Upload speed degrading faster than download speed?

[chris]

Hi all,

I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps up.

Anyone any idea why the upload speeds are so much worse downstairs? BTW
I'm on ADSL2+ with plusnet.
TIA

[The Natural Philosopher]

weird.

Can think of no logical explanation - unless you have a very very
marginal wifi connection and 'noisy' neighbours.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[Roderick Stewart]

Do you measure speed with the same computer upstairs and downstairs?

When you make the measurement, are there any other devices (computers,
smartphones, game boxes etc) connected at the same time?

When you check the speed by ethernet, do you switch off the wireless
function in the computer?

Can you check the DHCP client list in your modem/router, i.e. how many
devices are connected? Is it one of the ones with a light that flickers
when data is passing through (e.g. Netgear)? If so, does the light
continue to flicker when you disconnect all your devices?

If you only have one computer, can you borrow another one to test?

The fact that you're getting 12Mb/s downstream suggests it isn't a line
fault. Upstream should be about 1Mb/s, so if you're getting a lot less
than this, even by ethernet, maybe something else is using it. Have you
ever used a torrent type filesharing service for example.

Rod.
--

[Martin Brown]

The wired uplink speed is suspiciously low. I get better than that on
basic ADSL2 so I suspect something is stealing your uplink bandwidth and
bittorrent filesharing or something darker sending out spam.

What speed does Wifi used upstairs or very near the router manage?

Shutdown all other Wifi devices and retry. And/or do a deep AV scan.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[chris]

On 19/11/2012 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <k8ct1b$qot$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris wrote:
>> I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
>> than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
>> speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
>> upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps up.
>>
>> Anyone any idea why the upload speeds are so much worse downstairs? BTW
>> I'm on ADSL2+ with plusnet.
>
> Do you measure speed with the same computer upstairs and downstairs?

No, different ones.

> When you make the measurement, are there any other devices (computers,
> smartphones, game boxes etc) connected at the same time?

Probably, but likely idle. I guess it could be other devices using the
upload bandwidth. I'll try again more carefully.

> When you check the speed by ethernet, do you switch off the wireless
> function in the computer?

It's a desktop with no wireless.

> Can you check the DHCP client list in your modem/router, i.e. how many
> devices are connected? Is it one of the ones with a light that flickers
> when data is passing through (e.g. Netgear)? If so, does the light
> continue to flicker when you disconnect all your devices?

Good question. Don't know.

> The fact that you're getting 12Mb/s downstream suggests it isn't a line
> fault.

Yeah, I don't think it's a line fault either.

> Upstream should be about 1Mb/s, so if you're getting a lot less
> than this, even by ethernet, maybe something else is using it.

Upstream has never been near 1Mbps - I think it connects at 448kbps.

> Have you
> ever used a torrent type filesharing service for example.

Nope.

[chris]

On 19/11/2012 12:10, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 19/11/2012 09:10, chris wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
>> than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
>> speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
>> upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps up.
>>
>> Anyone any idea why the upload speeds are so much worse downstairs? BTW
>> I'm on ADSL2+ with plusnet.
>> TIA
>
> The wired uplink speed is suspiciously low. I get better than that on
> basic ADSL2 so I suspect something is stealing your uplink bandwidth and
> bittorrent filesharing or something darker sending out spam.

I'm not sure it's that insidious. My upload speed was typically ~400kbps
when on ADSLMax and it didn't really change on ADSL2+. I don't I have
Annexe M (or whatever it's called) implemented on my line.

> What speed does Wifi used upstairs or very near the router manage?
>
> Shutdown all other Wifi devices and retry. And/or do a deep AV scan.

Good suggestions. I'll them out. Although, I don't think AV is relevant
as the desktops are up-to-date Linux boxes and the Mac laptop is rarely on.

