S3NTYN3L Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 I'm currently seeding (and ONLY seeding) two torrents I've created.I was wondering if my upload speed of 50kB/s (as shown in the speed tab of utorrent) is average or not.No matter what I do to tweak my settings, I can't seem to get the upload to go any faster...SpeedGuide reports my connection as roughly 4000down/450up just about every time I run the test...Can I get my uploads any faster? Is my speed about average?Thanks for the help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 50KiB/s is respectable for a 450kbps line. The theoretical maximum upload speed at 450kbps is 56.25KiB/s, but in reality, overhead would cause it to be more like 50KiB/s. I'd suggest you limit to 45KiB/s though, so you could actually download and use the internet without issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3NTYN3L Posted July 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 [useless quoting removed by moderator]Actually, I have no issues what-so-ever with things the way they are. While surfing the net I notice no difference. Dowloads are a little bit slower but nothing I can't live with. The few torrents I have downloaded stay between 200-350 kB/s depending on seeds and whatnot...I'm guessing my ISP connection speeds are more towards the lower end of the spectrum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 It's a decent connection. Mine is 5000/384, FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3NTYN3L Posted July 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 Kewl, I thought I was getting ripped-off by my ISP. It just seems slow compared to my download speeds. When I look at the speed tab's graph, that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 You'll find that to be the case almost anywhere (that the upload speed offered is much lower than the download speed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SL83 Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 The reason for the upload speeds on Cable connections being so much lower has to do with DOCSIS. There's a limited number of upload channels per node. The different modulations QSPK, QAM, etc, have limited upload bandwidth. I believe for QSPK, the upload bandwidth was limited to 5Mbps per channel. With 16QAM it's up to 10Mbps.Anyway, because upload bandwidth is very expensive compared to download bandwidth, and upload bandwidth being overloaded can completely destroy a network, cable companies cap the upstream bandwidth. This is why downstream speeds will be a lot higher than upstream speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 30.72Mbit upstream per channel with DOCSIS 2.0, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SL83 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes, DOCSIS 2.0 allows 30.72Mbits upstream per channel, introducing 64QAM and 256QAM. However, from my understanding, 256QAM while allowing for more bandwidth, is also a lot more susceptible to line noise.Upgrading to DOCSIS 2.0 is very expensive, and then comes DOCSIS 3.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Most cable ISPs are DOCSIS 2.0 by now. And 256-QAM is only used for download (maximum allowed for upstream is 128-QAM, and that's DOCSIS 2.0 only. 1.0/1.1 used QPSK or 16-QAM, but capped themselves to 10Mbit for upstream) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SL83 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Right again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Why would upgrading to DOCSIS 2.0 be expensive though? I mean, one would think that upgrading to 1.1 would be, since that requires more work and investment to make two-way communication possible. 2.0 doesn't seem like that big of a step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SL83 Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 The hardware upgrades at the CMTS probably is what costs the most. Adding additonal line cards, adding DOCSIS 2.0 comliant hardware.I'd imagine the rollout of just DOCSIS 2.0 cable modems would be expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.