Kitz Forum
Computers & Hardware => Networking => Topic started by: Chunkers on January 29, 2024, 10:52:24 AM
-
I got all excited because my new router supports 2.5 Gb, but then the boring rational side told me :
- Even wifi 6 (which I don't have) can barely exceed Gb network
- My internet is unlikely to ever exceed 1Gb
- Even the *cheap* 2.5 Gb switches are 5 times the cost of Gb stuff
- None of the devices on my network apart from possibly my wifes iPhone could even benefit from it and a bunch of them are still 2.4 Ghz wifi
Posting this so I can laugh at my ignorance in the future
Have you guys found a good reason to spend squllions on super duper LAN speeds?
;D
C
-
No ::) I recently went looking to save money on my ISP connection. Ended up with 500mbps even though I was on 150Mbps which I never exceeded. Only reason I went for it was that it was the same price as 150Mbps in a Black Friday offer and much cheaper than existing contract ;)
Stuart
-
I can't even find a plausible reason to upgrade from copper ADSL!
Mine runs stably at about 20mbps now almost everyone else has moved to FTTC and reduced crosstalk.
No plans whatsoever in our area to install FTTP; I bet BT are regretting a lot of the money spent on streetside FTTC equipment and wish they'd waited for FTTP to be cost-effective.
Something is bound to happen as part of the plans to get rid of POTS landlines, but I'm waiting to see on that one!
-
I can't even find a plausible reason to upgrade from copper ADSL!
:D
I live in the boonies but am lucky enough to get 60-70 mbps on FTTC as I live close to a recently installed cabinet and tbh its absolutely fine, I just like the idea of having FTTP although in reality I will probably hardly ever notice the difference
C
-
There's more than a high probability you won't have ADSL, by the end of 2025.
Is FTTC available now in your area, HP ??
-
:D
I live in the boonies but am lucky enough to get 60-70 mbps on FTTC as I live close to a recently installed cabinet and tbh its absolutely fine, I just like the idea of having FTTP although in reality I will probably hardly ever notice the difference
C
That's a fair point as I've recently gone from FTTC 55Mbs to FTTP 900Mbps and there's not that much noticeable difference ... slightly quicker to view when watching a movie/box-set and with both myself and my wife working from home, the extra bandwidth has made a slight difference there too ... but that's it.
It was only the fantastic deal that was on offer that made me jump ship and I suppose, also future proofing my connection.
-
Is FTTC available now in your area, HP ?
Yes, I think that's clearly implied here:
Mine runs stably at about 20mbps now almost everyone else has moved to FTTC and reduced crosstalk.
Though my FTTC cabinet is almost as far from my house as the exchange so doesn't offer a major improvement except on uploads which I don't need.
-
I paid £69 for an 8 port 2.5gb switch, I already had cat6 in the house. You fibre offered me 2gb/2gb fttp connection at £49 pcm so couldn't resist it. My WiFi access point came with a 2.5gb lan connection so one thing lead to another ;D
-
I upgraded some of my network to 10Gbe, second hand switch and second hand cards when they came up cheap. I do occasionally move large files around so the extra bandwidth is useful.
-
Yes, I think that's clearly implied here:Though my FTTC cabinet is almost as far from my house as the exchange so doesn't offer a major improvement except on uploads which I don't need.
Ah - god knows how I missed that ??
-
I can't even find a plausible reason to upgrade from copper ADSL!
I've recently gone from FTTC 55Mbs to FTTP 900Mbps and there's not that much noticeable difference
It was only the fantastic deal that was on offer that made me jump ship and I suppose, also future proofing my connection.
Although FTTP is available, I didnt upgrade due to having a tunsten falls alarm. There are now alternatives, but at silly money so I stuck with copper. The benefit of FTTP being is here is that my neighbour has upgraded and I lost the big chunk of x-talk meaning a stable 80Mbps - stats is showing max rate of 96369 kbps. Theres only me and streaming is fine so I see no need to fork out for something which wont really make much difference other than financial.
-
- Even wifi 6 (which I don't have) can barely exceed Gb network
Define "barely", as I'd consider 1.6Gbit quite a notable improvement. Though granted, I have few devices that have ever hit this in practice, outside of speed tests.
Personally I upgraded as I have a NAS and I copy video files around a fair bit so being able to do so at 280MB/s is nice.
