DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Gatineau, ON | Technical differences?
What are the technical differences of me saturating my line with HTTP download(s) vs. a P2P download(s)? |
|
beatsnpieces
join:2007-12-17
1 edit | said by DabberDan  :What are the technical differences of me saturating my line with HTTP download(s) vs. a P2P download(s)? P2P saturates the download AND upload while HTTP only saturates the downstream. That is my understanding of it anyhow.  |
|
DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Gatineau, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | said by beatsnpieces :said by DabberDan :What are the technical differences of me saturating my line with HTTP download(s) vs. a P2P download(s)? P2P saturates the download AND upload while HTTP only saturates the downstream. That is my understanding of it anyhow. Okay... but if I want to be able to surf while doing P2P, I don't have a choice to limit the upstream, which I do. So, in theory, it only saturates the downstream.
How about the amount of connections/packets?
We got to put this in lamens terms to make this whole thing look even more absurd to the non-technical public. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by DabberDan :said by beatsnpieces :said by DabberDan :What are the technical differences of me saturating my line with HTTP download(s) vs. a P2P download(s)? P2P saturates the download AND upload while HTTP only saturates the downstream. That is my understanding of it anyhow. Okay... but if I want to be able to surf while doing P2P, I don't have a choice to limit the upstream, which I do. So, in theory, it only saturates the downstream. How about the amount of connections/packets? We got to put this in lamens terms to make this whole thing look even more absurd to the non-technical public. The issue in addition to bandwidth usage is in the number of simultaneous connections. (sessions) An HTTP session may open several (3-5) connections, but they are closed relatively quickly.
However, a Bittorrent session floods an ISPs network with 100 (uTorrent's default value) sessions PER TORRENT and they are held open until the torrent session is done. Then of course, you have to add in the DHT sessions/connections and the users who think if they increase that limit to 6000 or so, it will help them download their torrents faster. |
|
boast
join:2005-09-03
Miami, FL | so if everyone switched to usenet, ISPs would be happy? |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH | reply to Matt
Good write up on the tech differences here:
»CRTC Ruling or not, Bell's ignorance is the problem |
|
Raff
@bell.ca
| Thanks I appreciate the mention devnuller. Unfortunate, that in the other news item, people were apparently unwilling to consider my arguments. I must state right off the bat that throttling internet connections, be they Bell or Teksavvy customers, is NOT the solution. The only workable solution in my mind is to limit user CONNECTIONS, to reasonable levels, say no more than 40 at one time.
Limiting connections will reduce network loads considerably. As for the issue of DPI boxes, I don't wish to sound arrogant, but come on, Google monitors and stores EVERY bit of data you fling their way, and I don't hear you screaming bloody murder. Or what about Phorm? Except for a select group of DSL report members, it seems you have largely ignored that issue as well.
The business like tactics Bell has used are just that, BUSINESS tactics. As with all corporations, money is ALWAYS the bottom line issue, and as such a company will and does do everything in its power to garnish the largest profits it can.
As for you Harper nay-sayers, may I ask : What does Harper have to do with any of this? We are talking about the actions of a company formed and ruled by laws established YEARS before Harper was PM. The behavior of the CRTC is simply corrupt politics. You don't need to be a Conservative to be a corrupt politician (*cough* Federal sponsorship scandal anyone? *cough*). In the grand scope of Federal government, the issues of Bell vs Teksavvy are both petty and insignificant. With looming economic issues on the horizon, do you really expect the government to seriously deal with these issues? Harper or not, 'net neutrality is and for the foreseeable future on the back bench.
One last word. If you TRULY do not like the actions of your government, why in blazes are you complaining about it here? It is your responsibility, both to yourself and your country to take your thoughts and objections to your government. I'm getting mighty tired of this behind the back complaining, yet when you have the opportunity to have your say, you clam up and conform to the masses.
Put up or shut up as they say
Regards, and best wishes all,
Raff |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to beatsnpieces
While sorta true,I have 5 pc's running on my network for me,the wife and kids.If they are playing wow and it needs an update and it starts the entire house is down to 30k till its over or I kill that connection.
It doesnt matter what you have the number up/down set to. On bell's DPI if it shows p2p it's 30K and thats it. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to beatsnpieces
said by beatsnpieces :P2P saturates the download AND upload while HTTP only saturates the downstream. That is my understanding of it anyhow. It's a combination of a few factors:
1) Spreading the traffic across several TCP connections (as a collective of many P2P clients, not just a single end node) can be slightly unfair with regards to other traffic using single TCP sessions.
2) With P2P more traffic is consumed than a straight HTTP download because you are uploading while downloading the content. Your role in the swarm causes your total bandwidth usage to be higher than just a straight download.
2) HTTP is a finite duration transfer, P2P approaches infinite. When you download something with HTTP, once you have the content the traffic is done. With P2P, not only do you upload while you are downloading, but if the client is left unattended it will continue seeding the content until the client is shutdown. This can lead to network utilization being several orders of magnitude greater than just a straight HTTP download of the same content. |
|
Raff
@bell.ca
| reply to andyb
andyb, I don't wish to dismiss your experiences with Bell, but I wish to disagree. I've used p2p software in the past, I use it now, I also experience Bell throttling. During traffic shaping to my network, performance did decrease, and everything felt throttled. Here's the rub: it was not Bell. The reason my Internet performance dropped was due to my router. It simply could not handle such a large amount of traffic.
Your own explanation leads me to conclude the exact same situation is happening for you. Bell does not throttle game applications, at least from my experience, and several others I know of. What bell does throttle is p2p traffic, traffic that is encrypted, traffic on non standard ports around 40000~ and above, and VPN sessions.
It's interesting that once WoW is started, your Internet performance decrease. Might I suggest that this connection intensive game stresses your router considerably. One of the easiest solutions to test, and apply, is QoS (quality of service).
By telling your router to lower the priority to WoW and other games via QoS, you should notice a considerable increase in performance IF, and only if, your router is to blame. In the event that QoS does not have any impact on your situation, then I would stand corrected on the issue of bell throttling WoW.
I refer you to one of my previous posts as to why this happens and why your router is most likely the problem.
I wish you good luck solving your problem, and I hope this helped
Regards,
Raff |
|
Shark_615
join:2006-01-17
Pickering, ON | I didn't know they let you guys onto this site at Bell. They didn't when I was there or do you get a special pass due to your shill status? |
|
jcan
@bell.ca | Testing to see if it says @bell.ca or @sympatico.ca...
Hmmm... It would seem all Bell Internet accounts show as @bell.ca, not just employees. I would assume you are assuming Raff is an employee? If so, perhaps things have changed at Bell... |
|
DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Gatineau, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by beatsnpieces :P2P saturates the download AND upload while HTTP only saturates the downstream. That is my understanding of it anyhow. It's a combination of a few factors: 1) Spreading the traffic across several TCP connections (as a collective of many P2P clients, not just a single end node) can be slightly unfair with regards to other traffic using single TCP sessions. 2) With P2P more traffic is consumed than a straight HTTP download because you are uploading while downloading the content. Your role in the swarm causes your total bandwidth usage to be higher than just a straight download. 2) HTTP is a finite duration transfer, P2P approaches infinite. When you download something with HTTP, once you have the content the traffic is done. With P2P, not only do you upload while you are downloading, but if the client is left unattended it will continue seeding the content until the client is shutdown. This can lead to network utilization being several orders of magnitude greater than just a straight HTTP download of the same content. Does the throttling to 30KBps actually limit any of these things?
I'm wondering if it actually physically limits sessions if you're only able to transfer at 30KBps or is it simply a deterrent? |
|
