Jump to content

Frontier Communications: EXPERTS UNITE! >:(


Recommended Posts

(att: @CA3LE

 

Ok guys. let me run by something with you. I am far from new to networking, as most of you OG folks know. Here's the problem im running. into. Frontier Communications is my ISP. (fuck frontier btw)

 

- I have a fully symmetric 1Gbit plan & I'm thinking, almost guaranteeing that Frontier is throttling P2P programs. The reason i say this, is because my content server is currently running 3 main p2p programs. Running Windows Server 2019 Datacenter Edition. It's literally its only job. Core i5, 8Gb ram, SSD main, 12Tb WD ultrastar Helo Server edition content drive. 

 

It's running top 10 most popular torrents in the nation at the moment (via qbittorent client) , Apex dc++ , & SoulSeekqt. The server currently has 5TB of media being shared (and climbing) over the 3 p2p programs, 24/7, 0 bandwidth throttle on any program. The amount of connections, the amount of uploads going simultaneously etc is all irrelevant. The content being shared is a variety of things from music, anime games movies etc. It's all items people want, & the uploads never stop. It's a constant barrage of uploads, so it's not like people aren't interested.  

 

Issue being, is not matter what i do... the upload speeds will never exceed 250Mibit I've tried limiting the connections number thinking the router may be overloaded, no help. I've tried opening up the floodgates with thousands of connections, no change really. now again, this is only on p2p, all running simultaneously, or separately, no change. I literally can take speed tests ann max the connection upload and download. i can upload or download from my google drive and max the connection, upload and download. P2p on the other hand, i can max the download, but never the upload.

 

Granted, i've also tried multiple PC's running the same p2p programs @ the same time as the server, and they will fight each other for bandwidth. i've also plugged directly into the ONT, and took the router out of the equation altogether, same results.  

 

So... what do you guys think?  Is there something im missing? Is it just being ISP throttled? Any ideas? 

 

Feel free to ask any questions i may have not covered. Any help would be vastly appreciated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the hard disk is the bottleneck.  Most BitTorrent clients fetch random parts of a file from seeders and peers, whereas FTP and HTTP clients generally fetch files sequentially from start to finish.  This means that with just a handful of BitTorrent peers, the hard disk will be constantly seeking for the random pieces the peer clients request. 

 

31MBs (250Mbps) seems very good for a high end hard disk.  Most consumer hard disks will struggle to even deliver 10MB/s randomly seeking non-stop, e.g. try copying a 5GB file from a hard disk while running a virus scan on it at the same time.  I'm not sure about DC++ or SoulSeekqt, but even if they run deliver files sequentially, the hard disk will still be busy seeking all over the place for the BitTorrent clients. 

 

I suggest try moving those 10 most popular torrents to the main SSD (or to a separate SSD), then see how this affects the overall upload speed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

I suspect the hard disk is the bottleneck.  Most BitTorrent clients fetch random parts of a file from seeders and peers, whereas FTP and HTTP clients generally fetch files sequentially from start to finish.  This means that with just a handful of BitTorrent peers, the hard disk will be constantly seeking for the random pieces the peer clients request. 

 

31MBs (250Mbps) seems very good for a high end hard disk.  Most consumer hard disks will struggle to even deliver 10MB/s randomly seeking non-stop, e.g. try copying a 5GB file from a hard disk while running a virus scan on it at the same time.  I'm not sure about DC++ or SoulSeekqt, but even if they run deliver files sequentially, the hard disk will still be busy seeking all over the place for the BitTorrent clients. 

 

I suggest try moving those 10 most popular torrents to the main SSD (or to a separate SSD), then see how this affects the overall upload speed. 

 

 

Thanks for the reply! I would also agree other than the fact the hard drive isn't overloaded as far as i can tell.also, when downloading on torrent i can (almost) max my 1gbit connection... so if the wright will handle it, id assume the read can do the same I'll post specs to the drive, maybe you see something i dont. Im no expert with hardware by any means, but i feel it should handle it? Also, the torrents = 742gb.. my SSD is not that large lol. :(

 