-
40 odd Mbps FTTC is the best I can get here, with no current plans for FTTP as far as I can tell. It actually does pretty much everything my family needs, with the only occasional issue being the lack of upload that would speed up some of my work tasks. Luckily we're not gamers and none of us see the need to stream in anything above HD as that would certainly be an issue with the connection we have.
I'd like FTTP for a bit of extra speed and for its reliability but manage just fine on what we have. :)
-
I have never been able to justify it, 2.5gbit has the same problems as bluray, it never went down to mainstream pricing of previous tech. Although maybe we will someday see £10 2.5gbit cards and sub £15 switches.
-
I have never been able to justify it, 2.5gbit has the same problems as bluray, it never went down to mainstream pricing of previous tech. Although maybe we will someday see £10 2.5gbit cards and sub £15 switches.
But how long did it take Gigabit to get there? I seem to recall it was quite a while.
When I first bought Gigabit switches they were £100+ for 8 ports, 2.5Gbit is now also at this price (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Umanaged-2-5G-10G-SFP-Wireless/dp/B0CFQKYDRM/) which consideration inflation is pretty crazy.
As for NICs, 2.5Gbit is getting fairly common on PCs and its already close to £10 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/XIAOLO-2-5GBase-T-Ethernet-Converter-Standard-XL-I225V-2-5G/dp/B09C3BBX5B/), although I wouldn't buy an i225 unless it specifically said it was the B3 revision without the performance bugs.
I mean of course Gigabit is going to remain cheaper, its been manufactured for so long even if they stopped making any chips the supply is going to be so huge they probably wouldn't run out of stock for a decade.
-
So I work for an ISP and thus do get to test a lot of things. Whilst yes, my incoming internet connection tops out at 400Mbps at very best between Starlink and VDSL, I do have a 2.5Gbps backbone from the switch downstairs (where the incoming Starlink/VDSL devices are connected) to my office upstairs where my router lives (I love a good VLAN, me). The switches are the new Mikrotik CRS310 (https://mikrotik.com/product/crs310_8g_2s_in) that each have 2 x 10Gbps ports, so these will be in place for years to come at this point.
I am expecting Virgin Media to be turned on shortly, and I have seen evidence of Openreach finally doing something though willing to bet they'll not touch my street as we're DIG. Maybe they will because VM did? Who knows. But 1+ Gbps is on the way, so this was worth it for me.
-
I have never been able to justify it, 2.5gbit has the same problems as bluray, it never went down to mainstream pricing of previous tech. Although maybe we will someday see £10 2.5gbit cards and sub £15 switches.
Absolutely, it seems that way, maybe 2.5 Gb already lost its moment, perhaps with 10 Gb stuff so close behind maybe the 2.5 Gb stuff will never become ubiquitous like 1 Gb stuff has done and most of us will miss out on 2.5 Gb altogether as most people can't benefit much from it currently anyway and we all jump to 10 Gb.
Regarding general internet speeds, I kind of feel for most non-nerdy people as long as their web experience feels instantaneous and they can stream 4K video seamlessly I feel like trying to market higher and higher speeds at them will become increasingly pointless.
Would you agree that the desire to stream HD video has been driving speeds ever upwards in the recent past but, other than bragging rights, I can't see many people being tempted by further increases in resolution - you need a pretty big TV to really appreciate 4K, over 75" for 8K really .... how big do they think our houses are, :no:? Most people are on a phone a lot of the time anyway ....
Or maybe we'll all just be on wireless contracts and need no cables or fibre at all, been an interesting and thought provoking thread!
c
-
What gets really interesting is when you start going above 1Gbps...
I was downloading from Steam to a gaming laptop over XGSPON in the lab this week - the laptop CPU tops out whilst downloading at 800Mbps.
I have a steam cache at home and a 10Gbps network, my 12 core Ryzen 9 5900X 100% @ 3Gbps... Those are heavily CPU bound too but interesting to note that multigig will bring challenges in ways we never thought.
-
I believe they may have implemented their compression on LAN transfers recently too as they completely broke it for me.
I went from Steam being able to download from another PC on my LAN at line rate, to it being slower than just downloading from scratch over Gigabit. My guess being the PC that is sending has to do the compression vs it already being compressed on the servers.
Its dumb as I have a REALLY fast CPU on my gaming rig so they have effectively broken the feature for everyone. I guess they figured that people on Gigabit wont bother using LAN transfer compared to people on much slower broadband. Bad logic IMO as surely some of those people on slower broadband will also have slower PCs that wont be up to doing the compression.
