Upload speed extremely slow

OS: XP SP2

Connection: Cable, 10 mbps down, 1 mbps up

ISP: Very liberal.

Network setup: 2 computers hooked to a network switch

On µTorrent 1.7.7 as the problem was way worse with 1.8.1, switching back to 1.7.7 partly boosted my upload.

Using ZoneAlarm, set µtorrent to exception list, tried with firewall and antivirus off, same thing.

I can download fine. My upload is the problem. I tested this with a friend who can download up to 500 KBps and he only downloaded 1.5 KB/s from me... It seems I can connect to people, but people have trouble connecting to ME. Protocol encryption is enabled, my upload speed is configured to unlimited.

I never had this problem on the 1st computer before I had a premium account with half the bandwidth. What could be the problem?

Shaw is far from liberal. They throttle torrents quite a lot, particularly seeding.

Switch back to 1.8.1 and uninstall Zone Alarm, as ZA is a horrid firewall.

Shaw... throttling... torrents?! I beg to differ. I didn't have problems before on the other computer before I bought the switch and upgraded to a premium account. I should really test to see if my upload is better on the older computer.

ZA sucks? What do you suggest?

P.S. I never understood how throttling torrents is possible at all. How can you tell apart torrent activity from any other activity such as personally sending a friend a photo, or a video?

Behaviorial pattern matching can sometimes be used to determine what the connection is. Deep packet inspection as well for encrypted connections. Else, if unencrypted, the connection has an obvious signature that any cheap ol' router with QoS can determine.

Comodo is a good alternative to ZA. And Shaw is known to throttle.

According to Glasnost, my ISP is not throttling my BT traffic; although the minimum/maximum download and upload speeds are slow as hell (77 kbps min - 80 kbps max upload) My max is 1000 god damn it!

But no, Shaw has never limited my BT traffic before, so maybe only on a premium account? And that list says they limit download, not upload. My download is fine.

ZA wasn't causing problems before, but it's an old (2003) version. Right now I'm reluctant to uninstall it as I've already configured it but if you guarantee that Comodo will solve my problem, I'll do it.

I should probably test my upload on my old computer before running my mouth anymore, I guess.

EDIT: About deep inspection of encrypted packets: all they would see is garbage. If I connected directly to a friend and sent him an encrypted file or used SSH tunnel encryption, how would they tell the difference? Torrents use random ports, and I can pick any port I want.

Regarding deep-packet inspection... Read up on Sandvine.

http://www.slackware.com/torrents/

How do torrents from here run?

Downloading at 800 KB/s, uploading at 5 KB/s, as always.

EDIT: I read about Sandvine, which limits your bandwidth. That's fine. Shaw limits my bandwidth too... to about 100 gigs per month, and I never went over the limit so... whats your point? How does this specifically stop BT traffic?

Shaw also implements methods to block/restrict seeding. It's not just the monthly transfer limit.

Oh, I didn't realize you were an administrator. Are you Ludvig Strigeous? [air-headed praise]Congrats on building utorrent! I never would've touched a torrent if it wasn't for you, your application is truly professional and I have no idea how you managed to do it. utorrent definitely stands out from other garbage clients that take up memory for no real reason. Did you write it in assembly?[/air-headed praise]

Anyway, according to Glasnost, Shaw DOESNT throttle my BT traffic, and as I said, I never had this problem before on the older computer on a standard account.

My point was that Sandvine does identify BitTorrent connections and incapacitate them -- encrypted or otherwise. So encryption doesn't get around Sandvine (or any Sandvine-like system), and whether they see garbage or not for encrypted connections means nothing to whether or not they can or can't throttle.

Granted, Shaw doesn't use Sandvine, but it is widely known that they do use Ellacoya to shape BitTorrent traffic (yes, down to the name of the system with which they throttle BitTorrent, it's a known fact that they do throttle).

First off, lemme make a kind request: the original thread is about my upload problem, and theres a subthread -- our discussion about BT traffic identification. Keep these separated and focus on the original topic. Do you strongly recommend me to ditch ZA? What is wrong with it? Also, you keep repeating "Shaw is throttling your traffic!" when I've stated several times that I didn't experience this problem before and that Glasnost confirms that my traffic is not being tampered with.

I'm not trying to be a prick, I just hate waiting days for my ratio to reach 1.000 and really wanna crack down on whatever is causing this problem. I could just cut off the torrent but, again, I don't wanna be a dick.

