Limiting bandwidith on a home network

2011-06-30 11:42:10

#51

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5354|London, England

tazz. wrote:
Look, take this example..

A business comes to me and says, hey, it seems our voip isn't working very well very randomly becomes unclear and jittery

The first thought that comes into mind is that people are accessing websites, and a proper setup has not been setup to assist the packets that need to be assisted (voip)

Prioritizing for voip != to prioritizing a video game. One is essential, one is entertainment on par with the youtube video he is trying to preempt.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-06-30 11:42:46

#52

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|4964|Dundee, Scotland.

Jay wrote:
tazz. wrote:
Look, take this example..

A business comes to me and says, hey, it seems our voip isn't working very well very randomly becomes unclear and jittery

The first thought that comes into mind is that people are accessing websites, and a proper setup has not been setup to assist the packets that need to be assisted (voip)
Prioritizing for voip != to prioritizing a video game. One is essential, one is entertainment on par with the youtube video he is trying to preempt.

But if someone can watch a youtube video without causing someone else playing a game problems, what the hell is your objection to that?

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-30 11:46:25

#53

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6616|Mhz

This tread is genuinely entertaining but, seriously, hilarious bitchfest aside.

No QoS = Prototype cannot game while other people use certain websites and other people can view any website with no problem.

With QoS = Prototype CAN game while other people use said websites and other people can still view any website with no problem.

In what way does QoS adversely affect anyone? Even if Proto was only paying a bit towards the bill let alone the whole thing it's still perfectly reasonable.

E: Fecking typo...

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2011-06-30 11:48:44)

2011-06-30 11:46:57

#54

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6768|PNW

tazz. wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
if taken too far.
NOT using QoS would be taking it too far.

Limiting them to, like i said, 50% of the bandwidth perm.

QoS is the solution

'If taken too far' by which I meant if OP decides to hog it to the point where it becomes noticeable when streaming videos and stuff, which didn't really sound anything like what he intended.

2011-06-30 11:47:31

#55

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6663

Camm wrote:
Jay wrote:
tazz. wrote:
Look, take this example..

A business comes to me and says, hey, it seems our voip isn't working very well very randomly becomes unclear and jittery

The first thought that comes into mind is that people are accessing websites, and a proper setup has not been setup to assist the packets that need to be assisted (voip)
Prioritizing for voip != to prioritizing a video game. One is essential, one is entertainment on par with the youtube video he is trying to preempt.
But if someone can watch a youtube video without causing someone else playing a game problems, what the hell is your objection to that?

Because a micro-second delay in starting a buffer load for Youtube is just as detrimental as a micro-second delay on a MP FPS game.

2011-06-30 11:48:31

#56

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|4964|Dundee, Scotland.

Ilocano wrote:
Camm wrote:
Jay wrote:

Prioritizing for voip != to prioritizing a video game. One is essential, one is entertainment on par with the youtube video he is trying to preempt.
But if someone can watch a youtube video without causing someone else playing a game problems, what the hell is your objection to that?
Because a micro-second delay in starting a buffer load for Youtube is just as detrimental as a micro-second delay on a MP FPS game.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that part. That must be it.

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-30 11:48:52

#57

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6170|Sydney | ♥

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
This tread is genuinely entertaining but, seriously, hilarious bitchfest aside.

No QoS = Prototype cannot game while other people use certain websites and other people can view any website with no problem.

With QoS = Prototype CAN game while other people use said websites and other people can still view any website with no problem.

In what was does QoS adversely affect anyone? Even if Proto was only paying a bit towards the bill let alone the whole thing it's still perfectly reasonable.

The ONLY scenario where QoS is poor, is in a low bandwidth scenario (0.5-1.5mbit down) for example, as it can, very rarely drop out the web sites.

On his 20mbit down, no issues.

Also this:

i keep shitting out these diagrams xD

Last edited by tazz. (2011-06-30 11:53:21)

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

2011-06-30 13:16:17

#58

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6320|New Haven, CT

Jesus Christ Jay this is a pathetic showing. Next time you drink too much take it out on the misguided youths roaming the rough streets of Queens, not anonymous people on an internet forum.

2011-06-30 14:35:28

#59

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5698|College Park, MD

lol wow

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-06-30 14:39:02

#60

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6320|New Haven, CT

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
lol wow

Do you find anything disagreeable in my previous post?

