Which war round is downstream and upstream (internet) [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Which war round is downstream and upstream (internet)

Muzer
25 Sep 2006, 17:42
I know one's requests for pages being sent out and the other's pages being sent to you, but which way round are they?

SupSuper
25 Sep 2006, 17:57
*war = way
downstream = to your computer
upstream = from your computer
Like this:
__|_/\
__V_|
computer

Muzer
25 Sep 2006, 17:59
Well, now I can blame tiscali's so called "1mb/sec" connection for making my internet slow. I checked @ 192.168.1.1 , the results were:
Downstream: 96(!)kb/sec
Upstream: 288kb/sec

MrBunsy
25 Sep 2006, 19:18
@192.168.1.1? That's an internal address. Results still seem realistic though
And yep, upstream is usually much much slower than downstream, but only 288kb/s down for a megabit connection is pretty crap. You must be quite a way from the exchange.

Muzer
25 Sep 2006, 20:03
But 228kb/sec is upstream, and 96kb/sec is downstream!
BTW, I am on a router, so I typed that address to get the connection information. That's where you got confused.

MrBunsy
25 Sep 2006, 22:28
You sure? an upstream faster than downstream? they both in kilobits per second?

Star Worms
26 Sep 2006, 02:30
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47197017.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Are you sure yours is right? Try the test above.

thomasp
26 Sep 2006, 08:09
Did you say Tiscali? Speaking to a few friends, they do seem to throttle people who use a lot of bandwidth. But throttling to that extent is a bit stupid. That's almost dialup!!
Would it be evil to post my speed test result here? Yes, definitely!!:D
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47234955.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

*Splinter*
26 Sep 2006, 12:34
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47250522.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
o_O i must have been upgraded...

bonz
26 Sep 2006, 15:27
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47270261.png
What the hell do you have to pay for your connection, thomasp? :eek:

thomasp
26 Sep 2006, 17:28
What the hell do you have to pay for your connection, thomasp? :eek:
Uni halls connection :D

Muzer
26 Sep 2006, 17:42
Copied form my router
Wireless Network Enabled
ADSL Port Enabled
Downstream Line Rate 96 Kbps
Upstream Line Rate 288 Kbps
LAN IP Address 192.168.1.1
Default Gateway ***.***.***.***
Primary DNS Server ***.***.***.***
Secondary DNS Server ***.***.***.***
Firmware Version 2.14.02.06_a023g1
System Up Time 16:07:32:52
I'll do the test now.
EDIT:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47296752.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
See? Upload faster than download :eek:

Liketyspli
26 Sep 2006, 17:44
Mine isnt bad... i guess:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47296435.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

MrBunsy
26 Sep 2006, 17:44
That's completely bizzare! Unless the router takes downstream and upstream the wrong way round or something.

Muzer
26 Sep 2006, 17:52
look at the image...

Alien King
26 Sep 2006, 18:22
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47304256.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Would it be evil to post my speed test result here? Yes, definitely!!:D
Curse You!

robowurmz
26 Sep 2006, 18:23
Well, now I can blame tiscali's so called "1mb/sec" connection for making my internet slow. I checked @ 192.168.1.1 , the results were:
Downstream: 96(!)kb/sec
Upstream: 288kb/sec
That's wierd. I have Tiscali 1mb/sec and I get 1152kb/sec downstream.
Check that you are not using a phone extension.

robowurmz
26 Sep 2006, 18:25
Here's mine:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47304945.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Muzer
26 Sep 2006, 18:29
Phone extention? I don't think so. It's my dad that does all the wires, me that does all the set-up :p.

thomasp
26 Sep 2006, 19:43
A phone extension wouldn't cause a sudden loss in speed, unless it has only suddenly been done.
I suggest you phone Tiscali up and see if they've restricted your bandwidth for some random reason. They have a habit of doing that.

Xinos
26 Sep 2006, 23:00
Here are my results with Moscow..
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47362976.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
My internet connection is 24mbit down and 2mbit up..

E-102 Worm
26 Sep 2006, 23:55
Here be mine:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47373160.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

wormthingy
27 Sep 2006, 06:18
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47429195.png
could be better, but still...
hell yeah
EDIT:
i got this from atlanta.... mmm...
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47429756.png
maybe i can crack this up to thomasp's level :p
EDIT2:
ok... everyone, try Hurth (germany) theyre fast
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47430232.png
i'll shut up now:p

UnKnown X
27 Sep 2006, 06:48
Here are my results with Moscow..
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47362976.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
My internet connection is 24mbit down and 2mbit up..
Your downstream connection can't be 24Mbit if you're getting 6.5 on that test.
Edit: Distance matters greatly. I tested with Netherlands (which is, apparently, the server closest to me) and New Zealand (furthest away):
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47432061.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47432147.png

robowurmz
27 Sep 2006, 07:30
I remember that when we used an extension wire so we could have our computer upstairs, the connection went right down to 60Kb. When we bought a new extension calbe, one which could transmit at 100mb a second, the connection stayed at around 1152kb near the modem and 950kb worldwide. The cable had gold connectors. I suggest getting one of these.

SupSuper
27 Sep 2006, 12:04
http://www.speedtest.net/result/39199906.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

franpa
27 Sep 2006, 14:05
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47460229.png
lawl tho's tests are crap... everywhere i go i get a rock solid 25.6 KB/s download (256 kb/s) and 6.4 KB/s upload (64kb/s)... but thos tests were poor.
yes i tried a few other aussie servers.