Tech Specs
Specifications are provided by the manufacturer.
Header
Manufacturer :Hitachi Hard Drives
Brand :WD
Product Line :WD Ultrastar DC HC520
Model :HUH721212ALE604
Packaged Quantity :1
Storage
Type :Hard drive
Hard Drive
Hard Drive Type :Internal hard drive
Form Factor :3.5"
Form Factor (metric) :8.9 cm
Form Factor (Short) :3.5"
Form Factor (Short) (metric) :8.9 cm
Storage Interface :Serial ATA-600
Interface :Serial ATA-600
Capacity :12 TB
Average Seek Time :8 millisecond
Max Seek Time :8.6 millisecond
Average Latency :4.16 millisecond
[b]Data Transfer Rate :600 MBps
Internal Data Rate :255 MBps
Spindle Speed :7200 revolutions per minute
Buffer Size :256 megabyte, 256 megabyte
Bytes per Sector :512[/b]
Non-Recoverable Errors :1 per 10^15
Load / Unload Cycles :600,000
24x7 Operation :Yes
Features :Dual Stage Actuator (DSA), Advanced format 512e, Secure Erase function, Enhanced Rotational Vibration Safeguard (RVS), HelioSeal, Dynamic fly height technology, 24x7 continuous operation
Interface Provided
Interfaces :1 x SATA 6 Gb/s
Bay Required
Compatible Bay :3.5"
Power Consumption
Power Consumption :5 Watt (idle), 6.9 Watt (active)
Miscellaneous
MTBF :2,500,000 Hours
Compliant Standards :RoHS 2011/65/EU
Dimensions & Weight
Width :4 inch
Depth :5.8 inch
Height :1 inch
Weight :23.28 ounce
Service & Support
Type :5-year warranty
Service & Support Details
Service & Support :Limited warranty - 5 years
Shock & Vibration Tolerance
Shock Acceleration (Operating) :70 gram
Shock Duration (Operating) :2 ms half-sine wave
Shock Acceleration (Non-operating) :300 gram
Shock Duration (Non-operating) :2 ms half-sine wave
Vibration Acceleration (Operating) :0.67 gram
Vibration Frequency Range (Operating) :5-500 Hz
Vibration Acceleration (Non-operating) :1.04 gram
Vibration Frequency Range (Non-operating) :2-200 Hz
Environmental Parameters
Min Operating Temperature :41 degree Fahrenheit
Max Operating Temperature :140 degree Fahrenheit
Min Storage Temperature :-40 degree Fahrenheit
Max Storage Temperature :158 degree Fahrenheit

 

svrhdd.jpg

Edited by xs1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you are downloading, Windows will cache the data waiting to be written to disk, so it can download at full speed even while the disk is busy reading.  The hard disk will also prioritise data waiting to be written to minimise data loss in the event of a power failure.

 

Unfortunately the Resource Monitor Disk I/O graph is only relative to the maximum throughput it encountered.  In this instance, the maximum throughput it recently encountered is 100MB/s, so it will show the graph relative to the 100MB/s even if the disk is only able to read much slower with the amount of seeking it needs to carry out.

 

A good example is to try running CrystalDiskMark on a hard disk with the Resource Monitor open.  The first read test CrystalDiskMark performs is a sequential read and the Resource Monitor will show a maxed out graph while this is taking place:

 

CrystalDiskMark disk seq activity.png

The next test it performs is a random 4KB read test.  This causes the hard disk to randomly seek 4KB sectors non-stop.  The hard disk will spend most of its time seeking, yet according to the Resource Monitor, the hard disk appears idle during this intensive random read test:

 

CrystalDiskMark disk rnd activity.png

 

I didn't realise how big those 10 torrents are! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I can't think of any better way to explain what I mentioned.  As the hard disk is constantly seeking due to the way BitTorrent clients request pieces of data at random, the maximum hard disk speed throughput will be much lower than the 228.56MB sequential reading. 

 

The only other suggestion I have is to try moving just one or two of the most popular torrents to the SSD that fit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean said:

Sorry, I can't think of any better way to explain what I mentioned.  As the hard disk is constantly seeking due to the way BitTorrent clients request pieces of data at random, the maximum hard disk speed throughput will be much lower than the 228.56MB sequential reading. 

 

The only other suggestion I have is to try moving just one or two of the most popular torrents to the SSD that fit. 

ok i went ahead and did what you suggested. I moved one of the more popular torrents to the SSD. I made it the only torrent running. Results are  exactly the same. Hits the same speed and stops dead.  Interestingly enough, when I re-engaged the other torrents, that one died and its now spread the speed over all 12 torrents, at the same exact speed..  That sounds like throttling and shaping to me. I'm fairly certain that's the case now.  It's literally almost holding solid at the same exact speed as it did on the other drive. 

 

@CA3LE

 

3243353.jpg

Edited by xs1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CA3LE said:

If you aren't seeing a bottleneck anywhere else... they very well may be throttling.

 

Or maybe the program you're using is limiting you in some way.  Have you tried a different BT client?

