the forums at degreez.net

It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:54 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: lookie here buddy...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:50 pm 
thatguy wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This has become such a shit storm of paranoia.

Why would any ISP single out bittorrent over other p2p apps that generate just as much bandwidth overheads? Get a grip.



you can go ahead and insert your foot in your mouth now....


Quote:
p2pnet.net News:- Canada's Shaw Cable says it's deliberately throttling BitTorrent downloads.

The admission comes in CBC technology columnist Tod Maffin's mp3 of an interview with Shaw Communications president Peter Bissonnette.

"We can identify the kinds of useage that we're seeing on our network and this is very dynamic, and so we will manage that dynamically," Bissonnette says, also stating:.

"If, for instance, we see a huge amount of Torrent kind of peer-to-peer traffic, we can actually allocate, you know, bandwidth to ensure that that carries on, but not at the expense of our email and web serving customers.

"One percent of the users can actually use up to 90% of the network.

"Just like you do sometimes when you have a huge, super highway. Sometimes you have to put signs saying Slow Down here, or Go Fast there, or Slow Traffic Keep to the Right."

But as Maffin remarks, not everyone believes Shaw is merely protecting what it sees as customers' best interests.

Some cynics claim Shaw is in fact trying to up-sell people a more expensive package with faster speeds to BT users.

"Either way, the issue isn't going to disappear," Maffin observes.

Believe it.

http://p2pnet.net/story/3207


Did you read what I said? Why would they single out Bittorrent. I don't believe for a second that it consumes tons more bandwidth than any other p2p being used for a length of time. Have they said that they aren't throttling other p2p programs? This is an example of one ISP throttling BT, but the shit storm that has been created is people thinking that every ISP is doing it.


Quote:
I just dont understand why people dont upload, it doesn't completely fuck up your download speed as bad as people think. Just extreme paranoia again. I know I used to think that way, but now I get my upload bandwidth maxed out 24/7 all day long, and still download at crazy speeds (generally on other p2p).

I guarantee that if you found 20 other people on the same torrent, all without their uploads capped, you'd find that BT was just as good as ever.



thatguy wrote:
you need to set your maximum global upload speed at 80-90% of your connections maximum upload speed in order to avoid the following. how about do some more research before you come here and try to preach:

Quote:
What is not generally well-known is that the upstream cap can also affect the downstream speed -- if the upstream is saturated by uploading (e.g., sending a large PowerPoint file to the boss, or running a Napster or other public service), the downstream will drop to about the same speed. This is due to a weakness in the basic TCP Internet protocol, not Cable or DSL per se, and not the service provider.

Cable Internet is more vulnerable to this problem than DSL. Unlike DSL, where each subscriber has a dedicated connection to the head-end (DSLAM), the Cable Internet upstream path to the head-end (CMTS) is shared by all subscribers on a given cable segment. If that upstream gets saturated, which might be caused by only a relatively few subscribers, downstream speeds take a big drop for all subscribers on that segment.

As an illustrative example, consider a DOCSIS cable segment with 4 upstream channels per downstream channel, and 1000 subscribers (a recommended maximum).

* The upstream channels can be anywhere from 160 Kbps (200 kHz QPSK) to 10 Mbps (3.2 MHz QAM 16), with 800 Khz QPSK perhaps the most common in practice, giving an upstream channel capacity of 640 Kbps.
* The downstream channel can be 27 Mbps (QAM 64) or 36 Mbps (QAM 256), with 27 Mbps (QAM 64) perhaps the most common in practice.

The aggregate upstream capacity of 4 channels would be about 2.5 Mbps, as compared to downstream capacity of 27 Mbps. If the upstream saturates, the downstream rate will drop to about the same speed, a dramatic slowdown of about 90% (2.5 Mbps as compared to 27 Mbps).

Even with cable modems capped to 128 Kbps upstream, 2.5 Mbps upstream capacity can handle only 20 (2.5 Mbps / 128 Kbps) simultaneously active modems before saturation. That's generally not a problem if cable modem usage is typically (1) infrequent, (2) downstream [e.g., web surfing], and (3) interactive [e.g., fetch-use]. The system can break down if those conditions are not met.

