Dest
Bolo
Premium
join:2000-03-21
Naperville, IL
clubs:
| reply to Dennis
Re: FWIW - IP Changes....
I had a slightly different problem than Dee back when I first had DSL and was on Interleave any time I try to upload a file larger than 5MB would result in a choked send. whatever method i used, IRC's DCC, FTP, ICQ sends etc. the upload session would be alive(until it time out) but nothing would be send. and the file CANNOT be resume. I did had some succes in IRC's DCC send by using a smaller packet size, but that slow down the upload speed =( of course Tier1 support was hopeless(excuse was if you can surf the web fine you have no problem) and Ticket to Tier2 disappear somewhere. I really havn't tried uploading large files nowaday(gave up trying to fix the problem) and i been switched over to fastpath since then. of course I can try again and see if the problem is still around |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world |  Well, I hope RESUME isn't affected.... anyway, anyone want to test me out? Anyone need anything? Message me! |
|
toucansam$
join:2001-04-11
Duvall, WA | I pulled my old post to the front. I resolved it by installing a 5861 router. Seemed to resolve the problem. Don't know if the modem was flakey or not. |
|
Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL | 5861's RULE!!!  |
|
toolkit
join:2001-01-16
Crystal Lake, IL
| reply to PyroVolley
Pryo,
Regarding fastpath vs interleave, I'm sure DSLKIA gave you the correct response. However, if your interested in speculation, here is my (not necessarily correct) guess at what is really going on.
When communicating data over a serial channel that might have bursts of noise, you loose bits. If you send the bits in order like this:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ...
and you get a burst of noise in the middle, it looks like this:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 XX XX XX XX 16 17 18 19 ...
Now, it's hard to correct a lot of errors in a row. If instead you rearrange the bits and transmit them out of order:
0 4 8 12 16 1 5 9 13 17 2 6 10 14 18 3 7 11 15 19 ...
then when you get a noise burst:
0 4 8 12 16 1 5 9 13 17 2 X XX XX XX 3 7 11 15 19 ...
and put the bits back in order, the bad bits are not grouped together:
0 1 2 3 4 5 X 7 8 9 XX 11 12 13 XX 15 16 17 XX 19 ...
Then it's easier to correct for errors.
This "mixing the bits up" is called interleaving. Now the example I showed interleaved by picking every fourth bit. Real communications systems use much larger interleaves. For example a 12x12 interleave. Meaning you take a chunk of 144 bits and choose every 12th one (0, 12, 24, ...132) then go back to the second bit and pick every 12th one (1, 13, 25, ...133), etc until you get the last group (11, 23, 35, ...143). Think of it like a square where you load the bits horizontally, but then read them out vertically:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143
So the transmission looks like:
0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72 84, 96, 108, 120, 132, 1, 13, ...
(and some use even larger interleaves).
This is much more robust because you can use Reed-Solomon or other types of error correction to fix the errors that are not all grouped together. The downside is that you "almost" have to wait until you have all 144 bits (in our example) transferred over the link before you can start the correction process and send the first bit out. I say "almost" because it's not 100% true - you can start just a little earlier. So there is some latency involved in interleaving.
Now, I DO NOT KNOW if this is what is meant by interleave vs fastpath. But I know in a lot of communication systems, this is exactly what is meant by interleaving. It improves reliability at the cost of some (small) delay.
Note that it doesn't really affect the bandwidth of the channel - just the latency. So you can still push the same number of bits through in the same time, it just takes them longer to travel through the "pipe". If you have to wait for an acknowledgement you will notice a slightly longer delay. This may be why ping times are a bit larger on DSL interleave, and it may be why the speed tests drop a little, but not much, on interleave (big packets take only a little longer to get through and be acknowledged). |
|
Jan Janowski
join:2000-06-18
Skokie, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
|  reply to aliasrlz
Dee, I just left your site. And to make sure I'm correct, I doublechecked a couple other sites, too.
I used WSftp Pro. I can get in via IE (That hands off to WSftp) but not directly via WSftp Pro. I started to download a 270Mb file twice, and let one go to 10 Mb (3%) before stopping... Reason: I could at best get 82Kps download. After trying repeatedly, I then turned on all the diags I could via the 4060. No drops, no errors, one invalid packet, but overall, no problems..... Except Speed.
Note here that I hear Ryan was on simultaneously.. probably accounts for the speed, maybe.. Ryan, did the speed increase after I bailed out at approx 5:35PM?
Just to make sure I was not screwy, I then went to Grass Valley Group in Grass Valley Calif., and downloaded 25Mb files. Speed average there was 540Kps.
Just to be sure, I then went to an ftp site locally,and uploaded the video I mentioned, and averaged 147Kps upload, and then downloaded it again.... 650Kps download.
Don't know what to say... I did see some timeouts that seemed to be occurring at your end, but that was only when I was changing directories, or requesting directory lists, which were much slower to display than the local ftp or Grass Valley ftp side... Ryan, what did you see?
