On Mon, 25 May 2015 18:53:42 -0700 Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> wrote: > On 05/24/2015 12:49 AM, Petter Adsen wrote: > > On Sun, 24 May 2015 00:27:02 -0700 > > Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> On 05/22/2015 01:19 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > >>> Darac Marjal wrote: > >>>> Gary Roach wrote: > >>>>> When I start a download, it starts at 50M for the first few > >>>>> seconds and then drops to 500K to 100K range. > >>>> Finally, don't rule out the possibility that your ISP is > >>>> throttling you. While you may be synced at 50M and may be able > >>>> to transfer at that for short periods (and thus, the ISP can > >>>> rightly claim that you have a 50M connection), they could > >>>> conceivably throttle your connection in the longer term. > >>> I think this is quite the most likely possibility. I have only > >>> anecdotal reports from friends but what I hear is that often ISPs > >>> allow a full speed burst but then throttle for long term steady > >>> state data transfer. That matches your reported behavior exactly. > >>> This allows customers to run a speed test and have it report full > >>> speed but prevent them from getting that speed for a long download > >>> such as a full system upgrade or a large install ISO image > >>> download. Are you sure your ISP isn't throttling you? > >>> > >>> Bob > >> I wouldn't put anything past those jackasses but am still > >> attempting to gather information. Would wireshark be a good tool > >> to do an in depth diagnosis of the problem? I've gotten a little > >> side tracked with another problem but plan to get back to this in > >> the next couple of days. Any comments will be appreciated. > > If you have shell access to a box somewhere, you can run "iperf" to > > get an idea of the performance of the link between you. Obviously, > > the closer to you, the better. Take a look at the "--interval" > > parameter, so you can see how/if performance degrades over time. > > "--dualtest" might also be helpful. There are probably guides out > > there on how to get the best results from it, the man page doesn't > > really do much except list all the options. > > > > There may be better ways, but this is the one I typically use. > > Wireshark would be more suited to analyze the actual traffic, if > > you suspect something may be wrong there. > > > > Petter > > > Thanks for the tips. Don't go away. As you will find in the newest > listings, I have a bigger problem at the moment. I will be back to > this one soon. Seen and replied to :) > Comment on speed testers. The mostly use UDP packets which will never > detect trashed packets. God I hate big business in this country. What > ever happened to the antitrust laws I grew up with. iperf will use either TCP or UDP. :) Petter -- "I'm ionized" "Are you sure?" "I'm positive."
Attachment:
pgplDjAfiBiJ7.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature