View Full Version : What download speed should i expect?
"Hi all" Installed in time for Christmas 768kbps. I live in Leeds area and my dowwnload speed is never more than 36 no matter what site or @ what time of day. i have a friend on a rival supplier, he has a 500kbps and his average download speed is 70-80. Everything else seems ok, Call of duty plays like a dream on line and web browsing speed seems fine. It starts of @ about 90 then without fail drops down to 35-36. "Is sum ting wong?":dozey:
gooner4life
02-03-2005, 06:58
sounds like packet loss run this http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks fill in the correct info and then post the results back here, sometimes a software tweak will resolve packet loss.
paulyoung666
02-03-2005, 08:04
hi and :welcome: to the site dodger , have a look at this (http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/) and post back the results , i wonder if you are on the 300 k service by mistake :disturbd: :disturbd: :disturbd: , enjoy your stay here btw :)
hi and :welcome: to the site dodger , have a look at this (http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/) and post back the results , i wonder if you are on the 300 k service by mistake :disturbd: :disturbd: :disturbd: , enjoy your stay here btw :)
Nice little app there Paul :tu: not that I need it at the mo, getting d/l speed of 171.7 kB/s on one file ;) I can't wait for the upgrade :hyper:
On the 1.5 service BTW
He won't be getting 70-80kB/s on 512k.
OinkyBoinky
02-03-2005, 08:54
He won't be getting 70-80kB/s on 512k.
Thats the sorta speeds i'm getting on my 750k...
70-80Kb/Sec is a little optimistic for a 500k DSL service I feel.
It will max out at around 60k once the initial 'burst' rate has slowed down.
He may show 70-80k initially, but if he downloads a large file it will settle down to about 60k/sec.
The most you will ever get from a 512k/bit line is about 61/62k/bytes a sec (512/8 = 64, but you lose a bit in overhead). The only reason that windows could possibly show it faster [to start with] is because it's calculating it badly - but that's M$ for you.
What d/l speed should I expect when I'm upgraded to 2MB? :confused:
What d/l speed should I expect when I'm upgraded to 2MB? :confused:
260Kb/sec approx.
260Kb/sec approx.Not quite 260 :) - 2048/8 = 256, then take of a bit for overhead - you should expect around 250 Kbytes/sec. :D
__________________
I'm looking forward to my 3M - at around 365K/sec. :drool:
Some RWIN tweaks may be required, particularly if using Windows default or tuned values for a lower speed.
The NTL CD, I believe, sets it ridiculously large, though in many cases, the value will be adaptive up to the maximum, starting at 1 packet size, and then doubling if the connection is dleay limited, but reducing if there is a high level of packet loss.
RWIN too low, causes slowdown as the connection ends up idling if it's got too much delay for the actual speed possible.
RWIN too high, can promote packet loss on poor paths, and can degrade responsiveness on multiple connections.
paulyoung666
02-03-2005, 20:47
wonder what happened to the op :confused:
Some RWIN tweaks may be required, particularly if using Windows default or tuned values for a lower speed.
The NTL CD, I believe, sets it ridiculously large, though in many cases, the value will be adaptive up to the maximum, starting at 1 packet size, and then doubling if the connection is dleay limited, but reducing if there is a high level of packet loss.
RWIN too low, causes slowdown as the connection ends up idling if it's got too much delay for the actual speed possible.
RWIN too high, can promote packet loss on poor paths, and can degrade responsiveness on multiple connections.
i played that game in the past and found it made no noticeable difference at all , besides that i wouldnt use the ntl disc unless i needed the the usb drivers which i dont anyway :erm: :D :D :D
"What info do i need to post"https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/09/21.gif and Thanks all for pointing out to me that my mate is exagerating his kinky bits per/sec. "Have to watch him" Little tinker.https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif I ran the test and it said:"Looking good" "Cool" I might be handsome and good looking (How does it know?")https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/07/24.gif ,but me downloads r still a tad on the dull side.sounds like packet loss run this http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks fill in the correct info and then post the results back here, sometimes a software tweak will resolve packet loss.
ian@huth
03-03-2005, 00:45
There can be several reasons why your download speed is low.These can include, amongst other things, poor network settings(still tweaked for dial-up) and incorrect duplex settings. If you are using p2p software your upload may be getting maxed out which really slows the downloads. Robin Walker has an excellent site which can help you with many problems. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/cmtips/index.html
The speed you are getting is spot on for a 300k connection. You may be getting this instead of the 750k speed you thought you was on. Have you done the speed tests suggested earlier by Paul?
