Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: Today at 09:00:55 AM 
Started by kitz - Last post by tubaman
a good wash

 22 
 on: Today at 09:00:13 AM 
Started by Liz - Last post by tubaman
meditation teacher

 23 
 on: Today at 02:16:46 AM 
Started by Weaver - Last post by Weaver
@burrakucat - I would need to get a lot more data points. Maybe from varying the rate limiter values across a wider range and using additional patterns for the differences between links rates. I have only looked at two patterns in detail: (i) all rates equal and (ii) slowest link=lower rate.

I must not get sucked into obsessing over nonsense, as calculations lead me to believe that there is not that much additional speed left there to be gained, as I mentioned earlier.

But I would like to understand how best to determine the rate limiter values. Line 2 is 2.4% low, which is quite a significant discrepancy especially seeing as the values do not have to be so far ‘off’, looking at line 3 for example, which is only 0.8% low.

We recall that the 100% base value (ie modem loading factor=100%) is merely based on calculated protocol inefficiency below sync rate and does not know about any other possible real-world factors that slow things down additionally in practice. So it is hardly surprising if this basis rate turns out to be a bit unrealistically high. A candidate for an alternative basis rate might be -0.8%.

Why is line 2 so low? I wonder if it is perhaps struggling a bit more than the others? If I look into the detailed stats for it right now, I wonder what I might find. There is no upstream PhyR, so
I believe, so that is out as a possible contributor.

I think a significant test then would be to resync line 2 and see if the numbers change, ideally it would resync at the same rate, otherwise we are changing other unwanted parameters. The ideal would be to get a resync to sort out any problems that link 2 might be having (and give it a better bit loading or better set of framing parameters, for example) but do nothing else. If the difference between real world performance and rate limiter calculated assigned value then does decrease, then we maybe have the right idea.

 24 
 on: April 20, 2019, 11:42:21 PM 
Started by sevenlayermuddle - Last post by sevenlayermuddle
I like this story. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47996418

BBC are reporting on the nice weather, reporting with sinister overtones, that it may break records for Easter temperatures.   Is it evidence of David Attenburgh’s latest dire forecasts?  Well, maybe.

But they go on to cite other Easters that have been hot, including 2011 and 1949.  And by a remarkable coincidence, both have been late in April.   Towards the end of the story they do seem to concede the point, that this easter is mild, mainly because it is late.  But the paragraph in which they do so, even includes a spelling error.   

Quote
This year, Easter falls on the latest date since 2011, meanng that warm weather is far more likely that those years when Easter is marked in March. It won't be this late again until 2030.

Any spell checker would have spotted “meanng”, so I wonder, was that last paragraph an afterthought?   Will it even still read the same, tomorrow?  And cynically might it just possibly be the case that BBC expect supporters of “Science by Celebrity” to have a disinclination for detail, in their rush to join the protests?  ::)

 25 
 on: April 20, 2019, 11:30:09 PM 
Started by Weaver - Last post by burakkucat
I did some more tests, which merely showed that the previous results were repeatable.

That is good news, as it shows you are not just chasing shadows.

Quote
I have still not yet been able to make out any pattern in the differences between rate limiter values and the measured rates. Can anyone else see anything?

I am rather puzzled. Nothing seems obvious, to me.

Would plotting the results graphically show up a trend, maybe?

 26 
 on: April 20, 2019, 11:26:06 PM 
Started by Liz - Last post by burakkucat
left-over catnip consumer  :-[

 27 
 on: April 20, 2019, 11:24:50 PM 
Started by Liz - Last post by 4candles
Catnip OD again? ;)

 

 28 
 on: April 20, 2019, 11:21:34 PM 
Started by Weaver - Last post by Weaver
I did some more tests, which merely showed that the previous results were repeatable.

I have still not yet been able to make out any pattern in the differences between rate limiter values and the measured rates. Can anyone else see anything?

 29 
 on: April 20, 2019, 06:23:32 PM 
Started by broadstairs - Last post by broadstairs
I did wonder, however today it did not happen. Perhaps a little more investigation is needed just in case it is a dodgy cable from BT socket and it moves when touching the lan cables.

Stuart

 30 
 on: April 20, 2019, 06:12:20 PM 
Started by broadstairs - Last post by burakkucat
I suspect a dry-joint, possibly, on the PCB.  :-\

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
anything