Why does uploading at max speed on fiber have to be so difficult ?

ng4ever

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
2,574
1 Gbps down and up.

Seems like you can never upload at max 900 to 940 Mbps.

I know it really does not matter but it is stupid.

Do they make it difficult for a reason? I know about rclone. Still it should be simple. Unless that is a bad thing ?
 

toast0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,479
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.
 

Smoblikat

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
431
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.
 

SamirD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
4,793
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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Valnar

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
3,594
Well it takes two to tango. What protocol are you using to where? Also look up WAN latency and TCP Window size. Your speeds are fantastic. Nothing to worry about.
 

uberjon

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
112
There is tcp/ip overhead. thats what I always heard about a 1gbit connect maxing out in the 940s
 

SamirD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
4,793
There is tcp/ip overhead. thats what I always heard about a 1gbit connect maxing out in the 940s
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
9,035
This is correct. But the OP is asking why they can't get 940 download/uploads regularly.
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.
 

SamirD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
4,793
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. :ROFLMAO:
 

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.
 

elvis1

n00b
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
60
Has anyone used yabs.sh?
I tend to use it myself in both vms and dedis. It won't say the reason why but it would help quite a bit.
 
Top