I've just been looking at some of the providers who do 2MB connection, sadly
though only offer 256kbps upload :-(

Does anyone know when we will start to see ISP's offering better upload
speeds? I have to upload about 14GB of files in the next 3 weeks. Not really
looking forward to it :-/

At the moment, the only alternative is SDSL, which gives you up to a 2 MB up
and down connection. It's rather expensive though, in the region of about
340 quid per month I believe.

"mike" <mikeasdsafedrf4@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
this is a limitation of the way ADSL uses the availble bandwidth, so it
is not possible to offer a higher uplink speed on a single line through BT.
However, have you considered multiple ADSL lines and bonding the uplink ?
This is possible using something such as the firebrick
(http://www.firebrick.co.uk). Setting things up is quite complicated
though, and currently the only ISP I am aware of that supplies this service
is A&A (www.aaisp.net.uk). Alternatively, if you are uploading lots of
small files rather than one large file, load balancing accross two links
would work (this shares the traffic on a per session basis rather than a per
packet basis).
The downside is that you will have to have multiple telephone lnes that are
all ADSL enabled to do something like this, but it's still way cheaper than
SDSL.

--

Martin

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:11:24 +0100, "mike"
<mikeasdsafedrf4@hotmail.com> wrote:

are you in an area where Easynet or Bulldog have unbundled services ?
The latter do 400k upload from memory.

Phil

"Martin Cooper" <usenet@martinc.me.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:gemini.3f631d740178d8b7%usenet@martinc.me.uk. ..

Hi
What puzzles me about what you are saying is that in Denmark (where I just
moved to uk from) you can hardly get any less ul bandwidth than 512kbit with
ADSL.
And yes, this is on a single line too.
So it really can't be a limitation of the way ADSL uses the available
bandwidth...
Of course, it could be that uk dsl uses microfilters and dk dsl uses
splitters (i.e. a fairly big device put in front of the first telephone plug
which then seperates dsl and phone)...I don't know, but 512kbit is well
possible with ADSL..unless of course the quality of phone lines in UK is
worse than in DK.
Regardless, 512kbit _IS_ possible with ADSL, I had it myself for a long time
and I've had no problems getting 60kb/sec upload speed.
Regards,
Jens Andersen

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:34:38 +0100, "Jens Andersen"
<rayman84@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

and the downstream speed ?

Phil

"Jens Andersen" <rayman84@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:



Hi,
I think you mis-understood my post. I did not say that ADSL could not
support higher upstream bandwidth. I said :

"it is not possible to offer a higher uplink speed on a single line through
BT"

The problem is BT's implementation of ADSL. They have reserved a 256k
channel for the uplink on all of their products, so will not provide a
higher uplink speed. As most (but not all) ISP's use the BT network for
their ADSL link, most providers cannot offer a higher uplink speed directly.

If you have a provider in your area that has equipment in the exchange (LLU
such as bulldog) they may be able to provide ADSL with a different
upstream/downstream split, but I have not heard of anyone in this country
providing that service. I suspect the main reason is that the only
advantage to SDSL is the semetric bandwidth, and if they provided a higher
upstream bandwidth, then they would not get any custom for the overprised
SDSL products.

--

Martin

"Phil Thompson" <cynical_observer@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:28m6mv4lsgbq79ne24tjt93166ethogkni@4ax.com...
60k/sec upload.
(of course not at the same time...not really possible with TCP)
With 512/512 I had a max of 53kb/sec both up and down at the same time, but
this was mainly due to my QoS setup.

-Jens

mike <mikeasdsafedrf4@hotmail.com> wrote:
Get some decent software.
14Gb/256kbit = 5 days.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
To do is to be
To be is to do
Do be do be do do

Jens Andersen wrote:


Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, but surely there's nothing in TCP,
which is just a way of using IP for reliable, connection-oriented data
exchange, that says it can't be run full-duplex.

And as far as IP is concerned, it just defines the structuring and
routing of data across a network using packets - I'm not aware that IP
precludes duplex operation, either.

--
Jack.

Jack <jack@jackpot.uk.net> wrote:
With very assymetric links, it almost can.
For example, at the moment I'm downloading a large binary file, and the
tcp incoming packets total about 7893 bytes/second (IDSN) with the outgoing
acks/... taking around 364 bytes/second, or around 20:1.
Assuming 2048kbit/512kbit is accurate.

A 2mbit download will use up (assuming things stay the same) around 100kbit/s
of the upload link for the acks alone.
So, full duplex, you get around 2028/412.

With more assymetric links, it gets worse.
If you start losing packets, it gets much worse.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers,
which were to be put in vials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air
in raw inclement summers. -- Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels" (1726)

Ian Stirling wrote:
....preclude duplex, I take it you you mean.

I don't know what your nominal bandwidth is, but I take it you are
implying 2048/512.
So you are saying the ACKs required by TCP use up an increasing
proportion of your upload bandwidth, as the upload bandwidth decreases
as a proportion of the download bandwidth. Check.

So at full-tilt download usage, you still have 412 out of 512 kbits of
upload bandwidth left (all other things being equal - packet loss is
obviously going to change things). I'd say that's close enough to
duplex, within the limitations of asymmetry. And anyway, the ACKs are
part of the upload data; so viewed at a raw data level, you should get
close to the nominal bandwidth in both directions simultaneously.

I take your point though, which I missed earlier - TCP uses the upload
channel as well as the download channel, on a download (and vice-versa
on an upload).

--
Jack.

jack <jack@jackpot-dial.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Yes.

Practically, unless you write your own protocols and do a private pipe to
a server somewhere, acks are just overhead. Needed overhead, but still
overhead.

If you'r doing stuff like peer-peer, with lots of people trying to send
you stuff, and your inbound pipe queues overflowing, the outbound amount
can go up drastically.
If your P2P application is also trying to upload at the same time, things
tend to go bang and stall for a few seconds, and web-browsing gets horribly
lumpy.

At 4:1, it's a minor annoyance.
At 10:1, you may often find yourself needing to work around it, and at
anything higher, it gets messy.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers,
which were to be put in vials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air
in raw inclement summers. -- Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels" (1726)

Get bulldog.

Their LLU exchanges allow users to upload at 400 Kb/s. A alight increase,
but if you do need the speed, go SDSL. Then, save up for xmas 2005....

Popolou


"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bk1tbb$4d0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

Get bulldog.

Their LLU exchanges allow users to upload at 400 Kb/s. A alight increase,
but if you do need the speed, go SDSL. Then, save up for xmas 2005....

Popolou


"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bk1tbb$4d0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...