PDA

View Full Version : Saturated Upstream on 10mb (torrent related)


Jim galbally
23-12-2005, 23:12
ok ive got 10mb and thats an upgrade form 1mb (so my upoload has gone from 128k to 512k)

ive tested uploading and i can definately get these faster up-speeds

anyway, whenever i start getting the upload above the 10kb/sec mark it saturates my connection and the download speed drops dramatically.

For example... i'm downloading a file from a FAST ftp site (so i can get 1000+kb/sec)

with no upload its fast
with 10kb/sec upload its fast
with 20kb/sec upload it drops down to well under 200kb/sec (normally<100kb/sec)

now 20kb/sec upload is nowhere near the limit of my 512k connection.

so, what i'm getting at is.

does the bandwith get saturated at the same level even if you have a faster upload speed cap set.

what i'm REALLY getting at with all this is... is my connection fooked, or is it right that i have to keep my upload speed below 100k

Chrysalis
24-12-2005, 02:15
I noticed with 2mbit I could cap my upload to 80-90% and it had no affect on download speed. With 10mbit if I cap to say 30kB (50%) I lose about 25% download speed around max 7-8mbit, I actually have to cap to 20kB or lower for it to not have an affect. You need to remember if you have upgraded from say 2mbit then you have a increase of around 150% in upstream but 500% in downstream so the % of your upstream capacity needed for acks is now higher.

JonathanLH
24-12-2005, 06:58
i suggest the poster use dumeter (or equivalent) to check that his upstream is less than 64KB/s, since the torrent client may be set at like 20KB/s upload, but may be using more. (can add another 3-4KB/s for DHT for a start)

Mr Clean
24-12-2005, 08:52
I set my torrent client to 40kbps up and have no problem downloading at high speeds. Usually get anything between 200 and 600 down. In reality though, you are never gonna max out your download on BitTorrent.

With a high speed connection, like 10Mb, you need to find better sources for your downloading requirements than BitTorrent IMHO.

That's my two penneth's worth on the subject.

:beer:

JonathanLH
24-12-2005, 18:25
I would have to disagree, private torrent sites pretty much always max out my line even with the upload set to 3 KB/s. However you need to maintain a decent ratio with them, hence I use a USA dedicated server, and FTP off it sometimes instead.
I'm guessing I can't post the names of the private torrent sites, but feel free to PM me :)

Jim galbally
25-12-2005, 00:47
jon, i can monitor the total bandwith (with overheads) and it definately drops the downstream significantly if i hit more than about 15kb/sec (actual).

as for download methods, i tried using usenet lastnight and F**K me it's quick! only problem is it looks like NTL block all the "good" newsgroups, so not much worth downloading on there :(

JonathanLH
25-12-2005, 01:04
How are your modem power levels? I find I can upload at about 40KB/s (inc overheads - dumeter) before downstream starts to suffer.

Mick Fisher
25-12-2005, 01:51
I found the upload to behave perfectly normal with BT since going to 10meg. I connect through ethernet and use a tjet modem.
The only minus I have noticed is the faster speeds seem to bog my system down to the point where it is really noticeable, whereas on 3meg I didn't really notice it.
I'm using Az which of course is well known for it.
No big deal as I rarely use BT, only experimented with it as a result of this thread making me inquisitive.

JonathanLH
25-12-2005, 05:11
BitComet and uTorrent are best ones resource wise, as they are written in C++ instead of Java

Paul
25-12-2005, 10:51
I'm using Az at the moment with my download and upload set to just under 1/3 of my connection max (400K down, 20K up) and I don't normally even notice it running. The upload is almost always running at max, but the download rarely gets even remotely close.

Jim galbally
25-12-2005, 12:55
power legals and signal are all perfect.

i do have the cable modem off a 2 way splitter with the STB tho, not 2 seperate lines into the house, could that make a difference?

grubbymitts
25-12-2005, 18:49
i tried using usenet lastnight and F**K me it's quick! only problem is it looks like NTL block all the "good" newsgroups, so not much worth downloading on there :(

Unless you have Topsite or dumpsite FTP access, newsgroups are the fastest method of getting your...ahem...linux distros. Alas, NTL doesn't supply all the groups (but the ones it does supply are quite good - if you like your linux distros with a touch of swedish love to them!) but you can find good, cheap suppliers of unlimited newsgroup access with *all* the newsgroups for $14.95 a month. works out at less than a tenner. Once you buy access and see what really is available on Usenet, you'll never go back to P2P again.