-
What gets really interesting is when you start going above 1Gbps...
I was downloading from Steam to a gaming laptop over XGSPON in the lab this week - the laptop CPU tops out whilst downloading at 800Mbps.
I have a steam cache at home and a 10Gbps network, my 12 core Ryzen 9 5900X 100% @ 3Gbps... Those are heavily CPU bound too but interesting to note that multigig will bring challenges in ways we never thought.
There is two implementations of onboard ethernet. I opened a thread about it on a overclocking website and was given some useful info.
I had noticed on my 9900k motherboard, there is 2 intel gigabit adaptors, and I was using the one that was an older chip and marked as higher energy use. Its CPU usage is really low.
What raised my attention in my new PC with a much more powerful CPU running a onboard realtek 2.5gbit in gigabit mode it has huge CPU usage proportionally to the old setup. So called features like interrupt moderation and offloading made no real dent, and those all turned off on the 9900k system anyway.
It turns out my onboard on the 9900k, is a full onboard, the full network chipset is there so has proper offloading, but on my new motherboard its some half cut cost implementation where, there is enough on there for the network to function but the traffic is processed differently because the full chipset isnt available, I was asked to test the 2nd onboard on the 9900k and sure enough that had the same symptoms. I then purchased an addon card and it has considerably lower CPU usage for gigabit throughput vs my onboard realtek, even with all customisable offloading options disabled.
These onboard implementations might not be the full shebang.
-
These onboard implementations might not be the full shebang.
There's also queues. Better NICs have more queues, which means packets can be assigned to more threads/CPU cores.
Its also typically a thing that Realtek have higher CPU usage than Intel.
This is not generally what slows down Steam though, its their compression, games mostly comprised of small files and disk IO.
-
There is two implementations of onboard ethernet. I opened a thread about it on a overclocking website and was given some useful info.
I had noticed on my 9900k motherboard, there is 2 intel gigabit adaptors, and I was using the one that was an older chip and marked as higher energy use. Its CPU usage is really low.
What raised my attention in my new PC with a much more powerful CPU running a onboard realtek 2.5gbit in gigabit mode it has huge CPU usage proportionally to the old setup. So called features like interrupt moderation and offloading made no real dent, and those all turned off on the 9900k system anyway.
It turns out my onboard on the 9900k, is a full onboard, the full network chipset is there so has proper offloading, but on my new motherboard its some half cut cost implementation where, there is enough on there for the network to function but the traffic is processed differently because the full chipset isnt available, I was asked to test the 2nd onboard on the 9900k and sure enough that had the same symptoms. I then purchased an addon card and it has considerably lower CPU usage for gigabit throughput vs my onboard realtek, even with all customisable offloading options disabled.
These onboard implementations might not be the full shebang.
That is interesting but particularly with Steam there is more than just the download giong on. All the data is encrypted and compressed so that is why the CPU is 100% there. Doing SMB transfers, I get the full 10Gbit that the machine is capable of, and this is not onboard, I bought a 10Gbps Intel NIC specifcally for this testing.
Need to do more scientific tests and record some results because I think it is a very interesting topic.
-
I got all excited because my new router supports 2.5 Gb, but then the boring rational side told me :
- Even wifi 6 (which I don't have) can barely exceed Gb network
- My internet is unlikely to ever exceed 1Gb
- Even the *cheap* 2.5 Gb switches are 5 times the cost of Gb stuff
- None of the devices on my network apart from possibly my wifes iPhone could even benefit from it and a bunch of them are still 2.4 Ghz wifi
Posting this so I can laugh at my ignorance in the future
Have you guys found a good reason to spend squllions on super duper LAN speeds?
;D
C
"I Dream of 10G!" or is it a Genie in a bottle? ;) ;)
-
I am expecting Virgin Media to be turned on shortly, and I have seen evidence of Openreach finally doing something though willing to bet they'll not touch my street as we're DIG. Maybe they will because VM did? Who knows. But 1+ Gbps is on the way, so this was worth it for me.
VM installed here back on 2019 IIRC, OR did a lot of our town sometime after that with FTTP, but not our estate which is DIG, and I've been reliably informed no DIG is currently scheduled anywhere, I bet they'll just leave the VDSL cabinet in place.
At least I have VM available, and just signed up for another 18 months.
-
VM installed here back on 2019 IIRC, OR did a lot of our town sometime after that with FTTP, but not our estate which is DIG, and I've been reliably informed no DIG is currently scheduled anywhere, I bet they'll just leave the VDSL cabinet in place.