2011-06-30 14:47:39

#61

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5698|College Park, MD

Nope, I was lol wow-ing at this thread, specifically Jay's self-righteous indignation

2011-06-30 19:54:38

#62

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5354|London, England

"i feel sorry for your mother"

Cute karma there prototype. You're a real winner.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-06-30 19:58:42

#63

prototype: Member; +52|6307

Jay wrote:
"i feel sorry for your mother"

Cute karma there prototype. You're a real winner.

I dont know what your mother has to do with all of this but I do feel sorry for ANYONE who has to deal with you on a daily/personal/professional basis man, you get all crazy angry over a question asked by someone you dont know ?
make sure you never get a job doing IT over the phone or you will really have problems in life

thanks for all the info guys, I got my problem all sorted out

JAY - just so you can sleep better at night, I told my roomies what I was doing and they did not care or notice a difference in their bandwidth or system performance but I made sure they knew to tell me if they did because everyone hates games/gamers right ?

Last edited by prototype (2011-06-30 20:03:01)

2011-06-30 20:00:32

#64

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6518|...

Kmar wrote:
Why not use OpenDNS and just restrict the bandwidth hogging sites?

they can change the dns on their machines, not obligated to use what the router provides

tazz. wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
if taken too far.
NOT using QoS would be taking it too far.

Limiting them to, like i said, 50% of the bandwidth perm.

QoS is the solution

this really, it is what is there for

2011-06-30 22:37:25

#65

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6597|132 and Bush

jsnipy wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Why not use OpenDNS and just restrict the bandwidth hogging sites?
they can change the dns on their machines, not obligated to use what the router provides

True. They could also go right to the ip addy's. Although I think that would be a pain. I don't think the average users is keen on doing that.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-06-30 22:44:23

#66

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6771|Moscow, Russia

qos is not the only solution, and it can adversely affect the performance of your router if it's not powerful enough.

as to "they can change stuff" - prototype already explained what he's doing to his roomies.

@proto: disregard jay. the bastard's not worth it.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-30 22:52:22)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-01 01:28:48

#67

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6170|Sydney | ♥

Shahter wrote:
qos is not the only solution, and it can adversely affect the performance of your router if it's not powerful enough.

as to "they can change stuff" - prototype already explained what he's doing to his roomies.

@proto: disregard jay. the bastard's not worth it.

Maybe routers from the early 2000s

Modern ones are rarely not worthy.

That said, D-Links and Netgears heat up like a god damn oven

Never going anything but cisco/linksys again tbh

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

2011-07-01 01:39:58

#68

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6771|Moscow, Russia

tazz. wrote:
Shahter wrote:
qos is not the only solution, and it can adversely affect the performance of your router if it's not powerful enough.

as to "they can change stuff" - prototype already explained what he's doing to his roomies.

@proto: disregard jay. the bastard's not worth it.
Maybe routers from the early 2000s

Modern ones are rarely not worthy.

it depends. most do work, but get them to process torrent connections for multiple computers and you'll see.

That said, D-Links and Netgears heat up like a god damn oven.

open one up, fix a radiator on the chip, leave the bloody thing open - problem solved.

Never going anything but cisco/linksys again tbh

when i can afford cisco, i'll get back to you to share my opinion on those .

Last edited by Shahter (2011-07-01 01:40:26)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-01 11:36:53

#69

mikkel: Member; +383|6597

Cisco CPEs are fantastic. $800 up front, another $100 for a license to use the features that the unit is built to run, and then another $30-40/year for a support contract just to be able to update the incredibly buggy software. If you need more than the most basic, get a $50 MikroTik CPE.

2011-07-02 01:00:08

#70

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Hey, thanks asshole. I'm not an electrical engineer with years of telecom experience or anything...

You keep claiming a lot of stuff - why don't you tell us what degree you really did?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-02 04:36:36

#71

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6687|Devon, England

jsnipy wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Why not use OpenDNS and just restrict the bandwidth hogging sites?
they can change the dns on their machines, not obligated to use what the router provides

Hmm, I wasn't aware that PC DNS configurations override router's ones.

This is helpful to me, as the router we're forced to use by our shitty ISP has fuck-all to offer me regarding customisation, inlcuding custom DNS.

2011-07-02 05:24:19

#72

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5784|Catherine Black

I refuse to take diagrams as fact when they have shitty arrows like this

Step it up, Taz.

2011-07-02 11:58:39

#73

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6170|Sydney | ♥

nah

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

BF2S Forums Limiting bandwidith on a home network

tazz. wrote:

Jay wrote:

tazz. wrote:

tazz. wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Camm wrote:

Jay wrote:

tazz. wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Camm wrote:

Jay wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Kmar wrote:

tazz. wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Shahter wrote:

tazz. wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Board footer