With Bit Torrent, even with your upload capped and on a private tracker, you rely on the uploading seeds to have a fast connection, and then there's the ratio to contend with and the fact that you are flashing your IP address for the whole world to see.

With FTP you either have to have leech access (which means you know the Siteop via affil or hardware/software donation or you can Pre 0 day stuff) or you're stuck on a ratio of, usually, 1:3 and constantly battling couriers from warez groups to get your stuff online before they do. When you only have 200 - 512k upload, this is an uphill struggle and you'll never find yourself getting access to a Topsite and could find it difficult to be accepted on most of the dumpsites too.

With Usenet, it's leech, leech, leech all the way baby - and most things get posted to Usenet less than an hour after hitting the FTP tier.

*Standard Disclaimer*
No, I don't have, never had nor do I expect ever to have access to Topsites/dumpsites.
Always remember the golden rule of any scene - past and present - a game/utility/film worth playing/using/watching is worth buying!
And you really can get Linux distros from Usenet. Really. I'm not kidding. They're on there!

---------- Post added at 17:49 ---------- Previous post was at 17:41 ----------

BitComet and uTorrent are best ones resource wise, as they are written in C++ instead of Java

But isn't BitComet the one that's getting steadilly banned from many of the private trackers for not following the Bit Torrent protocols and allowing leeching of files when the private flag is attached to the torrent? From what I was reading a little while back on Slashdot, any IP address running BitComet is likely to be black listed from these trackers.

I used to use Azureus - if you set your upload to 10k/s you were more likely to get full whack down speed - but try keeping a ratio with that and the damn thing used to fill all my memory up. ABC was a good torrent client too - very little memory footprint.

Bring back Kazaa - all is forgiven ;)

JonathanLH
25-12-2005, 22:17
BitComet is banned from several private trackers, due to the DHT system running when it shouldn't.
Let's just say that my BitComet thinks it's BitTornado :P
AZ doesn't run very well on my 10mbit unmetered server (which is always at 10mbit outbound on BitComet).

Jim galbally
30-12-2005, 16:19
ok the more i look into this the less i think it's saturation...

whenever i've got azureus running my connection runs like a dog, doesnt matter what my upload/download speed is. at the moment ive got 8k up and 60k down and normal web browsing is slow!

do NTL do any silly things with bittorrent users? i'm not using the std port by the way.

if i kill azureus and give it 10mins or so then my connection goes back to normal and i can get 1mb/sec downloads happily

JonathanLH
30-12-2005, 16:35
AZ is quite resource intensive, being Java
are you using USB? since that is also resource intensive (get ethernet)
NTL do not block and bittorrent traffic - just downloaded a "linux iso to do with crashing weddings" at 10mbit :D

Jim galbally
30-12-2005, 17:13
NTL250 modem with ethernet. ive tried it on my old etherlink III (which ive been using since day 1 of ntl BB with STB as i can change PCs and keep the same max ;) ) and just tried with my builtin NIC to see if the old ELINKIII was crap. no change.

Az is using 128mb memory and about 30% CPU but thats nothing too major. i've got a pretty well specced PC (AMD 3200+ w/ 2gb). there is a LOT of **** running on it tho and could do with a fresh install of XP.

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

10mbit? the most i've ever seen down is about 2mbit, its normally ~1mbit down tho, thats on multiple torrents to keep the speeds up.

grubbymitts
30-12-2005, 20:26
How many connections are you allowing? The more connections you allow with BT, the less chance you will get to surf normally. It's like a miny DOS attack when you think about it. You have all these people sending or taking information off you that the pc has to allocate more and more cycles to, so when you want to do a bit of surfing, you are fighting all these other people to get out onto the net. XP makes it a lot easier (Win 98 was nigh on useless if you wanted to surf and torrent at the same time) but it can still be slow due to the amount of things XP runs compared to other Windows installs, which are all trying to get a piece of CPU ass ;)

I gave up on torrents almost a year ago but if I recall rightly:

If you are using Azureus and not getting the yellow smiley face then dump your router. If you still have the green not so smiley face then you ain't got any remote connections and, basically, tough, but if you can find your IP address (not your proxy) then go into options and put your IP address in the bind your ip box - this should help you to get the yellow smileys and the better speeds - but not on Piratebays trackers. They are notorious (well they were) for not liking non-scandanavian IPs.

Try another client. Azureus, whilst probably the best overall in terms of design, style and support, suffers greatly being Java based and power hungry. It may only be using 30% CPU when you looked at it, but keep watching the beast - it'll shoot up and eat into your memory the more connections you allow.