EDIT: I've called my ISP and they said they are having technical difficulties that will affect speed. I asked if what you guys have been saying in this thread is true, and they confirmed everything I said in the below paragraph. They simply can't limit BT traffic without limiting the service in general. So, I'll just wait and see what happens.

Thanks everyone for the tips.

So, the subthread:

My point was that Sandvine does identify BitTorrent connections and incapacitate them -- encrypted or otherwise. So encryption doesn't get around Sandvine (or any Sandvine-like system), and whether they see garbage or not for encrypted connections means nothing to whether or not they can or can't throttle.

Yes, they CAN throttle. But the packets they are throttling may not be BT traffic. How would they know? That's my whole point here. You have to be able to define something before you can block it. You can block a flood attack by identifying the IPs of the spammers or the proxy circuit the nodes operate on. OR by identifying certain characteristics from the content of the packets/messages/whatever, such as a high frequency of capital characters, repeating characters/words, excessive numbers/exclamation points. But BitTorrent traffic is technically no different from any other online activity as it includes any IP on any port, sending/receiving any kind of data. If you block that, well, what's the point of an internet service? How will I share my personal photos with my friends? I use Miranda messenger for that btw, not BT.

ZA is a hit-and-miss. For some users, it works well, but for a good portion of users reporting issues here and are running ZA, ZA has been the cause of the problems. Whether you should switch is up to whether you're having any other troubles, and whether you're willing to spend a bit of time configuring Comodo (it's less "friendly" than ZA).

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=366464#p366464

Here's a very recent example of ZA causing speed troubles for other users.

Just to help eliminate confusion - there can be no doubt that Shaw is using Ellacoya to shape p2p bandwidth. The way it works is by intercepting and analyzing packets to determine if it is bittorrent traffic.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12258993

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12015375~mode=flat

http://forum.ncix.com/forums/index.php?mode=showthread&forum=201&threadid=1183578&pagenumber=2&subpage=1

Informally, it is really obvious, when I have a torrent with over 4000 seeds, which I can download at rates of about 1.1 MBps but then I have a max of 8 peers downloading from a pool of about 500, and uploading at about 12 kb/s, (from a tested max of about 780-900 kb/s) that something is not right. This situation affects all torrents, and it has been evident since I moved from Edmonton to Vancouver. I expect Shaw will implement this across their region of influence since it works so well to kill p2p, and then you'll really start to hear about it.

Just to help eliminate confusion - there can be no doubt that Shaw is using Ellacoya to shape p2p bandwidth. The way it works is by intercepting and analyzing packets to determine if it is bittorrent traffic.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12258993

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark, … ~mode=flat

http://forum.ncix.com/forums/index.php? … ;subpage=1

HAHAHAHAH!!! RIGHT! 90% of traffic due to BT in 2004?????? BT was not even remotely popular until about 2006 when Ludvig built the first actual PROFESSIONAL client that doesn't take up 250 terabytes of RAM for an idiotically simple process as sending and receiving pieces of a file to the connected swarm. Kazaa made up 78% of all P2P traffic in 2004-2005 and there was still 2.5 million people connected at any random time until mid-2006 when the website was shut down. All the information in those links are definitely not in the business of credibility. Shaw is a good ISP; your accusations are wrong. The problem must be my computer, 'cuz I never had this problem before for the last 6 years and I've been to every province in the country. If they are shaping traffic in any way, it's to make sure you're not going over your monthly limit, but even then I went over the limit a couple of times last year and no problems arose. Another thing they may be shaping is the amount of simultaneous/periodic connections you can make e.g. you cant seed 20 torrents at the same time as you'll increase latency for other customers... or something.

Btw, I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and installed Comodo. This partly fixed the problem as a single peer from a swarm downloading the maximum 100 KB/s from me is now more common. Comodo appears to be much more professional and advanced than ZoneAlarm, and thanks to whoever suggested it to me (I can't see the usernames on my screen, just the posts.)

Informally, it is really obvious, when I have a torrent with over 4000 seeds, which I can download at rates of about 1.1 MBps but then I have a max of 8 peers downloading from a pool of about 500, and uploading at about 12 kb/s, (from a tested max of about 780-900 kb/s) that something is not right. This situation affects all torrents, and it has been evident since I moved from Edmonton to Vancouver. I expect Shaw will implement this across their region of influence since it works so well to kill p2p, and then you'll really start to hear about it.