Nice little app there Paul https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/16.gif not that I need it at the mo, getting d/l speed of 171.7 kB/s on one file https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif I can't wait for the upgrade https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/08/10.gif
On the 1.5 service BTW
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif Me again, Ran Dan,s Broadband Speed Test (Downloaded @ 35kb/s) ("Doh") and the result on test 5: (Download speeds from UK servers) was a bit grim. Ideally it said,should be 768kb/s. I got 282 kb/s and it said "This result shows serious problems with downloads, and should be investigated." Should i call Inter(NTL)national Rescue."https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif or should i just sit it out and wait for the upgrade to 2mb/s? All the other test passed ok.
homealone
03-03-2005, 01:11
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif Me again, Ran Dan,s Broadband Speed Test (Downloaded @ 35kb/s) ("Doh") and the result on test 5: (Download speeds from UK servers) was a bit grim. Ideally it said,should be 768kb/s. I got 282 kb/s and it said "This result shows serious problems with downloads, and should be investigated." Should i call Inter(NTL)national Rescue."https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif or should i just sit it out and wait for the upgrade to 2mb/s? All the other test passed ok.
if all the other tests were ok I would say that was a 'one off' - mine are ok ;)
ian@huth
03-03-2005, 01:27
It sounds like you are on the 300k service not the 768k that you thought. The speed test only mentions 768 kb/s because you told it that you are on that speed. Give NTL a call to check what they have you down as. You could check the config file for your modem.Have a look at http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/article.php?a=18 to see how to check your provisioned speed or Robin Walkers site to find out how to check for the config file.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif Ian you are amazing!! Tried your link to NTL and found that they have me down as 300kb/s. (Gunna call them later today) Maybe it was the offer that they had on @ the time! "Half price for three months". Maybe what they really mean is "Half line" for three months. Anyway i will post how i get on with "Customer Services"https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/09/13.gif You are so clever. Thanks all. https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/3.gif. Keep taking the pills! and smoking the stuff!
paulyoung666
03-03-2005, 06:58
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/15.gif Ian you are amazing!! Tried your link to NTL and found that they have me down as 300kb/s. (Gunna call them later today) Maybe it was the offer that they had on @ the time! "Half price for three months". Maybe what they really mean is "Half line" for three months. Anyway i will post how i get on with "Customer Services"https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/09/13.gif You are so clever. Thanks all. https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/10/3.gif. Keep taking the pills! and smoking the stuff!
oiiiiiiiiiiiii i thought of it first ;) :D :D :D :D
I ran that speed test and got these results.
http://img153.exs.cx:81/img153/5586/s13ny.jpg
The RWIN is set at 15000. Is this too high?
Using the DSL Reports formula, http://www.dslreports.com/faq/578
of ping (in mS, but should be a LARGE packet ping, this may be a small packet) multiplied by line speed (in Kbit/s - the K cancels the m) x 1.5 (fudge factor) divided by 8 (bits in a byte).
169 x 768 x 1.5 / 8 = 24336
Your RWIN is actually too small to achieve full speed on a path with a delay exceeding 100mS
;) Happy again! ;) Turned out that NTL had me on a 300kb/s connection.("Doh")
This was easly changed to 768kb/s by loggin on to the NTL Homeworld website and upgrading. "Took seconds to do!" Noticed the differance straight away.
i can,t wait for the speed upgrade. Anyone know how this will happen? "Will we all just wake up one morning and find our web browsing running @ warp factor?"
or will we be notified by a van driving around with a loud speaker bolted to the roof?