Or better still - dump BT. P2P is a strange irony in this security conscious world. We have virus killers, pop up blockers, advert blockers, content filters, firewalls, routers and spyware blockers and destroyers, but we'll still allow 200 strangers access to our pcs in order to download a crappy cam of the latest blockbuster.

Jim galbally
30-12-2005, 21:40
firstly, good point abou binding to IP, some of my stuff picks up the NTL webproxy, so i'll slapped it in manually just incase.

secondly (and more importantly) ive just been doing some experiments.

at 8k upload connection = fine
at 10k upload it starts to get saturated and i drop down to about 50% download
at 15k upload it goes really tits up and thing slow down dramatically

at 40kl upload? i may aswell be on a 56k modem!

now to me thats getting saturated WAY too soon!

test was done by watching DU meter whilst downloading from fileplanet (im a subscriber so get the full 10meg speed) whilst chaning th global upload speed in azureus

please note that i monitored the upload speed with DU meter and not once did it get any where near the full half meg!

JonathanLH
30-12-2005, 21:47
sounds like the upstream is heavily used in your area, know anyone else on ntl who you could talk to (although they could be on a different upstream channel)
maybe BBKing would let you PM him your MAC address and he'd check it out for you :)

Jim galbally
30-12-2005, 22:46
who's BBKing, an NTL guy?

I'm in bromley by the way

Chris W
30-12-2005, 22:52
BBKing is a member of this forum- however if he wants to / can help he will be along to offer, so please let's see if he offers first :)

Jim- have you tried tested your upload away from bittorrent, eg any speed tests, setting up an ftp server on your pc and getting friends to download, sending via msn messenger (which fyi normally gives crappy speeds anyway) etc etc?

Jim galbally
30-12-2005, 23:52
no ive not tried anything except bittorrent, i could try uploading to FTP at the same time and repeating the test. i'll try that tomorrow

Chrysalis
31-12-2005, 18:54
the nature of torrents you will have a very high pps which dispite what you think puts heavy load on your network hardware higher then low pps with max bandwidth, the pc may be at 30% which itself is fairly high for downloading but how do you know your modem isnt breaking a sweat?

Matth
01-01-2006, 00:44
http://www.cfos.de/speed/cfosspeed_e.htm

Might be worth a try, especially at the special price.

It seems the idea is it learns the max up and down speeds (ideally, you force the issue, with a fast downlad or speed test, then a fast upload - FTP to webspace, if that goes fast enough), then slots the traffic together appropriately.

Ignition
01-01-2006, 01:13
sounds like the upstream is heavily used in your area, know anyone else on ntl who you could talk to (although they could be on a different upstream channel)
maybe BBKing would let you PM him your MAC address and he'd check it out for you :)

Nope if upstream were overutilised it'd be Pete Tong all the time.

Is a router involved in this anywhere? Is WinXP SP2 being used? Has the max connections tweak been done?

Jim galbally
01-01-2006, 13:38
**** i forgot about the max connection tweak! i'll enable that and see what happens.

no routers involved anywhere. also modem is a 250 which i thought was the bst one available?

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

ok ive just done all the usual tweaty bits (MTU, RWIN etc. etc) plus sorted the XP tweak for outbouny SYN connections, AND installed that QoS program.

no change...

altho the qos proggy is making my web browsing much nicer whilst downloading :top: so i'll probably keep it

BBKing
05-01-2006, 00:01
Jim's pointed me to this - I was heavily engaged in sitting in an armchair, breathing heavily, full of food at the latter end of December.

Not a bit expert on BT, but do be aware that any heavy P2P use by you or others in your area will inevitably degrade things somewhat. Azureus being a Java client does tend to eat performance.

Anyway, I can check in case there is upstream congestion, if you can give me your modem's MAC.

Jim galbally
05-01-2006, 18:43
BBKing, i'll get the mac when i get home.

as for BT... i've repeated the test without bittorrent (using FTP uploads/downloads)

and it seems that it starts to saturate at 15kb/sec upload. it starts to get bad at 20kb/sec and anything more than that and the connection sh*ts itself. (the reason those figures differ significantly from the BT ones is i've got a lot of overheads going on with BT eating "invisible" bandwith)

i'm sure that cant be right considering i have a theoretical max of 64kb/sec down

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

my mac:
Admin Edit (Stuart): Mac address removed. There are people who will use these addreses to clone your modem, and download on your account.

