Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bogof]

Losing 50-60Mbit to make a chart cleaner seems a bad compromise to me, unless you genuinely were having latency issues under load.

What's 50mbit between friends?
Seems useful to me, as it makes it much more obvious if things are likely happening outside my network, plus it allows me to have some traffic classes.prioritized if I want.  AAISP have similar options to impose limits heading into BT's network from them, with a similar order of magnitude.  If it's good enough for them...

[Chrysalis]

Yeah once you at those speeds losing 50mbit for QoS reasons is fine. 

The main reason I am on gigabit isnt so I can download at gigabit, its so my connection quality doesnt nosedive every time I download something.  Of course downloading at 100s of mbits/sec is a really nice bonus.

Although for me by quality I just mean things still work normally, I am not so obsessed about pings/jitter as I was 10 years ago.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Yeah once you at those speeds losing 50mbit for QoS reasons is fine. 

The main reason I am on gigabit isnt so I can download at gigabit, its so my connection quality doesnt nosedive every time I download something.  Of course downloading at 100s of mbits/sec is a really nice bonus.

Although for me by quality I just mean things still work normally, I am not so obsessed about pings/jitter as I was 10 years ago.

I'm only concerned about VoIP, the only online game I play is The Crew 2 and only because its an online-only game, I very rarely interact with anyone else in the game.  Not found a need to turn on QoS so far but I haven't tried making a call with a heavy Steam download running, which is about the only thing which can max out the connection.

[Chrysalis]

Yeah I am only using upstream QoS. my connection doesnt seem to need shaping on downstream now.  I also cannot fully utilise the WAN side even if I tried due to having gigabit ports, on a 1.1gbit WAN connection.

[Alex Atkin UK]

I thought I had upstream QoS enabled, but turns out I had disabled it entirely.

[bogof]

Before I put it in place I would find that a fast speedtest somewhere on the network could have a disproportionately big effect on other clients also trying to download quickly; I'm not sure what aspect of the changes improved it, but things are much more equitable now; and given it works and the penalty is not that great I'm disinclined to spend the effort trying to work out which bit I could reduce.  At this level I'm still at close to 2x the performance Zen would tell you that you have no right to expect better than for an FTTP900 line... /moan mode off

[spaace]

the general consensus between my ping obsessed gaming friends scattered over the country is that Sky is the best. After having ping issues myself on other ISP's i have migrated to Sky today and the pings are lower than i have ever seen them. Can;t comment yet on general stability or what it is like at peak times.

I am on Sky Connect Essential (a package for small businesses) so no idea if this makes a difference to residential Sky FTTC/NOWtv

[XGS_Is_On]

Before I put it in place I would find that a fast speedtest somewhere on the network could have a disproportionately big effect on other clients also trying to download quickly

Are your clients downloading data as part of some recovery point objective? You sharing your connection with the street? 

[bogof]

Are your clients downloading data as part of some recovery point objective? You sharing your connection with the street? 

Nothing that fancy or exotic, but I do have quite a lot of cloud sync'd storage which will burst up at unexpected times and sync to several machines in the house depending on what has been uploaded elsewhere, along with some automated speedtests that will run regardless of what else is happening, so I'd rather have something set up where it doesn't matter at all that those things are happening...

[XGS_Is_On]

To each their own. I can hardly judge given my ridiculous connection so that I can avoid having to use QoS outside of very basic queuing upstream to assist a couple of devices whose traffic is shaped by their own Internet of p00 SSID shaper. The global network uses WFQ outbound and that's it. Nothing inbound even smashing 8 Gbps iPerfs through. .

Wouldn't the speed test take 30 seconds after which time the other tasks will ramp back up to consume the capacity? TCP constantly probes for capacity, it's what causes the sawtooth on throughput graphs, so once the speed test is done everything should just through the normal TCP congestion detection and mitigation process consume the bandwidth freed up by the speed test pretty quickly?

If the automated speedtest is causing a problem don't run it. Only time I run mine are to annoy my troll and to feed back to the ISP.

If all is working and you've other tasks to do rather than hamstring everything it would seem to make far more sense either shaping the speed test explicitly to lowest priority or, better yet, not running it.

[bogof]

Just posting a few Sky BQMs here so I can easily compare them:
Ours

TBB forum member "severedsolo".  Against all odds turns out to be local to me and probably in the same exchange.

TBB forum member "discus".  FTTP!

Kitz forum Skyci's relative

Kitz forum member spaace

[skyeci]

Yup. One of my relatives lines... somethings up

[bogof]

Yup. One of my relatives lines... somethings up

Thanks for adding it.  Yes, something particularly rubbish is going on tonight.  Nice to see they don't share the other common features that are on my chart though, so that's clearly not a universal thing.

[spaace]

after a couple of weeks on sky connect it seems rock solid. syncing around 65/20, always getting those speeds and latency is the lowest i have ever had (7-8ms from the midlands) at all hours.

not a problem but i noticed my gateway resolves to a name i have not heard of in many years "ar0-sky.r3lon.ov.easynet.net"

[bogof]

after a couple of weeks on sky connect it seems rock solid. syncing around 65/20, always getting those speeds and latency is the lowest i have ever had (7-8ms from the midlands) at all hours.

not a problem but i noticed my gateway resolves to a name i have not heard of in many years "ar0-sky.r3lon.ov.easynet.net"

Do you have a BQM setup that you care to share?