Tonite on Xtra Go Large

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by canon paora, Dec 3, 2006.

  1. canon paora

    canon paora Guest

    Torrents @ 12kB/s
    Emule @ 10.6kB/s
    Web Browsing at a absolute standstill.

    'As fast as your line will allow'.


    Guess I needn't worry about exceeding the 600mb during the busy hours.
    canon paora, Dec 3, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. canon paora

    Miguel Guest

    canon paora wrote:
    > Torrents @ 12kB/s
    > Emule @ 10.6kB/s
    > Web Browsing at a absolute standstill.
    >
    > 'As fast as your line will allow'.
    >
    >
    > Guess I needn't worry about exceeding the 600mb during the busy hours.


    Just wondering......is your IP address 125.*.*.* (the mythical sinbin
    which, supposedly, no longer exists) or the usual xtra 202.*.*.* or
    222.*.*.*

    125.*.*.* is "supposedly" mercilessly throttled 24/7

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Dec 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. canon paora

    Miguel Guest

    Miguel wrote:

    > 125.*.*.* (the mythical sinbin
    > which, supposedly, no longer exists)


    > 125.*.*.* is "supposedly" mercilessly throttled 24/7



    Sorry....just to clarify my post.

    125.*.*.* addresses do exist on xtra. The 24/7 throttling-sinbin is the
    mythical part. It's only meant to be from 4pm to midnight.

    But from what I hear 24/7 throttling of 125.*.*.* is alive and well.

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Dec 3, 2006
    #3
  4. canon paora

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Miguel wrote:
    > Miguel wrote:
    >
    > > 125.*.*.* (the mythical sinbin
    > > which, supposedly, no longer exists)

    >
    > > 125.*.*.* is "supposedly" mercilessly throttled 24/7

    >
    >
    > Sorry....just to clarify my post.
    >
    > 125.*.*.* addresses do exist on xtra. The 24/7 throttling-sinbin is
    > the mythical part. It's only meant to be from 4pm to midnight.
    >
    > But from what I hear 24/7 throttling of 125.*.*.* is alive and well.


    Then you hear correctly Miguel. I've been fastidious about not downloading
    more than, at the most, 200MB between the hours of 4 - 12pm. However, today
    after restarting a choked Azureus, I notice torrents really slow. I saw your
    post, checked my IP, and, sure enough 125.*.*.*.

    When I first rang Actrix to complain about my Go Large connection I told the
    guy that I wasn't downloading anything other than newsgroups webpages and
    email during those hours. He said that, word on the street is it doesn't
    matter *when* you download, if you are a heavy user, even if it's outside
    the hours of 4 - 12pm, you get sin-binned. Seems I have. :-( I thought that
    I was supposed to get a warning? That's what the T&Cs say.

    I only got just over 100MB overnight and Azureus is topping out, on
    well-seeded torrents, at 25kB/s (If my connection stays up long enough for
    it to climb that high).

    Woot!! I didn't get disconnected while typing this!
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Dec 3, 2006
    #4
  5. canon paora

    David Empson Guest

    Miguel <> wrote:

    > Miguel wrote:
    >
    > > 125.*.*.* (the mythical sinbin
    > > which, supposedly, no longer exists)

    >
    > > 125.*.*.* is "supposedly" mercilessly throttled 24/7

    >
    > Sorry....just to clarify my post.
    >
    > 125.*.*.* addresses do exist on xtra. The 24/7 throttling-sinbin is the
    > mythical part. It's only meant to be from 4pm to midnight.


    Some addresses within 125.*.*.* are used by the Go Large plan. I have an
    address in that range normally, and I'm on a Go Large plan with Actrix
    (Telecom actually implements the service, Actrix is just on-selling it).

    I expect that the sinbin has distinct addresses but as far as I know
    I've never been in it so I can't tell you what range it might be.

    Right now I have a 125.236.*.* address and I'm getting download speeds
    from a test site in Auckland of about 2.6 Mbps, even though my flatmate
    is doing something slow but steady at the same time.

    I expect the sinbin would be seriously throttled, so this means
    125.*.*.* is not sufficient to identify the sinbin, or your information
    about this being the address range is wrong.

    > But from what I hear 24/7 throttling of 125.*.*.* is alive and well.


