The Screen Shot Says It All

[Switeck]

Originally posted by stupendo44@10 December 2003 - 20:12
When I had dial-up, I typically got a maximum of 6 KB/s, and sometimes it would go up to 6.5 KB/s.

My post wasn't to describe how the advertised speeds are not actual, it was to describe the difference between bits and bytes. So my post isn't misleading at all, although I admit the last part could be taken that way. Typical fast dsl speed is advertised at 1.5 Megabits per second. I'm not saying that people will be able to download at that speed, just that it's not the same as 1.5 MegaBytes per second.

Stephen

Right, and I am adding to that information to show even IF the numbers are correct... you cannot expect 100% yield.

With dial-up having compression enabled by default, many things you download are compressed and the transfer speed is the plus-compression speed rather than how fast each compressed block is entering/leaving your computer. It actually makes for a neat way to spot fake files on KL++ because fakes usually get >10 KB/sec download speeds due to being highly compressable empty files...

[katchan13]

Ah reminds me of my first broadband provider (austarnet - australia), b4 they canned it, a couple of times i had 6meg a sec downloads going, was unlimited download K's and max theoretical of 18Mb/sec most i ever heard was 10Mb/sec, but it had a huge downside, only had 56k dialup upload (it was tranmission based cable download), i could get huge download speeds off yahoo (warez) etc and occasionally p2p etc with 2-4 downloads concurrent but any more than that the upload couldnt communicate fast enough and strangled the download

katchan

[NotoriousBIC]

Oh dear is this a contest or something?



:-"

BTW there was / is(?) a way to fake even higher scores with Bittorrent.
Just download a torrent completely, then start the exact same torrent in another window and d/l it to another location. In effect you'll start downloading from yourself. It can go up into the 4000 kB/s range.

This picture however is from an actual 'normal' download. It's from Wolfestein: Enemy Territory which ID Software released using bittorrent (the first 'commercial' use of the protocol) and they obviously used some hefty servers for that.

Edit: And a screenshot from mIRC to complement the BT one

[The Reverand]

[quote]Originally posted by Switeck@10 December 2003 - 18:29

If your ISP says you have a 512k connection (be it ADSL or cable), and 512 kilobits/sec is the fastest TOTAL download bandwidth it can sustain then without compression (which is seldom used with broadband connections) it will not be able to download even at 60 KB/sec sustained because tcp/ip packet overheads will reduce EFFECTIVE download speeds below 60 KB/sec.

I'm on a 512k package and on Bit Torrent my downloads are sustanied at around 65KB/sec ... you have to account for other factors as well on an ADSL line, such as line quality, noise and distance from the exchange. My lines are all new, so they're top quality, and my exchange in 200 yeards away. Thus I can easily sustain over 60KB/sec on 512.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by The Reverand+18 December 2003 - 22:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Reverand &#064; 18 December 2003 - 22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Switeck@10 December 2003 - 18:29
If your ISP says you have a 512k connection (be it ADSL or cable), and 512 kilobits/sec is the fastest TOTAL download bandwidth it can sustain then without compression (which is seldom used with broadband connections) it will not be able to download even at 60 KB/sec sustained because tcp/ip packet overheads will reduce EFFECTIVE download speeds below 60 KB/sec.

I&#39;m on a 512k package and on Bit Torrent my downloads are sustanied at around 65KB/sec ... you have to account for other factors as well on an ADSL line, such as line quality, noise and distance from the exchange. My lines are all new, so they&#39;re top quality, and my exchange in 200 yeards away. Thus I can easily sustain over 60KB/sec on 512.[/b][/quote]
Then you don&#39;t really have a 512k line, but rather something at least a litle faster.

65 KB/sec = (65 KB/sec * 8 bits/byte) = 520 kilobits/sec which is GREATER than 512 kilobits/sec that your line is supposedly rated for.
(Note: I did NOT try to figure the tcp overheads into my calculation, which might well push that value higher.)

However, your ISP may be reporting sustained rather than max speeds -- 512k may only apply during the heaviest-load hours.

[The Reverand]

Hmmm, good point, it should be impossible to get 65KB on a 512 connection... maybe it&#39;s just a little faster like you said.

[internet.news]

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@7 December 2003 - 06:37
holy shit&#33; wat connection do u have?

18 minutes for a film. Wow.