 

 

Yes sir.  qbittornet & utorrent. same results.   Check out this uniformity: 

 

 

uniof.jpg.bd3323f10329a0f565f9ce67fc5211b6.jpg

 

If I pause all other uploads, the top one will jump to the "max" speed of 23 MbiB/s and hold there. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well it appears Frontier throttles not only incoming data from outside the network, but even data on my OWN network;  From my gaming rig to my server on the SAME network is limited. 😓😤 unbelievable. 

 

 

 

 

 

trotld.thumb.jpg.aa44c4a1b22d910780289c0f57963ae5.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, xs1 said:

Well it appears Frontier throttles not only incoming data from outside the network, but even data on my OWN network;  From my gaming rig to my server on the SAME network is limited. 😓😤 unbelievable. 

Now you have my attention. More info on this statement is mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mudmanc4 said:

Now you have my attention. More info on this statement is mandatory.

 

Well on a gigabit connection, ideally 2 pc's on the same network, in the same facility should pretty much be able to utilize somewhere close to "gigabit" speeds. As you can see from my prior posts' attachment, that isn't the case. Frontier limits "file sharing" and "p2p"  im guessing programs or ports to 250. Whether im sharing to the general public, or trying to transfer files to my own networked PC's... If its limited to 250 MAX.   Now if it goes through 8080 , or im assuming 80, ( like for speed tests or ftp, uploading to google drive etc) it'll "max" the connection. P2P, Direct Connect, Torrent, TeamShare, Remote Desktop, etc. All limited 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get the throttling issue, ISP's are doing some interesting 'things' since so many are domiciling.

Maybe I'm just not getting the other part, if I am understanding, Frontier is infiltrating your internal network. If so, and don't get upset here, why would you not have a hardware layer segregating internal/external networks?

 

I say this since I've seen it first hand years ago, where modems are or were on their own /24, ISP side, by network mistake, I found it. Since that point I have been segregating layers via appliances to the best of my knowledge .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 7:46 AM, mudmanc4 said:

 

I get the throttling issue, ISP's are doing some interesting 'things' since so many are domiciling.

Maybe I'm just not getting the other part, if I am understanding, Frontier is infiltrating your internal network. If so, and don't get upset here, why would you not have a hardware layer segregating internal/external networks?

 

I say this since I've seen it first hand years ago, where modems are or were on their own /24, ISP side, by network mistake, I found it. Since that point I have been segregating layers via appliances to the best of my knowledge .

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, i dont know about "infiltrating" , lol.😄 I'm assuming it's the ONT that monitors/ throttles the apps or ports. cause it's factually not the router.  All i know is whether im sending you a file, or sending it to my other pc on my network... the speeds are throttled/shaped. Will not exceed 250 mbs (for any sustained time , a bit over with burst of course) Unless its a web transfer, like google drive or facebook or ftp, speed test etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 8:52 AM, mudmanc4 said:

Entertain me, have you run scp/large-file  to or from local servers, is the throughput what you would expect?

 

I know you know your shit, I’m just trying to get what your explaining I’m my head 

 

I'm not sure what your asking. what is scp?  I'm not sure how to be more clear. 

 

  • If i am trying to upload files, large or small, to lets say to google drive, or Facebook, or lets say im doing a speed test, I will get 100% of my speed; 1g/1g Via the "internet" its no problems

 

  • If I try and use any p2p programs, apex dc++, or qbittorent, uTorrent, ANY p2p program really, it will limit my upload speeds to 250. Whether transferring these files to someone in Arizona, you, or even MYSELF to my other PC in the same home, on the same network, if its p2p, it will throttle it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, xs1 said:

or even MYSELF to my other PC in the same home, on the same network

This leads me to believe there is active software living on your network that you did not intend to be there.

 

Quote

if its p2p, it will throttle it.

This is where I would start.

 

13 hours ago, xs1 said:

what is scp?

SCP = Secure Copy

 

Outside of any other programs / scripts on the (sending machine) SCP will allow a transfer to be done at full network speeds. Circumventing "throttling" script, Speaking locally at this point.

 

Putty has an SCP client within https://www.putty.org/

 

A basic example for usage would be:

scp file/location [email protected]:/directory

or domain name Vs. IP

 

You should also look into pscp

 

Edit: ISP's use service such as https://www.sandvine.com/ for this purpose

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/27/2020 at 10:04 AM, mudmanc4 said:

 

This leads me to believe there is active software living on your network that you did not intend to be there.

 

 

definitely not.  Was there for the whole install, never use any of the ISP rec. software. 

 

as you can see, if the file is coming via the interwebz, (non p2p) the speed(s) are fine. :shrug:

 

 

dwnld.thumb.jpg.c30df3d83c598c1a2ab23a4fe505d554.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...