Thank you all again for your advise and pointing me in the right direction.(Cool):)
__________________
;) Oh @and thanks Paul for thinking of it first!:p:
__________________
:confused: Matth. "Havn,t got a clue" "what you where on about". But thanks the same.
;) Happy again! ;) Turned out that NTL had me on a 300kb/s connection.("Doh")
This was easly changed to 768kb/s by loggin on to the NTL Homeworld website and upgrading. "Took seconds to do!" Noticed the differance straight away.
i can,t wait for the speed upgrade. Anyone know how this will happen? "Will we all just wake up one morning and find our web browsing running @ warp factor?"
or will we be notified by a van driving around with a loud speaker bolted to the roof?
Thank you all again for your advise and pointing me in the right direction.(Cool):)
__________________
;) Oh @and thanks Paul for thinking of it first!:p:
__________________
:confused: Matth. "Havn,t got a clue" "what you where on about". But thanks the same.
The upgrade is supposed to be virtually instantaneous, but you may have to reboot the modem (power cycle, leave off for 30 seconds) before it takes effect.
__________________
Not quite 260 :) - 2048/8 = 256, then take of a bit for overhead - you should expect around 250 Kbytes/sec. :D
__________________
I'm looking forward to my 3M - at around 365K/sec. :drool:
I suspect NTLs 2 megabit will be 2,000,000 bit/s (The 300k is definitely 300000 bit/s at the moment as defined by the cable modem config).
One byte is about 8.5 bits, 1kByte/s = 1024 bit/s
So I reckon ntl 2MB will be 230kBytes per second if you can find a server that will download fast enough!
Ignition
06-03-2005, 15:21
I suspect NTLs 2 megabit will be 2,000,000 bit/s (The 300k is definitely 300000 bit/s at the moment as defined by the cable modem config).
One byte is about 8.5 bits, 1kByte/s = 1024 bit/s
So I reckon ntl 2MB will be 230kBytes per second if you can find a server that will download fast enough!
1,024,000 bit/s, 2,048,000 bit/s and 3,072,000 bit/s are the new caps.
This should deliver 120-125kB/s per Mbit.
One byte is 8 bits, no more no less, and 1Mbit is 1,000,000 bits. The extra is a historical thing put in there to account for TCP/IP overheads a bit.
Chances are it won't require a modem reboot, modems will be made to resynch and acquire the new speeds.
1,024,000 bit/s, 2,048,000 bit/s and 3,072,000 bit/s are the new caps.
This should deliver 120-125kB/s per Mbit.
One byte is 8 bits, no more no less, and 1Mbit is 1,000,000 bits. The extra is a historical thing put in there to account for TCP/IP overheads a bit.
Chances are it won't require a modem reboot, modems will be made to resynch and acquire the new speeds.
Hard disk manufacturers and comms companies usually use whatever definition of k and M that gives them the bigger number, but when you format your harddisk the available space is much smaller!
Memory manufacturers usually use the more 'computer science' correct
1 byte = 8 bits
1 kbyte = 1024 bits (= 2^10)
1 Mbyte = 1024 kbyte = 1,048,576 bytes (2^20)
so
I'm sure you know better than me what the ntl config file will say - I'm looking forward to finding out what definition of 1Mbit NTL use (but I still expect a million bits which is consistent with 10/100 Mbit Ethernet definition I believe). And yes my 8.5 bits per byte is an approximation to allow for packet overhead and other losses, for a precise value see
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/cmtips/speed.html#kilobytes
ian@huth
06-03-2005, 23:10
Hard disk manufacturers and comms companies usually use whatever definition of k and M that gives them the bigger number, but when you format your harddisk the available space is much smaller!
