?

Log in

No account? Create an account
[PUBLIC] Independent DSL - The Cover Story
October 2013
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
 
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 11:19 am
[PUBLIC] Independent DSL

That does it. I'm ordering my own Internet.

This experiment in having a shared internet line for a house is interesting, but it simply isn't reliable enough for somebody who has to work from home on a regular basis. Based on the performance profiles, somebody's running BitTorrent on our house Internet, but is either unaware they are doing it, or not admitting to it. The result is approximately one out of every 3 days this month, I'm pinging over 2000ms to Google. Wildly unacceptable. Have you ever tried to maintain a remote desktop connection to a finicky and overloaded server in Germany whilst it takes 2 seconds for your packets just to make it out of your ISP's subnet? Let me tell you, its an exercise in frustration.

So, sometime while I'm in Mexico next week, Verizon is going to come and reactivate my line and send me a new mouter to put in my redundant low-latency connection.

Tags: , ,
Current Location: Worcester, MA
Current Mood: aggravated aggravated

14CommentReplyShare

zrealm
zrealm
Andrew Zorowitz
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 03:44 pm (UTC)

For what its worth, when I was living in NYC I was living alone and had both DSL and Cable for exactly the same reason...


ReplyThread
sirroxton
sirroxton
Adam Augusta
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC)

Man, when is QoS going to happen?


ReplyThread
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:30 pm (UTC)

When people stop freaking the fuck out over net neutrality.


ReplyThread Parent
sirroxton
sirroxton
Adam Augusta
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:47 pm (UTC)

As I understand it, QoS is something that could be defined locally between networks. If it happened to be supported end-to-end, the protocol could negotiate a QoS point-to-point contract in the aggregate. None of that would violate net neutrality. Mind you, this is largely a thought problem for me; it's not based on any understanding of actual or proposed standards.

I guess John's experience tells the lie to Internet2's suggestion that the answer is just to jack up bandwidth for everybody.


ReplyThread Parent
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:53 pm (UTC)

The Band's not the problem here -- my band is still operating at 25% of its theoretical max, which is plenty for my purposes. Its the latency -- the time between a request going out and a response coming back -- that is the real problem here. To initiate a download its fine to have a 5-second latency, but to utilize a realtime interactive connection of any kind is just ludicrous at those ping times.


ReplyThread Parent
sirroxton
sirroxton
Adam Augusta
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:56 pm (UTC)

I don't understand why you would have poor latency without someone saturating the band.


ReplyThread Parent
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 05:03 pm (UTC)

Its something I've run into a lot with anything that spews very high numbers of small packets -- its like DoSing your own router. A router routes pretty much all packets in constant time, regardless of size -- it only cares about the first 20 bytes. So a packet that's carrying a 2-byte payload takes the same time to route as a packet carrying a 4K payload. Thus, small requests, of an interactive nature, come through at the same rate as large packets full of data, but because packets per seconds remains the same, data per second is much higher on the download packets than the interactive service packets, resulting in relatively high data per second rates for downloads, but very low useful packet per second rates for interactive applications.


ReplyThread Parent
sirroxton
sirroxton
Adam Augusta
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 05:06 pm (UTC)

Weird, I wouldn't expect torrent packets to be especially tiny.

Er, except for those trying-and-failing-to-negotiate-a-connection-with-100-random-strangers packets.


ReplyThread Parent
teenyweenyowen
Owen
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:46 pm (UTC)

Might I also perhaps suggest tcpdump in promiscous mode? that and a bit of investigation should reveal who's running bittorrent.


ReplyThread
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 04:48 pm (UTC)

That possibility occurred to me, and I did it inside my network to make sure I wasn't somehow the source, but even if I found out who it was, I really have no right to ask them to stop -- they have as much claim to the band as I do, so it only seems fair that if I have the demand for a higher QoS, that I be the one who acts on the requirement.


ReplyThread Parent
aleksandyr
aleksandyr
Alexander B. L.
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 05:50 pm (UTC)

Yes and no.

They're running a jacuzzi 24/7 that prevents you from getting a hot shower, and their argument is that you can still get water --- eventually --- to run a bath?

My solution in previous apartments was to designate one machine as the download server, have everyone route through that, and have it scheduled to only use bandwidth between certain hours. Bandwidth monitoring on the router let all of us see --- in realtime --- why the network wasn't working at any particular point in time.

For that matter, anyone causing that kind of latency problem is probably apocalyptically misconfigured and/or has some sort of malware infection. If it is only one person, then everyone else is also feeling this squeeze...

Oh, and I've seen issues like this happen when cable modems start to die, if that's what this connection is.


ReplyThread Parent
jonored
jonored
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 07:25 pm (UTC)

It seems worth note that 2/3 of this building cares much, much more about latency than bandwidth. I've had our router set up to throttle BT traffic before, and it worked reasonably well; it's a matter of first setting the router up to send packets slightly slower than the speed of the line (so that the queue builds up in the local router where it's controlled rather than in the modem/at the isp), and then routing packets with the low-latency bits set first. Rewriting large transfers to set the "bulk" bits helps, too, and if neccessary putting an actual cap on transfer rate for the torrents - but that's only to indirectly affect download speed, which is generally so much bigger than upload that it doesn't matter. I did find that Var is probably a little wimpy to deal with all of the connections a BT client does well, but that's resolvable by not using a random linksys router. Did you talk to our landlord about the mess?


ReplyThread Parent
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 07:29 pm (UTC)

I have emailed Don, but it was only to tell him I was getting DSL put into my place and to watch in case the Verizon tech manages to disable any other services in the house (as they seem wont to do.) Realistically, I really should have a secondary connection in case the shared line explodes for some reason, because it really is a show-stopper for me to lose my Internet.


ReplyThread Parent
verrucaria
verrucaria
E. Z.
Wed, Aug. 6th, 2008 05:09 pm (UTC)

Could you argue for a discount off your rent, given that you need your own Internet service anyway?


ReplyThread