Jan |
|
Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
Host:
Chicago
Users Find Hot Deals
Users find Hot Dea..
Requests for Hot D..
Home Repair & Impr..
| Don't forget your download is her upload.....
BTW, Kudo's on the interleaving explaination......its not exactly how it goes but the theory is there and that is by far the most lucid description I have *ever* heard about it
--
Never mistake lack of talent for genius. |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
|  reply to Jan Janowski
Thanks Jan,
As dslknowitall said, your download is my upload, which is 16kB/s. What speed you expect to get? You know we are actual 640/128, LOL, hehehe  And since you and RyanG were on at sametime, that is about 8kB/s each. He was on longer, and probably went back to 16kB/s when you got off..... I noticed no time outs or delays at all. When the downloads terminated, it stated it was because "client closed connection" (your end), so it wasn't that I lost sync, and connection was automatically aborted.
Later, I did change IPs....but still in testing phase with interleave, so I will say they are unrelated. Thanks for testing! Resumes seem to be fine |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| reply to Dennis
dslknowitall,
Thanks again Hope I said it enough? )
Doing some testing tonight; Some lucky person will be the recipient of a large file , LOL |
|
ryang
Premium
join:2001-04-01
Chicago, IL
| reply to Jan Janowski
I was getting an avg. of 10-12k a sec, and at last check when it stopped (85% of 100 MB) it was at 15k. I wasn't aware that you were on. Maybe it was because of that that she lost the IP.
--
Help us ! |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| I have had that IP since 11:00am this morning, so not sure why connection was lost, but I don't expect dynamic IP to necessarily last 24 hrs (not anymore). FTP is down now, but had cuteftppro been setup for "Keep Alive" , and retries at about 5 minutes apart, it would have "resumed" when the linky grabbed another IP mere minutes later..(FYI).
thanks gentlemen. |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
|  Interleave no better, been trying to send ONE file all day , nothing but disconnects. The only time I was able to hold an IP longer than 20 minutes, was when I **STOPPED** uploading. FYI, the day is not over yet:
8/4/2001 1:21:49 AM 64.108.165.12 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 3:57:29 AM 64.108.164.79 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 1:13:30 PM 64.108.166.148 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 4:44:16 PM 64.108.167.149 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 5:00:21 PM 64.108.166.134 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 8:21:03 PM 64.108.167.106 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 8:41:04 PM 64.108.166.244 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 8:56:04 PM 64.108.165.146 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 9:46:36 PM 64.108.165.3 Successfully updated
8/4/2001 10:36:43 PM 64.108.164.xx Successfully updated
and going and going and going....
[text was edited by author 2001-08-04 23:41:07] |
|
Jan Janowski
join:2000-06-18
Skokie, IL |  reply to aliasrlz
Dee I just today upgraded to WSftp Pro V7, and immediately noticed speeds that matched what the rest of you posted. I guess before it was counting in gooney units.
Sorry for any confusion..... Jan |
|
Dest
Bolo
Premium
join:2000-03-21
Naperville, IL
clubs:
| reply to aliasrlz
ever try limiting your upload speed thus not stressing your line as much? it's a long shot but it may work.
for me I can't download at full speed(82KB/sec) if I allow my upload to go above 6KB/sec, above 6KB/sec my download drop to about 30KB/sec and at 15+KB/sec upload i have 15KB/sec download. |
|
AS400Dave
join:2001-03-07
South Bend, IN
| reply to aliasrlz
I haven't had a problem since I've locked IIS down to 128Kb. It's not full rate, but it's just a web server. The server is riding out the traffic, plus all the CodeRedII traffic quite nicely now...
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather a man of value. --Albert Einstein |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world | reply to Dest
I never try to do both at the same time as I noticed a long time ago that uploading kills download speed.
I'm ONLY uploading. Do you want me to try limiting my server client to 15kB? (120kbps). Is that what you are asking? |
|
AS400Dave
join:2001-03-07
South Bend, IN | reply to aliasrlz
Can you do it? It may be worth the trial....
My FTP server doesn't seem to have a bandwidth limiter.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather a man of value. --Albert Einstein |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Hi Dave,
Yes...my server software will let me limit speed. I've tried everything else, so why not?
'lil ole 16kB/sec doesn't work'....LOL!
(sigh, for my old SDSL, actual 720/720, sigh).... |
|
AS400Dave
join:2001-03-07
South Bend, IN
| reply to aliasrlz
I hear you -- I'd like a larger backchannel, too now! If only we could just have a 1mb circut that we could provision any way we wanted to -- I'd have it split 50/50...
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather a man of value. --Albert Einstein |
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Dest & Dave,
Just tried it, locked server into 15kB/s MAX, had someone login to try and get file, and BAM, 15 minutes into send, lost connection (as always). FYI, I had this IP all day, since 2:00am, nearing 24 hrs, and in the FEW minutes I try to send a large file, lost connection....
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the Ameritech Protocols on the UPLOAD (send) side for large files.....
Dee |
|
