18-01-2006, 17:47
You dont understand. The system used to deliver the broadband was only ever designed for high bandwidth downstream for your television. It was never designed for broadband use, eg uploading. Because of this the equipment was never designed for uploading, so they cant get the equipment to do uploads at that speed.
512Kbps for me is no where near enough because I run a server. The faster the better. Some people have different needs. Maybe for you 512Kbps is perfectly fine.
EDIT: P.S Im going by what cableforum members have told me. Not what I have made up.and why can't that server be housed in a data centre? If it requires data from your PC then that data could be grabbed from your PC and the HTML rendered from the server. NTL provide FTP space to host from also. I can think of no logical reason to run a server from your home.
512Kbps for me is no where near enough because I run a server. The faster the better. Some people have different needs. Maybe for you 512Kbps is perfectly fine.Home broadband is not designed, or intended, for running servers, it's you're own fault that you choose to do this when everyone knows that you should use proper hosting. 512Kbps is more that adequate for the purpose/use it is designed and intended for.
AbyssUnderground
18-01-2006, 18:09
We've already argued this before. Im not going through it again. However I am considering a dedicated server with a 10Mbps uplink. I just need to justify the £56 a month to get it :(
Home broadband is not designed, or intended, for running servers, it's you're own fault that you choose to do this when everyone knows that you should use proper hosting. 512Kbps is more that adequate for the purpose/use it is designed and intended for.
Paul indeed the last time i posted about this i was told i had a bad attiude:)
If other countries can do it, why cant we? Im not moaning, simply stating facts.
I dont know what is wrong with you but you certainly have a bad attitude.
EDIT: Oh and yes I do charge for it but its not enough to be able to upgrade my connection.
If i used a server for business from home on a residential service i am sure NTL would not be happy about it.
EDIT: Oh and yes I do charge for it but its not enough to be able to upgrade my connection.
Now is there anyone here who does not see that as a server classed as business? ANYONE
AbyssUnderground
18-01-2006, 18:35
If you had read the entire topic, which I know you didnt, you would know that I charged for the services I provided that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SERVER.
And Im not arguing and I couldnt care less if people saw it as a business. NTL havent contacted me in the 7 months Ive been running it so it obviously does not bother them.
TOPIC END
abyssunderground, just grab a dreamhost.com account, there are codes on the web that will get you (legitimately) a whole year of hosting with 20 gig of space, a terabyte of bandwidth per month and a free domain for about £15.
I've used them for a while for some side projects and they are fine.
Using an NTL home connection to run a server will never cut it...
If you had read the entire topic, which I know you didnt, you would know that I charged for the services I provided that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SERVER.
And Im not arguing and I couldnt care less if people saw it as a business. NTL havent contacted me in the 7 months Ive been running it so it obviously does not bother them.
TOPIC ENDI strongly suggest you think carefully about your posting attitude. :)
AbyssUnderground
18-01-2006, 19:02
abyssunderground, just grab a dreamhost.com account, there are codes on the web that will get you (legitimately) a whole year of hosting with 20 gig of space, a terabyte of bandwidth per month and a free domain for about £15.
I've used them for a while for some side projects and they are fine.
Using an NTL home connection to run a server will never cut it...
I need at least 80GB of space. I host a lot of files I need access to for clients. Yes 80GB. Its a lot I know.
Admin Edit: If you have a problem with a post, use the reporting system, not the thread. Thankyou, Paul.
Nah, 80 gig isn't a lot :Yikes:
Good luck with your search !
AbyssUnderground
18-01-2006, 19:46
Nah, 80 gig isn't a lot :Yikes:
Good luck with your search !
Cheers.
Chrysalis
18-01-2006, 19:47
It does? In my experiance bandwidth is bandwidth. If you were to buy 10mbit of transit from any big supplier they dont care how you split it, whether you are sending or recieving traffic.
Since NTL is a very large ISP alof of the traffic will be through mutual peering arrangements. So NTL + BT for example will have an arrangement for sharing traffic, as apposed to going through a 3rd party ISP (eg level3, telia whatever) that will charge them both for the privalage.
The reason we have a limited upload is because home users dont NEED to be sending alot of data. Soon as we get 10mbit upload imagine the extra load on the network because of P2P/filesharing etc..
the local ubr has limited upstream bandwidth and isnt same up and down like a leased line.
I would back some kind of upload cap if it sorted all these congested upstreams which seem to be causing quite a bit of the problems people are suffering.
As in a previous post by Ignition he stated that Ntl keep breaking the network down further and frequent re segs and balancing to increase bandwith per household but everytime they do it whithin a matter of hours it has all been swallowed up again by the extreme users,the company will only go so far before saying thats enough spent on that area with not much gain.
Im not sure about traffic shaping as have seen some right messes and problems when companies have used that system e.g friends talk talk using for voip wouldnt allow it in evenings or weekend and others blocking wrong ports and traffic
Chrysalis
19-01-2006, 13:22
well I just want something done, wether its upgrading the local bandwidth, reducing upload speeds, or capping. Like you said there will be a limit to how much upgrading they do and wont keep doing it continously without extra revenue coming in as a result of it.
and why can't that server be housed in a data centre? If it requires data from your PC then that data could be grabbed from your PC and the HTML rendered from the server. NTL provide FTP space to host from also. I can think of no logical reason to run a server from your home.