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <k8dcvd$j14$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris wrote:
> > Upstream should be about 1Mb/s, so if you're getting a lot less
> > than this, even by ethernet, maybe something else is using it.
>
> Upstream has never been near 1Mbps - I think it connects at 448kbps.

If the modem upstream sync speed really is only 448kb/s but you're on
ADSL2+ getting 12Mb/s downstream, then the first thing I'd want to
check is the modem settings, and if possible try a different modem.
Then I'd get on to Plusnet tech support. Your upload speed may be
capped at a default provisioning level so you may need to request it to
be changed. You should expect around 1Mb/s, maybe a little more. It's
usually about a tenth of the downstream speed.

You may have a wireless issue as well, but I'd get the basic connection
sorted first. Then check if your wireless router and wireless devices
are wireless n or g, and use a survey program like InSSIDer to check if
anybody nearby is using the same channel.

Rod.
--

[alexd]

chris (for it is he) wrote:

> I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
> than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
> speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
> upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps up.

Test out the speed of the wireless locally first. Use iperf between the
wireless machine and a wired one.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
21:04:41 up 5 days, 9 min, 5 users, load average: 0.58, 0.86, 0.88
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum

[Plusnet Support Team]

On 19/11/2012 13:48, chris wrote:
> On 19/11/2012 12:10, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 19/11/2012 09:10, chris wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
>>> than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
>>> speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
>>> upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps up.
>>>
>>> Anyone any idea why the upload speeds are so much worse downstairs? BTW
>>> I'm on ADSL2+ with plusnet.
>>> TIA
>>
>> The wired uplink speed is suspiciously low. I get better than that on
>> basic ADSL2 so I suspect something is stealing your uplink bandwidth and
>> bittorrent filesharing or something darker sending out spam.
>
> I'm not sure it's that insidious. My upload speed was typically ~400kbps
> when on ADSLMax and it didn't really change on ADSL2+. I don't I have
> Annexe M (or whatever it's called) implemented on my line.

We're probably capping your upstream at the wholesale level. If you can
provide me with your account username or a recent support ticket
reference from your account then I'll uncap it for you?

>> What speed does Wifi used upstairs or very near the router manage?
>>
>> Shutdown all other Wifi devices and retry. And/or do a deep AV scan.
>
> Good suggestions. I'll them out. Although, I don't think AV is relevant
> as the desktops are up-to-date Linux boxes and the Mac laptop is rarely on.

Have you tried alternating between wireless channels (1, 6 & 11) to see
if any of them offer an improvement?

--
|Bob Pullen Broadband Solutions for
|Support Home & Business @
|Plusnet Plc. www.plus.net
+--------------- twitter.com/plusnet ----------------

[chris]

On 21/11/2012 16:34, Plusnet Support Team wrote:
> On 19/11/2012 13:48, chris wrote:
>> On 19/11/2012 12:10, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2012 09:10, chris wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
>>>> than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
>>>> speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
>>>> upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone any idea why the upload speeds are so much worse downstairs? BTW
>>>> I'm on ADSL2+ with plusnet.
>>>> TIA
>>>
>>> The wired uplink speed is suspiciously low. I get better than that on
>>> basic ADSL2 so I suspect something is stealing your uplink bandwidth and
>>> bittorrent filesharing or something darker sending out spam.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's that insidious. My upload speed was typically ~400kbps
>> when on ADSLMax and it didn't really change on ADSL2+. I don't I have
>> Annexe M (or whatever it's called) implemented on my line.
>
> We're probably capping your upstream at the wholesale level. If you can
> provide me with your account username or a recent support ticket
> reference from your account then I'll uncap it for you?

You should have mail.

[chris]

On 19/11/2012 21:05, alexd wrote:
> chris (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> I noticed this weekend that my upload speed degrades worse over wi-fi
>> than my d/load speed. e.g. downstairs the speeds were measured (via
>> speedtest.net) as ~10Mbps down and ~0.09Mbps up over wifi. Where
>> upstairs when connected via ethernet I get ~12Mbps down and ~0.3Mbps up.
>
> Test out the speed of the wireless locally first. Use iperf between the
> wireless machine and a wired one.

