how-to block ads
|
Talon88
The One
join:2003-08-13
Toronto
 ·Bell Sympatico
2 edits | reply to bexxxx
Re: [Help Me] DGL-4300 dying under heavy use?
:::
Sorry to hear but it's not really 4300 problem.
The main problem is due to Cable internet is sucks.
Upload @ 35k is not really enough for VOIP already,
VOIP is a joke for Cable's slim upload speed & High Delay
when you really USE the conection. (Try ping when you
are BT'ing & you'll know what I mean)
And you are doing other high bandwidth task like
game & BT. Of Cause, the Cable connection go dead.
Maybe DSL is your solution.....!
:::
--
[=Talon88=]
»DI-624 Firmware update w/ Crash Recovery Step by S --
»[Info] Some Clue about DI-624 Reboot | |
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by Talon88  :Sorry to hear but it's not really 4300 problem. The main problem is due to Cable internet is sucks. Upload @ 35k is not really enough for VOIP already, VOIP is a joke for Cable's slim upload speed & High Delay when you really USE the conection. (Try ping when you are BT'ing & you'll know what I mean) And you are doing other high bandwidth task like game & BT. Of Cause, the Cable connection go dead. Maybe DSL is your solution.....! Damn dude lay off the crack. 'Cable' has nothing to do with this, rather, it is the ISP itself. My cable ISP offers cable connections with 640kbit/s and 1Mbit/s uplink speeds. The DSL providers offer 640, but nowhere near 1Mbit/s. Latency on a utilized connection is going to be the same, regardless of the transport type. In addition, no consumer-level DSL is going to be full duplex, so you're stuck with the same traffic handling as cable. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. Now... to attempt to PROPERLY address the issue...
Have you tried setting VoIP to the highest priority, and letting everything else use the auto-configured rules? If VoIP still dies with a QoS setting of the highest priority, then you know you're outright using too much bandwidth that even QoS can't make work any better. QoS is there to assist, and all traffic still must go through at some point or another, even if another process (read: VoIP) requires more bandwidth than it is willing to share. Try giving your VoIP a priority of 1, and then assign everything else on the network a priority of 255 or use the auto rules. See what happens. If that doesn't help, you're just trying to squeeze too much bandwidth through too small a pipe, and QoS is unable to do a thing for you.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
DragonFire
join:2000-07-15
Rolla, MO
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by Snickerdo :Damn dude lay off the crack. 'Cable' has nothing to do with this, rather, it is the ISP itself. My cable ISP offers cable connections with 640kbit/s and 1Mbit/s uplink speeds. The DSL providers offer 640, but nowhere near 1Mbit/s. Latency on a utilized connection is going to be the same, regardless of the transport type. In addition, no consumer-level DSL is going to be full duplex, so you're stuck with the same traffic handling as cable. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. Now... to attempt to PROPERLY address the issue...
UMMM....You have no idea either. Some DSL providers do in fact offer 786-1000Kbps for the upload side. Its also a fact that DSL is lower ping times all around because DSL is not shared as cable is. Of course it all depends on where you live but I know a few people that have seen 56k speeds in the evening because everyone in the nighborhood is online downloading torrents and what not. My DSL line has gone down twice in the last year and was back up both times with in 30 mins, can you say that about cable? Oh yeah, I have been enjoying 6016/608 speeds for a year and half now, how many cable providers were offering 5Mbps or more a year and half ago? To show that cable really sucks, cable networks could offer 100Mbps or more to its users today but they rather milk there users to death first at the slowest speeds possible. | |
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by DragonFire :UMMM....You have no idea either. Some DSL providers do in fact offer 786-1000Kbps for the upload side. Its also a fact that DSL is lower ping times all around because DSL is not shared as cable is. DSL is shared once you get to the CO. Oh wow, you have a dedicated pipe from your home to the DSLAM. Big deal, a lot of good that'll do when the pipe from the CO to the ISP POP is congested to hell. Bye bye ping times, too.
said by DragonFire :Of course it all depends on where you live but I know a few people that have seen 56k speeds in the evening because everyone in the nighborhood is online downloading torrents and what not. I've had the same thing happen with DSL when the pipe from my CO that served half of the entire city was congested. I dealt with 1200ms pings for about three months before I got fed up and went back to dialup before I moved. Technology has nothing to do with it, implementation does.
said by DragonFire :My DSL line has gone down twice in the last year and was back up both times with in 30 mins, can you say that about cable? Oh yeah, I have been enjoying 6016/608 speeds for a year and half now, how many cable providers were offering 5Mbps or more a year and half ago? My cable never goes down, and I had 5500/640 well over a year and a half ago. Again, you're talking about ISP specifics, and not about the technology itself.
said by DragonFire :To show that cable really sucks, cable networks could offer 100Mbps or more to its users today but they rather milk there users to death first at the slowest speeds possible. The telco can too. Again, this goes to implementation. Your point?
My point, however, is that DSL and cable are both the same thing - consumer level broadband services that, all things being equal, perform pretty much the same. Blindly telling someone to switch from cable to DSL is a stupid thing to do. End of Story.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
Basher13
join:2004-05-02
Beverly Hills, CA
| Bottom line: DSL is much more private and secure
(due to frequent changes in IP address) however,
cable broadband smashes DSL for overall performance,
in terms of brute speed, ( up and down ) coupled with
running servers, gaming, xbox, etc. | |
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by Basher13 :Bottom line: DSL is much more private and secure (due to frequent changes in IP address) however, cable broadband smashes DSL for overall performance, in terms of brute speed, ( up and down ) coupled with running servers, gaming, xbox, etc. Again, that comes down to implementation. I could have DSL with a static IP address, or cable that has IP addresses that renew every 7 days. It's all up to the ISP.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
|