    Since switching to Go Large, I have never seen a download faster than
    about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps), just doing simple FTP or HTTP
    transfers from NZ-hosted servers. The raw line speed reported by my
    modem is about 4.7 Mbps.

    I expect this performance limit is due to insufficient bandwidth into my
    exchange, combined with limited bandwidth allocated to Go Large
    customers (especially for international traffic).

    At busy times it can be shockingly bad even for web browsing.

    I'm intending to try switching to a full speed standard plan for a
    month, just to see what kind of performance is possible on my line.

    I was on 2M/128 before Go Large, and the Go Large plan is cheaper,
    allows higher speed for downloads (if I'm lucky) and more traffic, at
    the expense of really bad performance some of the time.

    --
    David Empson
    David Empson, Dec 4, 2006
    #5
  6. canon paora

    ~misfit~ Guest

    David Empson wrote:
    > Miguel <> wrote:
    >
    > > Miguel wrote:
    > >
    > > > 125.*.*.* (the mythical sinbin
    > > > which, supposedly, no longer exists)

    > >
    > > > 125.*.*.* is "supposedly" mercilessly throttled 24/7

    > >
    > > Sorry....just to clarify my post.
    > >
    > > 125.*.*.* addresses do exist on xtra. The 24/7 throttling-sinbin is
    > > the mythical part. It's only meant to be from 4pm to midnight.

    >
    > Some addresses within 125.*.*.* are used by the Go Large plan. I have
    > an address in that range normally, and I'm on a Go Large plan with
    > Actrix (Telecom actually implements the service, Actrix is just
    > on-selling it).
    >
    > I expect that the sinbin has distinct addresses but as far as I know
    > I've never been in it so I can't tell you what range it might be.
    >
    > Right now I have a 125.236.*.* address and I'm getting download speeds
    > from a test site in Auckland of about 2.6 Mbps, even though my
    > flatmate is doing something slow but steady at the same time.
    >
    > I expect the sinbin would be seriously throttled, so this means
    > 125.*.*.* is not sufficient to identify the sinbin, or your
    > information about this being the address range is wrong.
    >
    > > But from what I hear 24/7 throttling of 125.*.*.* is alive and well.

    >
    > Since switching to Go Large, I have never seen a download faster than
    > about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps), just doing simple FTP or
    > HTTP transfers from NZ-hosted servers. The raw line speed reported by
    > my modem is about 4.7 Mbps.
    >
    > I expect this performance limit is due to insufficient bandwidth into
    > my exchange, combined with limited bandwidth allocated to Go Large
    > customers (especially for international traffic).
    >
    > At busy times it can be shockingly bad even for web browsing.
    >
    > I'm intending to try switching to a full speed standard plan for a
    > month, just to see what kind of performance is possible on my line.
    >
    > I was on 2M/128 before Go Large, and the Go Large plan is cheaper,
    > allows higher speed for downloads (if I'm lucky) and more traffic, at
    > the expense of really bad performance some of the time.


    David, from what I can gather, the 125.*.*.* range of IPs are packet-sniffed
    and shaped far moreso than the 22x.*.*.* range. Also, they are lower
    priority.

    For my first few weeks on Go Large, when it was working well and I was in
    the 22x.*.*.* IP range, I managed to get torrent speeds up to around 3M from
    well-seeded private trackers (in the wee hours) and general downloads (in
    bursts, like Sun Java updates) around the 4M mark. Faster than the test
    sites told me my line was capable of.

    However, since about 5 days ago, I've noticed my torrents slowing to a
    (<256kbps) crawl and the whole connection is *very* unresponsive. Also I've
    noticed my IP is now in the 125 range. Perhaps one of your flatmates has
    been using p2p? It seems simply using p2p apps at any time of the day will
    get you in the 125 sin-bin with no warning. From what little Actrix have
    been able to glean from experience with Go Large (as Xtra isn't sticking to
    the published T&C and isn't talking either), the warning if you use more
    than 700MB consistantly between 4 - 12pm is a myth.

    I've studiously stopped all downloading during this period (other than
    automatic scheduled AV downloads) and only browse or check email/read
    newsgroups with maybe an attempt at on-line game playing during the 'no-fly'
    period. I seriously doubt I've ever used more than 200MB in that period
    *max*, and then only once. However, here I am, with a connection (drop-outs
    aside for now) that is only performing at 256kbps level, other than the odd
    burst.