I run a server from my home. I use my box to allow me to do my day job (unix web support) as I have complete control over it and the software that runs from it (ZWS and ZXTM) - ZWS, incidentally, hosts many NTL websites. If a customer comes to me and says, ZWS isn't correctly parsing this rule, or this API is broken etc, then I can use my home (live) system to quickly test this. Yes, I have labs here, but nothing quite beats a completely 'live' system.
Where can I experiment with my specialist configuration, complete with root rights, in an environment that gives me /total/ control please?
I'd be very /very/ interested in your answer.
PS: HTML isn't 'rendered' from a server. Your cluelessness should be evidence enough for people to not take your opinions seriously.
Chris
AbyssUnderground
19-01-2006, 15:51
I need at least 80GB of space. I host a lot of files I need access to for clients. Yes 80GB. Its a lot I know.
Admin Edit: If you have a problem with a post, use the reporting system, not the thread. Thankyou, Paul.
In reply to the admin edit, I wasnt complaining, I was asking that the subject was not brought up again as it was already discussed and argued over. Next time however, I will use the reporting system.
SMHarman
19-01-2006, 16:27
PS: HTML isn't 'rendered' from a server. Your cluelessness should be evidence enough for people to not take your opinions seriously.
ChrisOK, what would the correct term be when the HTML that is served is created on the fly by php code? A dynamic page needs to be created (rendered was the word I used) on the server and then that output sent to the requestor. I guess then the HTML reader that requested the page also takes those instructions and renders them on the client machine so using the word could be a little confusing, perhaps generated or created would be better.
So this server of yours - it is just your test environment, you are not using it to serve a user community, that kinda stuff is elsewhere? Sounds very different to saying you host a server on your home connection with 80Gb of data on it.
AbyssUnderground
19-01-2006, 16:37
OK, what would the correct term be when the HTML that is served is created on the fly by php code? A dynamic page needs to be created (rendered was the word I used) on the server and then that output sent to the requestor. I guess then the HTML reader that requested the page also takes those instructions and renders them on the client machine so using the word could be a little confusing, perhaps generated or created would be better.
So this server of yours - it is just your test environment, you are not using it to serve a user community, that kinda stuff is elsewhere? Sounds very different to saying you host a server on your home connection with 80Gb of data on it.
Id prefer it if we didnt go through all of this again if you dont mind. You can read the old topic. It explains all of this.
SMHarman
19-01-2006, 16:45
Id prefer it if we didnt go through all of this again if you dont mind. You can read the old topic. It explains all of this.Well after snapping my hand off about the word "render" I would prefer if you could answer that. But hey we can't all have it our own way.
AbyssUnderground
19-01-2006, 17:04
Well after snapping my hand off about the word "render" I would prefer if you could answer that. But hey we can't all have it our own way.
toph3r (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/member.php?u=15023) was the one that snapped your hand off, not me. ;) I would agree with you anyway as I use php to "render" my website.
I was under the impression that Upload was not counted in the Cap?
Has this cahnged since I last looked here?
Now the 75GB is Upload AND download?
I was under the impression that Upload was not counted in the Cap?
Has this changed since I last looked here?
Now the 75GB is Upload AND download?
Yes its now a usage limit which is both up and down combined
OK, what would the correct term be when the HTML that is served is created on the fly by php code? A dynamic page needs to be created (rendered was the word I used) on the server and then that output sent to the requestor.
A browser 'renders' the code. The server just presents the code for your browser to display (render) as it pleases. Dynamic PHP pages purely 'create' the HTML code, which is then 'served' to the client, upon which the browser 'renders' the code.
I guess then the HTML reader that requested the page also takes those instructions and renders them on the client machine so using the word could be a little confusing, perhaps generated or created would be better.
You're just using the incorrect terms. Simple as that, sorry ;)
See above for clarification.
So this server of yours - it is just your test environment, you are not using it to serve a user community, that kinda stuff is elsewhere?
It does 'serve' my website, but its just some some PHP scripts (gallery) and some cgi's. It's for friends, mainly, to look at. It does serve as a good test bed for the interaction between our traffic manager and our webserver product. Some of the questions I get asked in my job role, are far easier replicated in my 'live' setup than our lab setup. (For example, straces upon GET or POST requests etc - that's far easier to conduct in my live setup)
Sounds very different to saying you host a server on your home connection with 80Gb of data on it.
..that would be madness, I agree. If you are going to start putting that amount of bandwith out to serve, then you require professional hosting (or a fast uplink!). I took issue, specifically, with the assertion that no one has the 'need' to run a 'server'. This is completely and utterly spurious.
I hope this clarifies.
PHP - generates
Browser - renders
Can we move on beyond childish snappiness please?
The reason we have a limited upload is because home users dont NEED to be sending alot of data
Also because that's the nature of the guesses taken by the DOCSIS and ADSL developers ten years ago - that most traffic would be downstream. Hence more of the limited bandwidth is used for carrying downstream signals than upstream There are also other reasons like the time-division system used to contend for the available upstream bandwidth, which doesn't apply to the downstream, which, like the TV system it's derived from, is broadcast.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.