Funny, I heard about it a long time ago, and it didn't take effect until I started using new equipment (switch, new computer, USB2Ethernet adapter etc.)

Hi,

Later edit

ISP: Shaw

Up to recently I've been able to download with 500Kb/s+ but recently everything went down to 64Kb/s or less. There is nothing wrong with my firewall or port forwarding, as I am able to transfer between 2 computers on my local network.

What the heck just happened? Does anyone in New West noticed this before?

Cheers!

MOST people who posts on this forums with problems DON'T mention their ISP at all.

Makes finding people with ISP-related problems an absolute pain.

...and that's even WITH my Moderator powers of being able to see bare ips of posters!

ISP: Shaw

In the last 3 days, my seeding capacity has been reduced to about 25kb/s... this is down from 100kb/s a week ago. The Shaw tech promises that they don't filter, shape, or inhibit bittorrent traffic at all..... right. I love it when people lie right to your face.

There are quite a few people in this area experiencing the same problems as you and me....

That many Shaw users have come forward in recent weeks complaining about slow speeds without actually knowing that their ISP throttles is proof enough that this is more than mere coincidence. By my count, there have been at least 5 separate users on Shaw complaining about speeds -- and I'm sure 5 is an underestimated figure. No matter how you slice it, they're slowing traffic down. Whether or not it's BitTorrent agnostic throttling, I don't know, but I tend to doubt that it is agnostic, given their history. It can be a problem with their network, but if that were the case, then why haven't users complained about slowed connections, period?

And just because an ISP tech support representative tells you that they don't/"can't" throttle doesn't mean they're telling you the truth. Just look to Comcast for an example of blatant lying to the public.

Okay, loving this!!! I get off the phone with the Shaw tech, having explained to him that I am seriously considering canceling all my services with them. Even though "they are in no way limiting bittorrent traffic, a mere hour later...... what to my wonder eyes do appear??? 100kb/s upload on a torrent that I couldn't get more than 12kb/s up for the last 4 days.... HOW VERY CONVENIENT!!! This is just funny now. Let's see how long they leave me wide open.... :-)

Oh, and sorry for jacking your thread... :-(

Guys, I phoned an old friend yesterday who works as a tech support for Shaw, and he said that they're doing maintenance so speeds may be affected. He doesn't know when it'll be complete, but estimates anywhere from 1-3 weeks. So, let's just wait and see. My upload is a lot better now and 100 KB/s sharing is becoming more common, but still sucks.

Ultima, it's pretty well known that Comcast is scum, so I wouldn't be surprised. I assure you Shaw wouldn't go that low.

But again, we'll wait and see.

I have to laugh... sure I understand the desire to keep bandwidth to a minimum, and given the figures @ http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/CustomerCare/InternetSupport/Residential/Sharing/default.htm ... I find it a BIT comforting to see uT as the only guide with reasonable upload rates http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/CustomerCare/InternetSupport/Residential/Sharing/BitTorrent.htm

I couldn't find any press page though I did click and search most links available under Support. Do you have a link to those types of announcements 2006?

It's only well known that Comcast is scum because they were lying through their teeth, not the other way around. In other words, that they're lying isn't explained by the fact that they're scums; that we consider them to be scums in the first place is explained by the fact that they imposed Sandvine on their users while lying about it.

Indeed, we shall see. I'm not trying to blame them for everything, but it's all too suspicious (unless, of course, as I mentioned and your friend seems to confirm, they're having network problems).

I've got a friend down in Washington that is getting throttled on Comcast.... very frustrating. We'll see how the whole Shaw things shakes out. My earlier successes were short lived, and I'm back down to uploading at about 8kb/s on a torrent with over 1500 peers.... :-(

Update: scratch what I said about a couple weeks. It will take a couple months here in Alberta (my friend is in Vancouver) for them to upgrade their equipment to adapt to the rapidly increasing amount of subscribers/bandwidth. So mods make sure not to close this thread so I can continue to keep you guys updated on how the situation rolls out.

I still have faith in Shaw, as they were kind enough to spare me a portion of the monthly bills until they finish maintenance. It also appears that download is affected as well as upload, I just didn't notice it as I don't often get download speeds higher than 300 KB/s on torrents anyway. Also, I was able to upload at my peak for nearly the whole day on this bigass 10 gig torrent, so it looks like it's getting better and better.

Don't worry, we don't close threads for no reason Anyway, thanks for keeping us posted on the matter!