This makes it easier to see why certain Cable Internet providers condemn continuous use of upstream (e.g., running a popular public service) as "abuse" -- each such subscriber consumes capacity normally allocated for 1000 / 20 = 50 subscribers. Worse, there's a threshold effect: If the upstream is running at (say) 80% of capacity with typical subscribers, it takes only 4 (out of 1000) heavy upstream users at 128 Kbps to drive the upstream into saturation, thereby slowing downstream to a crawl for all subscribers on that segment. (Exact numbers, of course, depend on actual channel numbers and speeds.)

http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/



now can you see why cable companies would want to cut down on an upload intensive protocol like bittorrent, or do I need to draw you a picture too?


Again, you didn't really read what I said. Most people again are victims of this bullshit paranoia that you can't have anything uploading or your downloads are going to totally suffer, hence seeing so many dicks uploading at no more than 1kb/s. I never said it didn't affect the download, just that some people think they can't have anything uploading.

I can't argue with the facts, but like I also said, through personal experience I can have my upload bandwidth maxed out all day long and not see my download bandwidth significantly affected.

Maybe it's because I don't use a shitty, cheap ISP that can't meet the service it offers.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:53 pm 
thatguy wrote:
also here's a bit more reading for you, since you don't quite seem to understand how the whole thing works...

Quote:
I'm sure all of you notice that you usually download (much) faster than you upload on average, right? So, how is this possible, if the number of total bits downloaded in a swarm always equals the number of bits uploaded (Uploaded to downloaded ratio for a swarm as a whole must equal 1:1)?

* You download faster than you upload because some other peer is doing the exact opposite, i.e. uploading faster than they are downloading. A seed only uploads, contributing to the overall swarm upload count, allowing another peer(s) to download a bit more than they upload. Every peer uploading > downloading means another peer can download > upload.

* In small to medium-sized swarms, there are usually enough seeders (or peers with large upstream pipes) to support greater download speeds than upload speeds for the other peers in the swarm.

* However, I'm sure you've noticed that there are usually far more "leechers" than seeds in any given swarm. This is especially true in large swarms. You have thousands (or tens of thousands) of leechers wanting to download faster than they upload (since most net connections have larger downstream pipes than upstream), but only hundreds of seeders to support that desire. Those extra uploaded bits are being competed for by thousands of peers (rather than hundreds or dozens on smaller swarms), so you are much less likely to get that extra download speed you'd like.

* If you take the total number of seeds and divide them by the total number of peers in the swarm, then you can have some idea of the competition there is within the swarm for pieces and bandwidth. The total numbers of peers and seeds for any torrent can be found either on the tracker hosting that torrent, or in the case of Azureus, the numbers in brackets in the seeds and peers columns. If there are too few seeds, then the competition for limited bandwidth, and rare pieces will be enormous, and the download will be slow no matter what the overall size of the swarm is.

* Unfortunately you can't pull bits out of thin air; they need to be uploaded by someone. This is why downloading on large swarms seems to go slower than on smaller swarms: everybody's uploading at only 10k/s, but wanting to download at 100k/s....which is impossible, since the overall swarm ratio will/must always be 1:1.

* And remember, seeding is really really important! Somebody spent time seeding so that you could download the file. So it is crucial that you seed so that other people can share it too. That is why it is called p2p file sharing and not p2p file downloading. Any time you feel that this may be too much of an inconvenience for you, or think you have too small an upstream pipe, think about all those who spent ages seeding no matter what the size of their pipe, so you could download. Please try to keep that in mind. Thanks.


well, I don't know who created this page, but I added the paragraph on dividing seeds by peers, and about the importance of seeding. Not a big contribution I know. Every little bit helps.

decibelle.
hxxp://azureus.sourceforge.net/wiki/ind ... loadSpeeds


That's certainly a lot different to the other information I've been reading recently about how BT works, so I'll admit defeat there.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: lookie here buddy...
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:39 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
Did you read what I said? Why would they single out Bittorrent. I don't believe for a second that it consumes tons more bandwidth than any other p2p being used for a length of time. Have they said that they aren't throttling other p2p programs? This is an example of one ISP throttling BT, but the shit storm that has been created is people thinking that every ISP is doing it.

