Sparticus Posted December 29, 2006 CID Share Posted December 29, 2006 Are there any free bandwidth limiter programs? I need one because when I'm uploading a large file at full speed it kills my pings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 29, 2006 CID Share Posted December 29, 2006 did you do what i said with uploading and checking your pings for xbox? http://www.softperfect.com/products/bandwidth/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted December 29, 2006 Author CID Share Posted December 29, 2006 Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsSparticus>ping google.com Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1257ms TTL=246 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1187ms TTL=246 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1195ms TTL=246 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1184ms TTL=246 Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1184ms, Maximum = 1257ms, Average = 1205ms C:Documents and SettingsSparticus>[/code] Upping at full blast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Fan Posted December 29, 2006 CID Share Posted December 29, 2006 Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsSparticus>ping google.com Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1257ms TTL=246 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1187ms TTL=246 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1195ms TTL=246 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1184ms TTL=246 Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1184ms, Maximum = 1257ms, Average = 1205ms C:Documents and SettingsSparticus> Upping at full blast That's not bad........... for satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted December 29, 2006 Author CID Share Posted December 29, 2006 That's not bad........... for satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 you need help using it? i can cut a little speed off and make the pings way better. see the difference with mine HERE IS MINE UPLOADING AT FULL SPEED (ABOUT 3.8MB TO 4.3 MB) TESTMY.NET TO ME PING 69.112.87.xxx (69.112.87.xxx) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=0 ttl=48 time=48.2 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=59.1 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=54.0 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=53.9 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=49.9 ms --- 69.112.87.xxx ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4041ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 48.225/53.062/59.133/3.784 ms, pipe 2 ME TO TESTMY.NET C:Documents and SettingsEebobb>ping testmy.net -n 20 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 130ms, Average = 70ms HERE IS MINE WITH MY UPLOAD CAPPED AT 2.5 MB C:Documents and SettingsEebobb>ping testmy.net -n 20 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 44ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 49ms FROM TESTMY.NET TO ME CAPPED AT 2.5 MB PING 69.112.87.xxx (69.112.87.xxx) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=0 ttl=48 time=48.9 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=52.5 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=48.7 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=49.6 ms 64 bytes from 69.112.87.xxx: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=49.7 ms --- 69.112.87.xxx ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4042ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 48.794/49.952/52.567/1.385 ms, pipe 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 That is normal.. I have seen that on my network also... I think it is because cable is a technology that allows you to either upload or download. Meaning that you can not do both at once. When I see this my room mate is using skype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 i think its TCP/IP in general that cant do it at full speed at once because to upload you need to download by sending acknowledgment packets and to download you have to send acknowledgment packets which means you cant max out upload and download at the same time. i think has been talked about on here before but also i think he want a better host on games and high ping are not good so by cutting 10 to 15% of speed off the pings will drop resulting in a better host Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 Yeah something like that.. Modems are half duplex meaning that communication can only go one direction at a time. However, LAN can be full duplex allowing the ACK/NAK packets to be sent at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 maybe on LAN but i have even seen this problem with fios and other FIBER ISP's so it must be TCP/IP and the only way i can see you hit the cap both ways is if your isp offers 30/5 and provisions the line at 32/6 or something to compensate for the loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 im having a problem when.. if i am hosting a cs:s server and there is enough bandwidth for like 30 kb/s up and down constant.. for some reason, i loose connectivity with my router.. noone drops out, but i cannot connect to router or load webpages.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 sounds like the router is busy or overloaded but have you tried it with out the router? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 maybe on LAN but i have even seen this problem with fios and other FIBER ISP's so it must be TCP/IP and the only way i can see you hit the cap both ways is if your isp offers 30/5 and provisions the line at 32/6 or something to compensate for the loss. Right everything is half duplex after the traffic gets on to the modem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 sounds like the router is busy or overloaded but have you tried it with out the router? no.. i know its the router.. but i should not be having this problem because it was only holding about 8 people.. i cant do a tracert, ping or anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 what kinda router is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 Nothing going ping testmy.net -n 10 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 56ms, Average = 48ms Max upload... ping testmy.net -n 10 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=317ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 262ms, Maximum = 324ms, Average = 286ms Half upload... ping testmy.net -n 10 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 47ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 50ms Yours gets pretty bad.. I wonder if it has anything to do with your router (Sparticus) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 what kinda router is it? WRT54GS V5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 i have the WRT-54G with Firmware: DD-WRT v23 (12/25/05) what firmware you using? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VyraX Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 Yo BLUNTED sent you a PM ... Regards, .. -SirHOAXaLiTTLE.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 lol ^^^ the one who gave me the router and i got your PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 i have the WRT-54G with Firmware: DD-WRT v23 (12/25/05) what firmware you using? yes right now i'm trying to change back to linksys firmware.. i found something.. flashed it to where it is in management mode.. and now it wont take the linksys firmware like the thing said.. HELP lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted December 30, 2006 Author CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 So, were my pings bad? I know they were awful, but I mean were they bad for uploading at full speed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 yea they were pretty high and if you look at mine they didnt move much. php also showed his Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted December 30, 2006 CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 C:Documents and SettingsTim>ping testmy.net -n 20 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=257ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=257ms TTL=52 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=52 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 236ms, Maximum = 283ms, Average = 263ms mine uploading full speed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted December 30, 2006 Author CID Share Posted December 30, 2006 Hmm, what do you think would be causing the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.