From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 8 21:00:44 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED68716A469 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:00:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Received: from ozzie.tundraware.com (ozzie.tundraware.com [66.92.130.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C4D13C494 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:00:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1189890040.8629@eSZwZpW99JwkAEqBUVPSAg Received: from [192.168.0.2] (viper.tundraware.com [192.168.0.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by ozzie.tundraware.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l88L0eGV041028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:00:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Message-ID: <46E30D73.3000603@tundraware.com> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:00:35 -0500 From: Tim Daneliuk Organization: TundraWare Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW References: <46E2AEA8.4060403@adempiere.org> <70e8236f0709080735p1e60453cp435f58127c7a35fd@mail.gmail.com> <46E2BCB2.9010909@adempiere.org> <84b68b3d0709081225x4fb929fck38a3265846f7b8ba@mail.gmail.com> <46E305BA.3040604@tundraware.com> <20070908214744.03710ef8@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20070908214744.03710ef8@gumby.homeunix.com.> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-tundraware.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-From: tundra@tundraware.com X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ADSL Bandwidth Monitoring X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: tundra@tundraware.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 21:00:45 -0000 RW wrote: > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:27:38 -0500 > Tim Daneliuk wrote: > >> Amitabh Kant wrote: >>> On 9/8/07, Bahman M. wrote: >>>> I tested the connection by downloading 2~3 files simultaneously >>>> and used 'bmon' as Mel suggested in another reply (thanks to >>>> him). As I'd already guessed the RX don't get bigger than 30~40% >>>> of the expected bandwidth. I performed the test with some other >>>> files and there was no difference. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Bahman >>> The bandwidth being advertised by your ISP would be the maximum >>> thoughput allowed on your DSL lines with multiple DSL users sharing >>> the same bandwidth, something that is generally known as contention >>> ratio. >>> >>> See this link: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio >>> >>> Amitabh >> But you should be able to hit the advertised bandwidth. To the best >> of my knowledge, DSL itself is NOT a shared medium. It is a point-to- >> point technology from your premise to the Central Office. The >> bandwidth *behind* the CO may be shared, but should be so large >> as to not be a bottleneck. > > It depends on your circumstances. Some people are constrained by > contention ratio some aren't. Some ISPs offer a better ratio for a > more expensive accounts. I don't understand this. If the actual DSL circuit is point-to-point - i.e., not shared between the premise and the DSLAM in the CO, just exactly *where* is the contention occuring? I would think (and could be wrong) that the only other place would be in the bandwidth behind the DSLAM - the actual phone network. But this is typically very, very high capacity stuff, at least here in the US, and I sort of doubt it couldn't deliver the stated bandwidth. Not arguing here, just wondering... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/