So, I've tried a few things this weekend:

- moved the laptop to nearer the router (upload still ~0.1Mbps)
- disabled all other wireless devices (still ~0.1Mbps)
- tried different wireless channels (1,6,11 still ~0.1Mbps)
- tried different speed tester sites (same)
- connected laptop via ethernet to router (~0.3Mbps)
- rsynced files wireless from desktop to laptop (speed ~33Mbps)

It looks like the wifi upload speed to the internet is affected somehow,
but intrinsic wifi speed is fine as is wired speed.

However, I did notice in my router settings that the connection speed is
888Kbps, but max speed is 448Kbps. I wonder if this is the 'wholesale'
capping the Bob Pullen mentioned? I'll see if things change next week...

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <k8u5cb$bfs$2...@dont-email.me>, Chris wrote:
> So, I've tried a few things this weekend:
>
> - moved the laptop to nearer the router (upload still ~0.1Mbps)
> - disabled all other wireless devices (still ~0.1Mbps)
> - tried different wireless channels (1,6,11 still ~0.1Mbps)
> - tried different speed tester sites (same)
> - connected laptop via ethernet to router (~0.3Mbps)
> - rsynced files wireless from desktop to laptop (speed ~33Mbps)
>
> It looks like the wifi upload speed to the internet is affected somehow,
> but intrinsic wifi speed is fine as is wired speed.

At this stage, if you're getting these low internet speeds by wireless
only, with several different wireless computers, I'd be suspicious of the
modem/router itself. Is it wireless-g or wireless-n? In any case if it's
the only thing you haven't changed, it's about the only thing left to try.
Sometimes a factory reset and re-entering all the details can help, but if
that doesn't do it, you need to beg borrow or steal another one.

> However, I did notice in my router settings that the connection speed is
> 888Kbps, but max speed is 448Kbps. I wonder if this is the 'wholesale'
> capping the Bob Pullen mentioned? I'll see if things change next week...

Undoubtedly it will be this. (And as I'm sure you realise it won't have any
effect on the wireless speed, which is a separate issue).

Rod.
--

[Graham J]

I think this is an inherent limitation of WiFi.

WiFi is a half-duplex system; only one end of a link can transmit at a
time. By contrast Ethernet (over cat 5 cables) is full duplex; so both
ends of a link can trasnmit simultaneously.

Further, WiFi is a shared spectrum system; by contrast Ethernet over Cat
5 cables provides multiple simultaneous connections from each endpoint
to the network switch. WiFi is more like the 10base2 or 10base5
ethernet which was a shared spectrum system, (CSMA/CD), except that
whole packets are required to implement the collision detection mechanism.

Further, TCP/IP packets are normally sent one at a time, and the next is
not sent until the reply is received for the first packet (handshaking).

What this means is that when using WiFi to upload to the internet,
packets are sent first from the computer to the router, waiting for a
handshake from the router. Each packet is surrounded by management
packets that ensure no other wireless device is transmitting. The
packet is then sent from the router to the remote location, again
waiting for the handshake. Thus the transit time for the packet is the
sum of the WiFi delay and the Internet delay. Your measured
100kbits/sec is pretty fair. Adding a further WiFi connection using WDS
or the like will halve the speed yet again.

By contrast sending via Ethernet incurs a much smaller delay from the
computer to the router (because it is a dedicated full-duplex channel
operating at 100 Mbits - or 1Gbit - per second, with no overhead to
manage any shared channel). Thus the the performance using Ethernet is
effectively the same as the raw internet upload speed.

This is aggravated by the use of other WiFi devices on the same network;
and by WiFi devices on other networks creating interference.