Maybe it's because I don't use a shitty, cheap ISP that can't meet the service it offers.


Yes, their ecoly (sp) switches throttle all P2P programs (so far only installed in the vancouver area which is overcongested) and has caused upload speed throttle dropping affected users to anywhere as low as 400bytes/second upload on various P2P apps. Shaw only mentions Bittorrent because it's the program that's seeing the highest amount of transfer going over their network, and they don't want to spend the 3 million to upgrade their backbone to accomadate the increased usage. On a side note, shaw is the only cable internet company in western canada and have a monopoly over the service. This is why they can throttle whatever and not loose vast numbers of customers since there is no competition. Many college and universities use this to throttle P2P applications.

The problem has apparently aleviated itself somewhat and affected users are seeing an increase in max upload speeds back into the double digits kbps.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: ports
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:09 pm 
ive been using ports 1500-1505 for months now, should i change then?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:05 am
Posts: 1212
That's not a great port range, you should never open a server port below 5000.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:37 pm 
Hi.... could Shadow/someone please confirm ....

I have 0.3.8 installed and on the bt prefs / port range the setting is
From 10000
To 60000

Do I leave them settings as they are....?

Do I just need to change the port forward settings on my router between a unit of 20 within that range...?

I would really apreciate a response...

Thanks


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:31 am 
Sunny wrote:
Hi.... could Shadow/someone please confirm ....

I have 0.3.8 installed and on the bt prefs / port range the setting is
From 10000
To 60000

Do I leave them settings as they are....?

Do I just need to change the port forward settings on my router between a unit of 20 within that range...?

I would really apreciate a response...

Thanks


First figure out how many torrents you would run at once. If you only do 1 torrent at a time, then you only need 1 port. If you do up to 10 torrents at a time, pick a range of 10 ports. If 20, pick a range of 20... etc.

Once you know how many ports you will need, pick a port range. anything between 10000 - 60000 is fine.

Set BT to only use those ports you want. Say you pick 10 ports. "10015 - 10025" You need to forward those ports in your router.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:15 pm 
I've been using Shaw and I'm in Vancouver. THey have capped the bittorrent client. Why? Because its pretty much the only p2p program that can d/l huge files. Telus has also fall'n in the foot steps of Shaw. Is there anyway to get around this issuse without moving out of canada? or paying a higher fee for the internet service?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:01 pm 
just noticed this forum and i always use the ports 6112-6119 because it's the ports that battle.net runs on for blizzard games.

my isp would never slow those ports to a crawl because of the games.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:09 pm 
it has nothing to do with the ports but everything to do with the program, your suggestion didn't work.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:52 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
just noticed this forum and i always use the ports 6112-6119 because it's the ports that battle.net runs on for blizzard games.

my isp would never slow those ports to a crawl because of the games.


Thanks that seemed to solve my problem.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:55 pm
Posts: 14
I'm not positive, but I think that most Blizzard games use UDP as their transport protocal. That would mean that your ISP could easily choke TCP ports 6112-6119 without impacting the games at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:37 pm 
When changing the port from and to, should we have randomize on or off?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:03 am 
It doesn't hurt to have the option enabled. There for it can randomize the ports being used or also helps find the best port for the best speed.. good luck


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Capped Bandwidth
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:32 pm 
Hi I am in the UK and Have an ISP whom I suspect is capping my upload bandwidth to 5kbps, this means it is taking me days to download a 500mb file :cry: I am with Tiscali they have been a good ISP so far, but now I am feeling very disappointed and would love to hear of another good ISP based here in Englang UK that does not cap their customers upload/dowmload speeds pls can anyone help me?

Michelle


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group