At least I have VM available, and just signed up for another 18 months.
I think that is how it'll go for me, at least it will be XGSPON, so better than nothing I guess.
I just binned the OR VDSL, going full Starlink.
-
That is interesting but particularly with Steam there is more than just the download giong on. All the data is encrypted and compressed so that is why the CPU is 100% there. Doing SMB transfers, I get the full 10Gbit that the machine is capable of, and this is not onboard, I bought a 10Gbps Intel NIC specifcally for this testing.
Need to do more scientific tests and record some results because I think it is a very interesting topic.
Oh yeah steam is an entirely new ball game, there is hash checks and compression stuff going on.
Downloading on steam on gig1 is like I am running cinebench on the PC. ;)
-
Hi Folks,
On a serious note, my sister update to FTTP, but only on a low package.
So, now when the whole family is over and two tellies are streaming, there isn't enough band width and we get the dreaded disc of buffering!
So, I would say if your usage is small then upgrade to the lower packages, I've now finally have OR 150/28 using PlusNet. Netomnia may start up soon but I will only be changing to 150/150 as it's around £19. (I Pay £26.99 now.) There is no real noticeable difference from the 50/9 I had but I don't now "fear the reaper" for the demise of copper.
Regards.
Dwight.
-
I can't even find a plausible reason to upgrade from copper ADSL!........
No plans whatsoever in our area to install FTTP....................
Something is bound to happen as part of the plans to get rid of POTS landlines, but I'm waiting to see on that one!
Bit of a digression from the current tenor of this thread, but I decided to upgrade, because it gives me control AND saves me money!
Weird logic maybe, but I will:
1. Install a second line, FTTC, broadband only, no phone. Should use the existing drop wire - newish so hopefully 4-core. Will need a new cable from the roof-level connector to a new master socket though as existing is 2-core flex! I'll drill the hole!
2. Transfer landline number to A&A, this should "kill" the old landline and broadband (both out of contract) but I'll check. Tidy up old master socket.
Broadband will be faster and my ongoing monthly costs reduce by almost a third. The installation costs will be recouped in about 3 months. :cool:
I'll then see what plans are for FTTP and appropriate pricing; it "should" be cheaper than FTTC at the low end as it's simpler to supply and maintain. :lol:
-
NB - 'Newish' dropwires are 1pr only - couldn't put a definitive date on when the transition was, off the top of my bonce, perhaps 8/9yrs ago ?
-
Thanks for that info Black Sheep. Newish compared to the 1967 one it replaced. :lol: Over 10 years ago at a guess. Openreach's problem. :-X
-
Oh yeah steam is an entirely new ball game, there is hash checks and compression stuff going on.
Downloading on steam on gig1 is like I am running cinebench on the PC. ;)
This seems to be the limiting factor on Steam Deck for me, it averages around 60MB/s but Fast.com can do 930Mbit and LibreSpeed from my NAS can hit 1.7Gbit over WiFi6.
Its curious Valve made a big deal about the newer WiFi chip on the OLED given in practice (I have both) I get identical performance due to the CPU limit. But I guess WiFi 6 should perform better for most people who aren't sat on top of their AP, or have crosstalk issues.
-
I downloaded FF15 to a spare PC (not for this thread, but I took screenshots of the progress for the science).
Ironically thing ended up getting bottlenecked by sata SSD.
Some screenshots.
CPU for reference a 9900k.
MX500 SATA SSD.
-
That's interesting, you'd need 4Gbps to max out a straight write to a SATA SSD.
-
Yep, thats steam for you.
If you curious the game is final fantasy 15 which is a nearly 100 gig base install.
On a normal network transfer even a spindle can handle gigabit writes.
-
My guess would be sometimes those multiple small files will be downloaded compressed together, so will not suffer the constant stop/start issues but then a SATA SSD will get hit by its IOPS limit once its extracting those files.
Even on a top-end NVME drive I've found the patching system makes it often slower to do updates than to download the entire thing from scratch again.
People look at how fast SSDs are for sequential read/writes and completely format the random small read/write speeds.
-
That's interesting, you'd need 4Gbps to max out a straight write to a SATA SSD.
More than likely the unzip of the packets was!
-
Yeah up until this point I think all my gig1 steam downloads have been straight to NVME, this one is SATA because I have the 9900k setup with spare parts, and I needed to add myself as a second player in the game. (due to the online community now being non existent).