Memory manufacturers usually use the more 'computer science' correct
1 byte = 8 bits
1 kbyte = 1024 bits (= 2^10)
1 Mbyte = 1024 kbyte = 1,048,576 bytes (2^20)
so
I'm sure you know better than me what the ntl config file will say - I'm looking forward to finding out what definition of 1Mbit NTL use (but I still expect a million bits which is consistent with 10/100 Mbit Ethernet definition I believe). And yes my 8.5 bits per byte is an approximation to allow for packet overhead and other losses, for a precise value see
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/cmtips/speed.html#kilobytes
Strictly speaking a byte can consist of any number of bits depending on the architecture of the system on which it is used. 9 bit bytes were fairly common many years ago on 36 bit computers but the number of bits per byte could be as low as 6 or as high as 64 in my experience. A true definition of byte would be the smallest addressable unit of storage.
These days it is commonly accepted that a byte consists of 8 bits. It is impossible to have a byte size that isn't a whole number.
The prefixes kilo, mega and giga mean different things depending on their usage. In communication speeds kilo means 1,000 whereas in file sizes kilo means 2 to the power 10 or 1,024.
I'm sure you know better than me what the ntl config file will say - I'm looking forward to finding out what definition of 1Mbit NTL use (but I still expect a million bits which is consistent with 10/100 Mbit Ethernet definition I believe). And yes my 8.5 bits per byte is an approximation to allow for packet overhead and other losses, for a precise value seeI know what definition they use, it's 1024000. I used to be on the 1M service, this is what was used. Multiply it by 1.5 and you get the 1536000 that is currently in use. The new tiers will use 1024000, 2048000 and 3072000 (the uploads will be 100000, 200000 & 300000). :D
FYI: I use 8.25 as my figure for bits/sec to Bytes/sec (and then /1024 for K bytes/sec). :)
hmmm .. my speed reports are mostly the same as Albies (705 on download) .. but sometimes with massive ping times/time-outs on "foriegn" urls, and often packet loss between 2 and 10 % ?? Also about 30% of the times I run the test it can't do the download test because of server timeouts or other errors ?
Got my RWIN set at 18000 currently, tried ranges from 15000 up to 65500 with no noticable difference.
Not bothered reporting the packet loss since last time (ages ago) as I can still play online games without "obvious" hitches .. and waiting 30 extra seconds for some pages to load has become normal for me lol.
Ignition
07-03-2005, 05:24
Hard disk manufacturers and comms companies usually use whatever definition of k and M that gives them the bigger number, but when you format your harddisk the available space is much smaller!
Well no, comms companies use the IETC / IEEE definitions of bits which dictate that baseband comms bitrates are expressed decimally, not binary. Check the specifications for 10baseT, fast and gigabit ethernet for more on this, along with specifications for SDH, POS and the defined bitrates for STM and OC circuits (IE an E1 circuit is 2048000 bps, 2.048Mbps).
If we're getting *really* pedantic kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes indicate decimal quantities, not their binary equivalents kibibytes, mibibytes and gibibytes. Sorry if I've upset any programmers with that one but that's the way it is, officially apparently - see IETC:
kibi- (Ki-)
a binary prefix meaning 210 = 1024. This prefix, adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission in 1998, was supposed to replace kilo- for binary applications in computer science. Thus 1024 bytes of storage is officially a kibibyte, not a kilobyte. However, computer professionals generally dislike this unit (they say it sounds like a cat food) so the ambiguity in the size of a kilobyte persists. The prefix is a contraction of "kilobinary." The symbol Ki-, rather than ki-, was chosen for uniformity with the other binary prefixes (Mi-, Gi-, etc.).
It's not really possible to give an exact figure for overheads as they vary depending on the protocol being used for transfer, MRU, if PPP is involved at any point, multiple sources for the same download. Only thing you can say is that with a packet size x the overhead will be y%.
I was just giving the pure unfettered bitrates, the performance I would recommend users to expect from their new services is as I posted, 120KiB/s for each 1Mbit of download speed, 12KiB/s for each 100k of upload speed. Anything else is a bonus!
The joys of comparing transmission/communication rates with storage rates, telecomms vs IT at its' finest.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.