Star Worms
27 Sep 2006, 15:27
Your downstream connection can't be 24Mbit if you're getting 6.5 on that test.I could be one of those "up to" 24Mbit. Mine's up to 2Mbit but it appears I can get that.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47460229.png
lawl tho's tests are crap... everywhere i go i get a rock solid 25.6 KB/s download (256 kb/s) and 6.4 KB/s upload (64kb/s)... but thos tests were poor.
yes i tried a few other aussie servers.When downloading a file it is measured in kilobytes. The ones on the images have kilobits as the default.
1 bit = 8 bytes
210/8 = 26.25KB/sec
Looks about right to me.

Liketyspli
27 Sep 2006, 15:45
Isnt it true that Australia lays far behind if it comes to internet connection?!

wormthingy
27 Sep 2006, 15:50
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47460229.png
lawl tho's tests are crap... everywhere i go i get a rock solid 25.6 KB/s download (256 kb/s) and 6.4 KB/s upload (64kb/s)... but thos tests were poor.
yes i tried a few other aussie servers.
big difference Kb/s and KB/s .... kilobits and kilobytes
speed in kilobytes
586.1 kB/s 81.1 kB/s
same test, but now in kilobits
4689 kb/s 649 kb/s
pretty big difference
x bit = x/8 byte
8 bit = 1 byte
8 kilobit = 1 kilobyte
8000 kilobit = 1000 kilobyte = 1 megabyte
so.. if you got
25.6 KB/s download and 6.4 KB/s upload
its 204.8 kb/s download and 51.2kb/s upload
so your test results are true. though the upload should be 0.05 Mb/s

Star Worms
27 Sep 2006, 16:14
Strictly speaking 1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte.

SupSuper
28 Sep 2006, 12:56
Edit: Distance matters greatly. I tested with Netherlands (which is, apparently, the server closest to me) and New Zealand (furthest away):I don't think that's true. I get much better results from US servers than UK servers.

E-102 Worm
28 Sep 2006, 13:11
I did it again, and I've got improvements. :)
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47658113.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Vader
28 Sep 2006, 13:19
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47658872.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Xinos
28 Sep 2006, 15:17
big difference Kb/s and KB/s .... kilobits and kilobytes
Aha! So that's why the numbers where so high. I didn't know that.
Mb and MB is megabit and megabyte then?

Vader
28 Sep 2006, 15:19
Yes. There are 8b in 1B.

Plutonic
28 Sep 2006, 15:19
nothing great, london produced best results, i SO miss uni connection :(
Have to keep in mind that I'm running WCC off this connection too though.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/47674216.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

franpa
28 Sep 2006, 16:08
i know the diff between KB and kb etc. just i never worked the math out... thanks for pointing out that it was correct.

AndrewTaylor
28 Sep 2006, 16:24
i know the diff between KB and kb
Just for reference, "KB" is wrong. A kilobyte is 1kB.

Vader
28 Sep 2006, 16:35
I don't think it makes a difference, does it?
I mean, 1KB and 1kB mean exactly the same thing. You never see megabytes written as mB, do you? It's always MB, isn't it?
I'm confused by all this capitalisation rubbish.

Alien King
28 Sep 2006, 16:37
I'm confused by all this capitalisation rubbish.
It's safe to ignore it.

thomasp
28 Sep 2006, 16:55
I mean, 1KB and 1kB mean exactly the same thing. You never see megabytes written as mB, do you? .
Nope, because then that'd be a millibyte - which is kind of impossible.

Vader
28 Sep 2006, 17:00
How did you come to that conclusion?
kB = kilobytes
KB = kilobytes
mB = millibytes
MB = megabytes
That makes no sense. The k always stands for kilo; the m always stands for mega. That makes more sense.

Plasma
28 Sep 2006, 17:51
That makes no sense. The k always stands for kilo; the m always stands for mega. That makes more sense.
I'd REALLY hate to see you attempt to try my technical graphics class, as all measurements are always in mm.

MrBunsy
28 Sep 2006, 18:01
I've just been doing SI units in physics, capitilisation is very important, you wouldn't want to get a mm and a Mm muddled up, or a ms and 1 ms^-1 for that matter...
There's nearly 1 000 000 000 mm in a Mm. I think.

Vader
28 Sep 2006, 19:04
I'd REALLY hate to see you attempt to try my technical graphics class, as all measurements are always in mm.
We're talking about filesizes, here, not lengths.
As a graphic designer I too work in mm. That has nothing to do with the format for filesizes.
You're starting to bore me, Plasma.

Alien King
28 Sep 2006, 19:37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
k = Kilo
M = Mega
m = Mili
c = Centi
G = Giga
T = Tera
Basically, the only odd one out is k (kilo).
Hower as there is no K, the difference between KB and kB is quite specific. In fact, I would say Non-Existant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix - Kilo = k/K = 2^10

Star Worms
10 Oct 2006, 12:11
http://www.speedtest.net/result/50029697.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
It's *supposed* to be 10Mbit:-/

Geckogirl
10 Oct 2006, 19:04
http://www.speedtest.net/result/50101812.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Check me out! This is the downloading speed from [where i live (Belgium) => Yokohoma (Japan)]

Cisken1
10 Oct 2006, 19:51
OMG you Belgian? So am I!

Xinos
11 Oct 2006, 19:52
How did you come to that conclusion?
kB = kilobytes
KB = kilobytes
mB = millibytes
MB = megabytes
That makes no sense. The k always stands for kilo; the m always stands for mega. That makes more sense.
Gaaah! Your changing the wrong letters! It's not k and m that change, only b!

bonz
12 Oct 2006, 01:13
These would be the correct prefixes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#IEC_standard_prefixes

WormOfFire
12 Oct 2006, 15:30
http://www.speedtest.net/result/50528672.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Dun dun dun dun....
*evil laugh*

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.