    (I currently have a torrent running at around 28kB/s and I can't get
    newsgroups, email or a webpage unless I stop Azureus. Also Gmail notifier
    keeps telling me it can't connect to server while Azureus is running. This
    is max speed?)

    As I posted last night, due to Actrix' urging, I'm going to give it a few
    more days. If it doesn't come right then I guess I'll have to tighten the
    belt (I've commited the $20/month I've been saving, a new fridge on HP) and
    go back to Cyberjet 2M/128/1GB.

    Cheers, (Connection just dropped, will send in a minute)
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Dec 4, 2006
    #6
  7. canon paora

    Miguel Guest

    Hello David....

    >David Empson wrote:
    >
    > I expect the sinbin would be seriously throttled, so this means
    > [...] your information about this being the address range is wrong.
    >

    More than likely. I'm only relaying what I'd previously read on another
    board.

    > Right now I have a 125.236.*.* address and I'm getting download speeds
    > from a test site in Auckland of about 2.6 Mbps,


    I've been 125.*.*.* for the last two weeks and I can get speeds from
    http://speedtest.actrix.co.nz and http://www.speedtest.net anywhere
    between 1.5MB/s and 4.2 MB/s from their NZ servers. From elsewhere (UK,
    USA) it's been as low as .2MB/s. Never higher than 2MB/s

    But as I'm sure you know, speedtests aren't the real (cyber) world.
    Text based websites (e.g google groups, eztv) will load reasonably well
    for me but any sites involving images, flash etc (ANZ, SciFi.com) are,
    more often than not, pretty painful to watch load. Little better than
    dial-up.

    > Since switching to Go Large, I have never seen a download faster than
    > about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps)


    I've had operating system updates from Palmerston North come down at
    over 400KB/s.

    And I've had torrents with a hundred-plus seeds never get above 4 KB/s.


    That's why I don't mind spreading a rumour that Xtra/Telecom is
    constantly throttling p2p and selectively throttling http.

    I keep an eye on my IP and the big change in quality came when I moved
    from a 22?.*.*.* address to a 125.*.*.* address. I'm just reporting
    from personal experience.

    > about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps)


    Isn't 350KB/s the same as 3.5 MB/s. They're both just abbreviations,
    not actual numbers.....just curious.

    >I have a temporary financial constraint because of a minimum term
    >contract with Actrix


    That must be a hell of a minimum term contract cos haven't you been
    with Actrix since the early nineties :)

    > I was on 2M/128 before Go Large, and the Go Large plan is cheaper,
    > allows higher speed for downloads (if I'm lucky) and more traffic, at
    > the expense of really bad performance some of the time.
    >


    That's a pretty accurate summing up.

    Yesterday my stats were 1535 MB downloaded, 636 MB uploaded, Daily
    Usage total of 2171 MB. By any stretch of the imagination that's good
    value for $1.64 a day

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Dec 4, 2006
    #7
  8. canon paora

    Miguel Guest

    Hi Shaun...

    >~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > David, from what I can gather, the 125.*.*.* range of IPs are packet-sniffed
    > and shaped far moreso than the 22x.*.*.* range. Also, they are lower
    > priority.
    >


    That's pretty much what I understood from what I'd heard and read. And
    that's pretty much what seems to be happening with my connection.

    > I've commited the $20/month I've been saving, a new fridge on HP


    I didn't know HP made fridges :)

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Dec 4, 2006
    #8
  9. canon paora

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Miguel wrote:


    Hey there Miguel,

    > > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > >
    > > David, from what I can gather, the 125.*.*.* range of IPs are
    > > packet-sniffed and shaped far moreso than the 22x.*.*.* range.
    > > Also, they are lower priority.
    > >

    >
    > That's pretty much what I understood from what I'd heard and read. And
    > that's pretty much what seems to be happening with my connection.


    That's also what the Actrix guys told me. They're really pissed that one of
    their office test connections has been put in the 125 pool considering that
    they've pretty much not used it. They're at a loss as to how this whole Go
    Large thing works. It's certainly not being run as advertised, especially re
    the warnings, 4 - 12pm period only limited etc....