JonathanLH
07-01-2006, 02:00
do not post your mac address on a forum, as you are inviting it to be cloned since it's a valid mac on ntl's system...

dunkyb
07-01-2006, 15:16
I am experiencing this issue too. If uploading at even 8KByte/s (out of max 60+) then downstream suffers immensely.. About 150 - 300Kbyte/s downstream!! Now my connection has always been pretty ****e, with fluctuating pings (Can't believe a telco haven't been able to sort it out in a few years.. but hey). Downstream is near the full 10MBit/s whilst not uploading.

Even on 3mbit I could upload at 20 comfortably.

BBKing, if you're still around are you able to check congestion on my UBR, if i PM you my MAC? :)


P.S. Forgot to mention, start getting about 25% PL to NTL's routers when uploading at about 20KB!

BBKing
08-01-2006, 10:13
Er, yes, you old son of a goat. Long time no etc.

Chrysalis
08-01-2006, 10:46
Why not use a protocol that doesnt require you to upload?

p2p is very hard to get 10meg down it just isnt a great protocol.

JonathanLH
08-01-2006, 13:35
no uploading? you mean like watching normal aerial tv, kind of hard to request what you want lol :)

Jim galbally
08-01-2006, 15:14
which reminds me, my winTV card is playing up... lol

dunkyb
08-01-2006, 17:00
Why not use a protocol that doesnt require you to upload?

p2p is very hard to get 10meg down it just isnt a great protocol.


It's not me that uploads, unfortunately ... Brothers like to hammer it on the LAN. I'll soon be fully implementing some QoS ;)....

darkone338
08-01-2006, 17:47
hey all,

suffering the same issue here, tho circumstances are slightly different.

Last week i had to call out NTL as my service went dead.. not even a flashing light on the modem (Terayon Terajet). Engineer came thursday and confirmed that someone had vandalised the box at the end of the street and my cable had been disconnected. He recitfied this and left.

I now am suffering this very issue.

I run a shoutcast server and have done for over 2 years, that takes 100kbits upload constantly (4 slots at 24kbps). Since the issue last week, if the shoutcast server is running and people are connected, I might as well not bother trying to download on either of my 2 machines, as its impossible. (The shoutcast server is on a seperate machine, and has never caused issues, even on the 10mbit service, prior to my engineers visit.)

Any other ideas anyone can come up with would be great...

Regards

Stu

Chrysalis
08-01-2006, 22:56
no uploading? you mean like watching normal aerial tv, kind of hard to request what you want lol :)

actually there are ways to download stuff of the internet without needing to upload.

dunkyb
09-01-2006, 20:36
BBKing please do something! It is soooooooo pathetically slow :( Im not used to waiting 10 secs for google to load, this sucks big style.

Pings are all over the place too. FFS.

Jim galbally
09-01-2006, 22:21
i get the same dunky, websites load VERY slowly. even tho i'm traffic shaping on the PC itself.

could this be a limitation of the hardware? (ie the modems)

Prof-x
10-01-2006, 01:41
i'm pretty much in the same boat. I dont think its anything to do directly with 10Mbit / upstreams or torrents.

I've been with NTL since the very start of broadband and we used to get a nice 512k solid and 15-30 pings to gameservers. Since broadband has become more affordable and readily available certain local area hotspots have become rather congested. With the introduction of faster speeds and many more connections we are seeing these problems with slow speeds and bad pings popping up all over the country.

NTL have done well with the UBR balancing scripts which try to AUTO sort customers so the UBR's are running smoothly. However we just need a little more capacity in certain areas to maintain happy customers. My UBR's are so busy on certain interfaces that life is just a constant battle with pings and packet loss due to congested upstreams. I like to play games and thats pretty much all i do with my broadband but i get disconnected from game servers because i lag out (cannot maintain a stable data flow and pings fluctuate into the 1000's). Although i do get lucky somtimes when they rebalance and i get moved to a quieter upstream.

I know some other people on NTL locally and they are connected to another card on the UBR and all is fine for them. I dont think this problem will get any better until NTL provide a little more capacity for the very busy areas. Thing is they have tonnes of bandwidth to play with its the local UBR's that seem to need a little help. Its a shame that they set their operating standards to 80 or 85% saturation because by about 70 / 75 with the fluctuations the service is just degraded and broadband becomes tedious for certain things.


The first step i say is more running regular balancing scripts like every day or so by default and a physical re-segmentation for heavily congested areas. Traffic shapping to give P2P ports lowest priority would also be nice but that will never happen.

Do NTL still have p2p cache ;)

dunkyb
10-01-2006, 08:39
I know some other people on NTL locally and they are connected to another card on the UBR and all is fine for them.

Yeah that's the same here! I think they are on U/S 5 or 6, and I'm on 4.. A completely different story.