http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r2442425 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:20:36 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:20:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2460468 okaven : JMO:

Nice work there :-) Yes, I think that it really depends on what you are trying to do. If all you do is download mpg, jpg and large files, yes you might not care about smaller packets, but as the graph shows, there is enough traffic below even 512-byte packet sizes.

In any case, I think the horse is beaten to death now :-)

Thanks for the graph though!

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2460468 Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:49:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2442425 jmo9 : Good point on not concentrating on any one packet size.

I just put the numbers you supplied in a graphic form - makes it clear that 64 & 128 byte size packets are most common for uploads (mostly syns & acks), but 512 byte & up consist of the majority of [aggregate Sprint broadband user] download traffic.

Given that most broadband ISP's cap upload bandwidth at 128K, maybe the router performance of the smaller size packets will be more critical to overall speed??? I've seen comments that saturating an upload channel with traffic can adversely affect the download speed. Or in this case, does upload "saturation" have no relation to upload speed?

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2442425 Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:01:33 EDT