    Since I've been on 125, torrent speeds suck, websites are generally sluggish
    and I have trouble if more than one programme is trying to download
    simultaneously. However, at certain times I get fast downloads. My last Java
    update was lightning fast (>4M for 2 seconds) but my last PC-cillin one
    crawled and had to be re-started twice as my connection dropped
    mid-download.

    > > I've commited the $20/month I've been saving, a new fridge on HP

    >
    > I didn't know HP made fridges :)


    Heh! Smart-arse. HP (in this case) = Hire Purchase. It's a F&P.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Dec 5, 2006
    #9
  10. canon paora

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-12-04, Miguel <> wrote:
    >
    >> about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps)

    >
    > Isn't 350KB/s the same as 3.5 MB/s.



    only if asynchronous... and modems haven't relied on
    asynchronous tranmission for decades.

    350 000 bytes is exactly 2 800 000 bits.

    > They're both just abbreviations, not actual numbers.....just curious.


    not sure what you mean by "actual number"


    Bye.
    Jasen
    jasen, Dec 5, 2006
    #10
  11. canon paora

    David Empson Guest

    ~misfit~ <> wrote:

    > David, from what I can gather, the 125.*.*.* range of IPs are packet-sniffed
    > and shaped far moreso than the 22x.*.*.* range. Also, they are lower
    > priority.
    >
    > For my first few weeks on Go Large, when it was working well and I was in
    > the 22x.*.*.* IP range, I managed to get torrent speeds up to around 3M from
    > well-seeded private trackers (in the wee hours) and general downloads (in
    > bursts, like Sun Java updates) around the 4M mark. Faster than the test
    > sites told me my line was capable of.
    >
    > However, since about 5 days ago, I've noticed my torrents slowing to a
    > (<256kbps) crawl and the whole connection is *very* unresponsive. Also I've
    > noticed my IP is now in the 125 range. Perhaps one of your flatmates has
    > been using p2p?


    They have indeed, but not to a significant volume. I'd aleady manually
    set their p2p software to limit the rate down to near dialup speeds
    (where possible) so it wasn't hogging the upstream bandwidth. One
    application can't set the limit very low so it was managing to consume
    our entire daily limit on rare occasions when it happened to find a fast
    peer.

    > It seems simply using p2p apps at any time of the day will get you in the
    > 125 sin-bin with no warning. From what little Actrix have been able to
    > glean from experience with Go Large (as Xtra isn't sticking to the
    > published T&C and isn't talking either), the warning if you use more than
    > 700MB consistantly between 4 - 12pm is a myth.


    If that is the case, then it is a lot worse than just p2p.

    I'm using news (obviously), which falls under the same "traffic
    management" plan, even though I'm only using it for low volume text
    groups, not for binary groups.

    If they are throttling on detection of any of the traffic managed
    protocols, then anyone posting or just reading news is likely to be
    affected.

    > I've studiously stopped all downloading during this period (other than
    > automatic scheduled AV downloads) and only browse or check email/read
    > newsgroups with maybe an attempt at on-line game playing during the 'no-fly'
    > period. I seriously doubt I've ever used more than 200MB in that period
    > *max*, and then only once. However, here I am, with a connection (drop-outs
    > aside for now) that is only performing at 256kbps level, other than the odd
    > burst.


    Unfortunately I have no easy way of measuring our usage. My ADSL router
    only reports packets, not total number of bytes. I might be able to get
    a rough idea by looking at the SNMP counters in my wireless router but I
    haven't found an easy tool to do that yet, and it will be overcounting
    because it also includes internal LAN traffic.

    I expect the situation will resolve itself if we get another flatmate
    who also wants to use the Internet. We'll have to spend more to get a
    faster connection which actually works as advertised, but with four
    people paying for it, a faster CyberJet plan will be affordable.

    In the medium term I want to set up special routing software on a
    dedicated server/router computer, or a hardware router with extra
    features, which gives me some degree of monitoring or control over each
    computer and/or specific protocols, allowing fairer sharing of the
    Internet connection.

    For example, I've noticed that one Netgear wireless router model (not
    available here yet) has a "quality of service" feature which allows you
    to designate certain ports as being higher priority. I'd rather have
    something which lets you specify certain ports (p2p) as being lower
    priority.

