Quote:
Originally Posted by Masque
Now why would we do that if we are using our online tools correctly we can see any issues or management on our side and only then will we look at your equipment.
It is amazing how many 3rd party routers actually cause slow speeds and once a direct connection is made the connection is running at full speed.
You have a known issue which will be in your notes so you cannot use yourself as an example.  |
To be fair only the one time I used normal tech support they blamed my pc.
The CEO office and tier 2 on the VM forums didnt do that.
---------- Post added at 01:00 ---------- Previous post was at 00:57 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
|
Hugh I have to say those stats are a brilliant match with what I would expect. In that p2p doesnt dominate downloading (as some claim) but does use a large chunk of uploading. This falls in line with what I have been thinking.
---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Alright, I was generalizing a bit, and the data I quoted was from one particular manufacturer of traffic shaping/DPI equipment. In any case, the general consensus seems that "real time entertainment", i.e. streaming audio/video make up 40-60% according to all parties, fairly close to half of all internet traffic with some variation by region.
And P2P traffic, in the downstream, varies from the high single digits to low double digit range, which is fairly close to what I quoted anyway. Again patterns will vary by ISP and region, but shaping what takes up 10% of your bandwidth down to a maximum of 25% of bandwidth (well, with NNTP included) was never going to have much effect - that is of course if VM are actually doing it as they say they are.
Even in the upstream, if P2P is using ~35% overall and ~30% at peak times, capping it to 25% really won't reduce overall traffic by more than 10% if you look at it logically. We can pretty much ignore NNTP here since, well, there is negligible amounts of upstream NNTP on a home user's connection.
|
In VM's case tho there is a issue not accounted for and that is regional congregation of users. So eg. VM might have a 100 UBR's with not a single p2p user on, whilst another 100 UBR's may have 20 p2p users on each going on 24/7. The first 100 UBR's would have pointless throttling and the 2nd 100UBR's would have not enough throttling. It does seem currently VM's downstream traffic shaping overall is a pointless waste, in a highly congested area I have seen pretty much no improvement from it. If I am seeing nothing from it I fail to see what good areas gain from it. I dont mind posting my tbb graph's for the days this upstream trial is running so we can see the affects from that. As even tho the trial is dusk hours, I do still have congestion then on the upstream.