![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why does uploading at max speed on fiber have to be so difficult ?
- Thread starter ng4ever
- Start date
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 20,647
your service states "up to" so........
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 20,647
well, what are you talking about then?
they aren't advertising 1Gbps minimum speed
And do you know if your internal network is bottlenecking
Vengance_01
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2001
- Messages
- 7,088
Also not all sites can handle those high speeds. Your pretty damn close. Be happy you have those speeds
Back when I had at&t fiber, I would usually get 900+ upload and 700-800 download.
The details really matter though. GPON is a shared medium 2.5G down, 1.25G up physical layer; if anybody else you're sharing with is uploading too, you won't both be able to hit your advertised speed.
If you're on one of the fiber providers that does PPPoE, that can be challenging to hit caps with, but large packets, like for bulk uploading, should help. 1Gbps is fast enough that you need to make sure your socket buffers are big if the destination has a significant latency, or you'll be limited by what you can buffer for retransmits rather than your bandwidth.
The details really matter though. GPON is a shared medium 2.5G down, 1.25G up physical layer; if anybody else you're sharing with is uploading too, you won't both be able to hit your advertised speed.
If you're on one of the fiber providers that does PPPoE, that can be challenging to hit caps with, but large packets, like for bulk uploading, should help. 1Gbps is fast enough that you need to make sure your socket buffers are big if the destination has a significant latency, or you'll be limited by what you can buffer for retransmits rather than your bandwidth.
scrappymouse
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Messages
- 244
I'm over here with 10meg uploads I'd love to get fiber but not available here 
Typically losses can come from the various protocols being used for transmission (TCP/IP for example), internal network latency can play a role, the type of data being transmitted (lots of small individual files vs larger ones), as well as even the NIC driver your endpoint is using (again, related to protocol effeciency/overhead).
I have a private dedicated synchronous gig fiber connection (Comcast ENS) and even then, as long as im getting 900/900 minimum, I consider it working as intended.
Iperf is what I use to do internal network bandwidth testing, you can use that to verify that your internal devices/network arent the main bottlenecks.
I have a private dedicated synchronous gig fiber connection (Comcast ENS) and even then, as long as im getting 900/900 minimum, I consider it working as intended.
Iperf is what I use to do internal network bandwidth testing, you can use that to verify that your internal devices/network arent the main bottlenecks.
It depends on where you're uploading to and how.
I have problems even saturating 50Mbps upload on my 500/50 connection unless I have multiple simultaneous uploads. I'm sure it's because of some sort of network management that only gives the amount of bandwidth actually needed for a transfer (like like intel speedstep does for processors). But I really hate it because you really have to hammer it before you get your advertised speeds. This even applies for downloads. If I have 20 files to download and I set them up to go serially they take 20n worth of time. But if I set them up to download in parallel, they're all done in n time, which is 20x faster and still usually not even 1/10 of my total bandwidth. The serial connection shouldn't be any slower, but that's the way it goes.
I have problems even saturating 50Mbps upload on my 500/50 connection unless I have multiple simultaneous uploads. I'm sure it's because of some sort of network management that only gives the amount of bandwidth actually needed for a transfer (like like intel speedstep does for processors). But I really hate it because you really have to hammer it before you get your advertised speeds. This even applies for downloads. If I have 20 files to download and I set them up to go serially they take 20n worth of time. But if I set them up to download in parallel, they're all done in n time, which is 20x faster and still usually not even 1/10 of my total bandwidth. The serial connection shouldn't be any slower, but that's the way it goes.
Last edited:
This is correct. But the OP is asking why they can't get 940 download/uploads regularly.
auntjemima
[H]ard DCOTM x2
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 11,742
I think he has missed a comma to make the sentence make more sense. I think he means...
"Seems like you can never upload at max, 900 to 940 Mbps."
Meaning he never gets 1000, but closed to the 900 to 949 range. Which overhead can easily explain.
And the world will never know as OP hasn't posted in this thread since the OP.
auntjemima
[H]ard DCOTM x2
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 11,742
Its his MO.And the world will never know as OP hasn't posted in this thread since the OP.
bigstusexy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,194
So I actually wanted to make a similar thread to this and see what-if, if anything, people are doing about it. I've found it to be a windows network stack problem and the difference between multiple and single connection transfers. I thought this would be a non-issue these days. Silly me. It just seems more of an issue you can't get around.