    --
    David Empson
    David Empson, Dec 5, 2006
    #11
  12. canon paora

    David Empson Guest

    Miguel <> wrote:

    > Hello David....
    >
    > >David Empson wrote:
    > >
    > > I expect the sinbin would be seriously throttled, so this means
    > > [...] your information about this being the address range is wrong.
    > >

    > More than likely. I'm only relaying what I'd previously read on another
    > board.


    On further evidence from misfit, perhaps you are right and I misspoke.
    I've never seen anything other than 125 with my Go Large plan, right
    from the initial connection.

    > But as I'm sure you know, speedtests aren't the real (cyber) world.


    Oh, sure.

    > Text based websites (e.g google groups, eztv) will load reasonably well
    > for me but any sites involving images, flash etc (ANZ, SciFi.com) are,
    > more often than not, pretty painful to watch load. Little better than
    > dial-up.


    I get that sometimes, but it is usually OK. The biggest problem I've had
    with Go Large has been the unreliable DNS - it just times out
    occasionally, and my router's DNS cache throws a wobbly for a minute or
    so before recovering.

    > That's why I don't mind spreading a rumour that Xtra/Telecom is
    > constantly throttling p2p and selectively throttling http.


    Even nastier, perhaps they are blanket throttling other ISP's customers
    on Go Large?

    > > about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps)

    >
    > Isn't 350KB/s the same as 3.5 MB/s. They're both just abbreviations,
    > not actual numbers.....just curious.


    Depends what you are counting. I'm assuming 8 bits per byte. 10 bits per
    byte would only be appropriate for an asynchronous serial connection
    with start and stop bits (e.g. dialup modem without error correction).
    I'm not as familiar with DSL, ATM and related technologies so I'm not
    sure how they count the bits. If it uses a method which has a separate
    clock and a framing protocol then there is no need for start and stop
    bits, and synchronous data can be sent at 8 bits per byte (plus a few
    bytes of overhead for each frame).

    In any case it is only 2.8 useful megabits per second.

    > >I have a temporary financial constraint because of a minimum term
    > >contract with Actrix

    >
    > That must be a hell of a minimum term contract cos haven't you been
    > with Actrix since the early nineties :)


    I was on dialup from somewhere around 1992 until about March this year,
    then I switched to CyberJet and had a six month minimum term to avoid
    paying the installation fee, then I moved house which added another six
    month minimum term to avoid the reconnection fee. I have to wait until
    at least March 2007 to avoid paying the second fee (about $100).

    I also bought an ADSL modem so I don't want to switch to cable too
    quickly, or that money will be wasted. :)

    > > I was on 2M/128 before Go Large, and the Go Large plan is cheaper,
    > > allows higher speed for downloads (if I'm lucky) and more traffic, at
    > > the expense of really bad performance some of the time.

    >
    > That's a pretty accurate summing up.


    Assuming it works as advertised. It appears that it doesn't, if my 125.*
    address indicates I'm heavily throttled for no obvious reason (see my
    followup to misfit in this thread).

    --
    David Empson
    David Empson, Dec 5, 2006
    #12
  13. canon paora

    Miguel Guest

    jasen wrote:
    > On 2006-12-04, Miguel <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> about 350 KB per second (about 2.8 Mbps)

    > >
    > > Isn't 350KB/s the same as 3.5 MB/s.

    >
    >
    > only if asynchronous... and modems haven't relied on
    > asynchronous tranmission for decades.
    >
    > 350 000 bytes is exactly 2 800 000 bits.
    >
    > > They're both just abbreviations, not actual numbers.....just curious.

    >
    > not sure what you mean by "actual number"
    >
    >
    > Bye.
    > Jasen


    Hello Jasen....I was just being a bit anal retentive, which often
    happens :)

    > 350 000 bytes is exactly 2 800 000 bits.


    Agreed. But 350KB/s isn't 350,000 bytes.

    > not sure what you mean by "actual number"


    To me 350,000 is an actual number, as is 2,800,000.

    Whereas 350KB/s, 2.8 Mb/s and 3.5 MB/s are abbreviations or
    representations of actual numbers, respectively 358,400 (350 * 2^10),
    367,001.6 (2.8 * (2^20) / 8) and 3,670,016 (3.5 * 2^20)

    All I was noting was that to equate 350KB/s with 2.8Mb/s David
    (original poster) had to go from "representative numbers" territory
    into "actual numbers" territory then back into "representative numbers"
    territory, which brought in an error of a few thousand bytes.

