dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1229
share rss forum feed

wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

Does Rogers throttle FTPs?

Does Rogers throttle FTP service? I suspect that it does but I am wondering if others think so.

I have Rogers Ultimate service with the new speeds of 150/10. I don't quite get to the 150 speed as my router is an Asus RT-N16 which only has WAN-LAN throughput of about 140 Mbps.

I frequently FTP files down from a seedbox with a service called Feralhosting. Their servers are based (I believe) in Continental Europe although the company is based in the UK. Their internet speeds are very fast for other things so I don't think Feralhosting's connection is a bottleneck.

The best I ever get when getting a file via FTP is 2.1MBps (I normally use Filezilla as my FTP client). I have tried both FTP and SFTP and there isn't really a difference - the max I ever get is 2.1MBps per file. I can get this 2.1 Mbps speed with multiple files at once so the bottleneck is not my overall internet connection, someone is limiting the speed at 2.1MBps(aka 17 Mbps) per file. If I use an FTP client which can segment a file and download into many files (CuteFTP is such a client) I get much faster downloads but still the same limit per file.

So who is limiting the speeds? Is it Rogers? Is it Feralhosting? Is it somewhere in the internet backbone between Feralhosting and Rogers? Given their reputation I would suspect it is Rogers.

Can anyone else share their experiences?

p.s. Recently I haven't been getting close to the 2.1MBps speed, it is more like 750kBps.


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

Rogers shouldn't be throttling anything at all anymore. It was a move they made to make the CRTC happy, and get out from under the Enforcements division from my complaint against them....

I recommend running the Glasnost test to check:
»broadband.mpi-sws.org/transparen···mlab.php

Try each of the 1 p2p, the ssh option, and then the video on demand option..
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

OK, I will try that but Glasnost doesn't specifically have a test for FTP. Note that I don't run any P2P stuff on my home PCs - that's why I have a seedbox. The issue is downloading files from my seedbox to my home PCs.


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

The Glasnost test reported no throttling for HTTP.

When I run the FTP test on ftp1.optonline.net/test64 mentioned on this page »Optimum Online FAQ »How can I test my speed? I get 1.7 MiB/s. The transfer starts faster and then slows down, which may indicate that Rogers' Speedboost is helping at first. That means that the FTP transfer is using less than 10% of my available bandwidth and a 1 GB download takes about 11 minutes.

Note that this is on the file test 1024 since the test64 is too small to get a valid reading at higher speeds.


Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to wayner92

Definitely not throttling by Rogers. It's likely related to the long round-trip times due to the overseas connection. I had the same thing happen with my dedicated server at OVH in France whether I transferred data from home home or my work (non-Rogers) internet connection. Now that I have an OVH server in Canada the FTP speeds have improved dramatically.


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

I am not disagreeing with you but how do you explain being able to FTP several files at 2.1 MB/s simultaneously but no individual file faster than that? Is it something in the long distance that slows speeds for each individual file but not for multiple simultaneous downloads, even when they are travelling to/from the same place?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to wayner92

said by wayner92:

I am not disagreeing with you but how do you explain being able to FTP several files at 2.1 MB/s simultaneously but no individual file faster than that? Is it something in the long distance that slows speeds for each individual file but not for multiple simultaneous downloads, even when they are travelling to/from the same place?

Its very possible that the peering provider is throttling the connection.. As Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder, I've had a bunch of emails from people who were concerned their ISP was throttling their connections..

Including a gentleman who was VPNing into work in Europe from his Rogers connection, and was experiencing a throttling issue. Neither Rogers, or his work's ISP was throttling, but it turned out that the peering provider was throttling his connection. Its possible this is what's happening here.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

Sorry, but what is a peering provider?

And can they do this throttle on a per file/connection basis? Remember that I can FTP several files at once from the same endpoints until I saturate my connection but they all max out at the same speed. But it looks like each FTP transfer is not able to exceed the 2.1 MBps speed.


Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

1 edit
reply to wayner92

said by wayner92:

I am not disagreeing with you but how do you explain being able to FTP several files at 2.1 MB/s simultaneously but no individual file faster than that? Is it something in the long distance that slows speeds for each individual file but not for multiple simultaneous downloads, even when they are travelling to/from the same place?

Yes, the long distance causes (or can cause -- as resa1983 points out there are other explanations) a per-connection problem, which is why you can initiate several transfers and have them all run at 2.1MB/s.

This is quite an old message, but still an accurate description of the problem of high round-trip times:

»www.vad1.com/tcp-throughput-limit.html

Does Feralhosting offer any alternatives to FTP? You'd probably have much better luck with a UDP based protocol, but they're not commonly used so I'd be surprised if they had that as an option.

wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

Thanks Ree, that gives some useful info. It looks like there are some TCP settings that I could try playing with that might improve the speed. The article also talks about limitations in IPv4 (if I am reading this:

quote:
TCP/IP version 4 only provides a 16-bit (unsigned) field for the window, so you can only increase the window size to 65535 bytes, which allows a maximum of 65535 data bytes to be unacknowledged in transit at any time
correctly). Does this mean that when everyone switches to IPv6 that there could potentially be an increase in transfer speeds? Does IPv6 allow larger windows sizes? And is this really the bottleneck?

Maybe I should just suck it up and pay the $60 to buy CuteFTP that does multi-segmented downloads. I prefer Filezilla but the Filezilla authors seem vehemently opposed to segmented downloads for some reason (see botg's responses herer: »forum.filezilla-project.org/view···&t=24720).

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by wayner92:

Thanks Ree, that gives some useful info. It looks like there are some TCP settings that I could try playing with that might improve the speed. The article also talks about limitations in IPv4 (if I am reading this:

quote:
TCP/IP version 4 only provides a 16-bit (unsigned) field for the window, so you can only increase the window size to 65535 bytes, which allows a maximum of 65535 data bytes to be unacknowledged in transit at any time
correctly). Does this mean that when everyone switches to IPv6 that there could potentially be an increase in transfer speeds? Does IPv6 allow larger windows sizes? And is this really the bottleneck?

Maybe I should just suck it up and pay the $60 to buy CuteFTP that does multi-segmented downloads. I prefer Filezilla but the Filezilla authors seem vehemently opposed to segmented downloads for some reason (see botg's responses herer: »forum.filezilla-project.org/view···&t=24720).

That part is out of date. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_window···e_option describes how they worked around the 64k window size with IPv4.

It also says it's on by default since Vista, so unless you're using XP maybe that's not the problem in your case afterall. Trying to tune the TCP settings wouldn't hurt though (especially if you use a tool that'll take a backup first)


dabonz

join:2012-05-17
Ottawa, ON

1 edit

yeah Rogers aren't Throttling your speed do a speed test frm where your seedbox is approx and go from there

check your speed here if you have ovh Server in Montreal
»proof.ovh.ca/files/


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

Are those OVH tests for FTP transfers or HTTP?