    Pretty anal I know. And he did say "about" twice so that makes me
    doubly anal.

    > > Isn't 350KB/s the same as 3.5 MB/s.


    And before you jump on me, yes I know that my original reply was wrong.


    In "representative land" KB represents 1,000 bytes and MB represents
    1,000,000 bytes so 350KB (350,000 bytes) and 3.5MB (3,500,000 bytes)
    aren't the same. I should have said.....

    > > Isn't 350KB/s the same as 3.5 Mb/s.


    Which reminds me, weren't we in a thread a few weeks ago about upper
    case "B" vs lower case "b" :)

    Ah well.....I was just trying to be anally humourous. Didn't really
    expect a reply.....anyway, must head off to dust the light bulbs :)

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Dec 5, 2006
    #13
  14. canon paora

    Miguel Guest

    Hello David,

    >David Empson wrote:


    > Unfortunately I have no easy way of measuring our usage.


    I don't know your computer(s) setup but if you're using XP Home try
    http://www.bandwidthvista.com/download.htm

    It's freeware and gives an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly
    summary of usage.

    You'll need the latest DOT NET software from MS (dotnetfx.exe ~ 22MB)
    but the install directs you to the MS support page if you don't have
    it.

    Sorting out your LAN from your WAN might be a problem. I've not yet had
    to do that so I can't comment.

    I've also had problems installing it on an XP Pro system and a Windows
    Media Center.

    If you're using a Linux based system download 'vnstat". Excellent piece
    of software, CLI and only 26 KB.

    > For example, I've noticed that one Netgear wireless router model (not
    > available here yet) has a "quality of service" feature which allows you
    > to designate certain ports as being higher priority.


    Sounds interesting. Do you have the model number.

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Dec 5, 2006
    #14
  15. canon paora

    ~misfit~ Guest

    David Empson wrote:


    [snip]

    Odd. I replied to this post, the reply is in my 'sent' folder yet it hasn't
    shown up while other posts from today have. I'll re-send it if I can.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Dec 6, 2006
    #15
  16. Hi there,

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Miguel wrote:
    >
    >
    > Hey there Miguel,
    >
    >
    >>>~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>David, from what I can gather, the 125.*.*.* range of IPs are
    >>>packet-sniffed and shaped far moreso than the 22x.*.*.* range.
    >>>Also, they are lower priority.
    >>>

    >>
    >>That's pretty much what I understood from what I'd heard and read. And
    >>that's pretty much what seems to be happening with my connection.

    >
    >
    > That's also what the Actrix guys told me. They're really pissed that one of
    > their office test connections has been put in the 125 pool considering that
    > they've pretty much not used it. They're at a loss as to how this whole Go
    > Large thing works. It's certainly not being run as advertised, especially re
    > the warnings, 4 - 12pm period only limited etc....
    >
    > Since I've been on 125, torrent speeds suck, websites are generally sluggish
    > and I have trouble if more than one programme is trying to download
    > simultaneously. However, at certain times I get fast downloads. My last Java
    > update was lightning fast (>4M for 2 seconds) but my last PC-cillin one
    > crawled and had to be re-started twice as my connection dropped
    > mid-download.


    Throttling the p2p guys just sucks. Unless there were specific
    conditions stating thats what the line provider/ISP would do,
    I'd be talking to the Consumer guys or even Fair Go...

    Its probably not a good time to mention that my ADSL2+ line here
    in Brisbane dropped out for 30 seconds yesterday. When the modem
    re-established a link the speed had increased from 12.5 Mbps to a
    very satisfying 15 Mbps, staying there each consecutive login I've
    made since...its only the 2nd or 3rd dropout in months... :)

    Limewire p2p, after a quick test, can give me over 1MB/sec on
    any files with a reasonable amount of seeds...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
    Chris Wilkinson, Dec 6, 2006
    #16
  17. canon paora

    Chris Lim Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    > Its probably not a good time to mention that my ADSL2+ line here
    > in Brisbane dropped out for 30 seconds yesterday. When the modem
    > re-established a link the speed had increased from 12.5 Mbps to a
    > very satisfying 15 Mbps, staying there each consecutive login I've
    > made since...its only the 2nd or 3rd dropout in months... :)


    Bastard! :)
    Chris Lim, Dec 6, 2006
    #17
  18. Hi there,

    Chris Lim wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >>Its probably not a good time to mention that my ADSL2+ line here
    >>in Brisbane dropped out for 30 seconds yesterday. When the modem
    >>re-established a link the speed had increased from 12.5 Mbps to a
    >>very satisfying 15 Mbps, staying there each consecutive login I've
    >>made since...its only the 2nd or 3rd dropout in months... :)

    >
    > Bastard! :)


    Yeah, but I have to live in Australia to get that! After a 3
    week holiday back home recently we're feeling a bit sad here!

    Our ADSL2+ hasn't always been smooth sailing - the modem used
    to sometimes take minutes to get a link, but that problem is
    fixed now...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
    Chris Wilkinson, Dec 6, 2006
    #18
  19. canon paora

    David Empson Guest

    Miguel <> wrote:

    > >David Empson wrote:

    >
    > > Unfortunately I have no easy way of measuring our usage.

    >
    > I don't know your computer(s) setup but if you're using XP Home try
    > http://www.bandwidthvista.com/download.htm


    I'm on a Mac, and I'd have no problem monitoring my own computer's data
    usage.

    The issue is trying to monitor all traffic for all computers on the LAN,
    and isolating it to only the traffic which is going in or out of the
    ADSL router.

    My home LAN currently consists of six computers (four Macs, two
    Windows), a wireless router, ADSL router (acting as a simple bridge) and
    a networked laser printer. The ADSL router is also a 10/100 Ethernet
    switch, and the Ethernet goes to one computer, the wireless router and
    the printer. Everything else is wireless. We sometimes have guests using
    the network, and in future may have additional wireless routers, music
    streaming within the LAN and god knows what else. :)

    The best solution would be if the ADSL router maintained detailed
    statistics. Unfortunately my one (Netgear DG834) only counts packets
    going in and out, not bytes, and has no way of narrowing it down to
    particular computers.

    My next best option would be to run a computer as a router between the
    LAN and the ADSL router, so it can count everything, given the right
    software.

    A third option would be to wire up a hub or managed switch, and monitor
    all traffic going to/from the ADSL router. Dick Smith have a cheap 16
    port managed switch which is tempting, but I don't want to spend $160ish
    just for this one function. I can hook up my old 10Base-T hub, but my
    ADSL router is also my primary switch for wired Ethernet devices and I
    don't want the performance hit.

    > If you're using a Linux based system download 'vnstat". Excellent piece
    > of software, CLI and only 26 KB.


    Probably runs on the Mac as well, or there will be an equivalent.

    > > For example, I've noticed that one Netgear wireless router model (not
    > > available here yet) has a "quality of service" feature which allows you
    > > to designate certain ports as being higher priority.

    >
    > Sounds interesting. Do you have the model number.


    KWGR614. It claims to have open source firmware based on Linux (with no
    obvious details), and is shown on the US Netgear web site as a new
    model.

    --
    David Empson
    David Empson, Dec 6, 2006
    #19
  20. canon paora

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Chris Lim wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    > > Its probably not a good time to mention that my ADSL2+ line here
    > > in Brisbane dropped out for 30 seconds yesterday. When the modem
    > > re-established a link the speed had increased from 12.5 Mbps to a
    > > very satisfying 15 Mbps, staying there each consecutive login I've
    > > made since...its only the 2nd or 3rd dropout in months... :)

    >
    > Bastard! :)


    LOL!!!! That's exactly what i was going to reply.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Dec 6, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. paulsy

    Target Tonite - Comp Techs

    paulsy, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    67
    Views:
    1,014
  2. Waylon Smithers

    Swain on Holmes tonite at 7pm

    Waylon Smithers, May 19, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    1,393
    brundlefly
    May 24, 2004
  3. Collector

    Dial up Connectivity Tonite

    Collector, Jul 27, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    372
  4. Collector»NZ

    News Group Trouble tonite

    Collector»NZ, Feb 3, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    284
    Collector»NZ
    Feb 3, 2005
  5. canon paora

    Tonite on Xtra Go Large

    canon paora, Dec 3, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    54
    Views:
    1,119
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page