The only easy resolution is not to use WiFi. With the increasingly
crowded WiFi spectrum I think WiFi is effectively dead. Ethernet cable
is the only realistic resolution.

Satellite systems suffer the same problem, but the packet transit time
is often 400 milliseconds. So the satellite links operate a modified
TCP/IP protocol where several packets are sent without waiting for
replies; and the the replies when received are matched up against the
sent packets.

--
Graham J

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 26/11/12 12:50, Graham J wrote:

>
> Further, TCP/IP packets are normally sent one at a time, and the next is
> not sent until the reply is received for the first packet (handshaking).
>

Er no.

You need to learn about TCP/IP and window sizes.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are

rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[chris]

Yes, I'm aware of that (and some of the rest, which is snipped).
However, I would expect uploads and downloads to be affected equally (to
a degree) by wifi problems. What I'm seeing is that wifi upload speeds
are approx. 30% of the ethernet speed. Whereas download speeds are
approx 85% of the ethernet speed.

There's something that is adversely affecting uploads more than
downloads. It could be that there's an overhead that translate as a
~100Kbps reduction is throughput in both directions. This is
unnoticeable at ~10Mbps, but is significant at 300Kbps.

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <50b3657f$0$7325$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Graham J wrote:
> > However, I did notice in my router settings that the connection speed is
> > 888Kbps, but max speed is 448Kbps. I wonder if this is the 'wholesale'
> > capping the Bob Pullen mentioned? I'll see if things change next week...
>
> I think this is an inherent limitation of WiFi.

[explanation of wi-fi follows]

Apologies if I've misunderstood which bit you think is a limitation of
wireless, but the max speed being 448 with a sync speed of 888 absolutely
isn't. The OP has said that he gets this without wireless anyway. Speed is
being limited somewhere else, almost certainly by Plusnet, as they have a
default provisioning limit of 448 which you have to request to be lifted.

There does appear to be a wireless issue as well. Accepting that wireless
can never be as good as ethernet, it shouldn't be running at a fraction of
1Mb/s. A good wireless-n router and appropriate wireless adaptors in the
computers should be able to manage a lot better than that.

Since moving my modem/router close to the phone cable entry in my hallway to
investigate a problem (something else and now fixed), all my devices now
connect by wireless as it would be awkward to run an ethernet cable, but
performance is so good I probably won't bother. My main computer and printer
connect through an ethernet wireless bridge on my desk where the
modem/router used to be, and the internet speeds I'm getting (about 10Mb/s)
are higher than before, I assume because the speed was previously being
affected more by the long phone cable run than it now is by the wireless
link. So wireless is not ideal but it can be useful. I don't know if speeds
of 300Mb/s are really achievable, but you can certainly get a lot faster
than any ADSL connection.

Rod.
--

[Graham J]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/11/12 12:50, Graham J wrote:
>
>>
>> Further, TCP/IP packets are normally sent one at a time, and the next is
>> not sent until the reply is received for the first packet (handshaking).
>>
>
> Er no.
>
> You need to learn about TCP/IP and window sizes.
>
>
>

You are of course right. However, with large packet and small window
sizes throughput can be disproportionately affected by occasional
errors. But it probably doesn't make a big contribution to speed
degradation.

I suspect a much bigger contribution is caused by the overheads required
to cope with the shared spectrum of WiFi.

An example of this:

At A there is a wireless ADSL router
At B an access point
At C an access point

All three use WDS. A cannot communicate with C because the disance is
too great, so B is placed midway between them and operates as a repeater.

There is a computer at each location. The computers at A and C can
transfer files at a reasonable rate - up to about 10 mbits/sec.

The computer at A achieves internet downloads at 2 mbits/sec - that is
what the ADSL service achieves at this location.

The computer at B achieves internet downloads at about 1.8 mbits/sec; so
the overhead for one wireless hop does not cause much degradation.

But a computer at C only achieves about 1 mbit/sec internet download.

Clearly a packet from A is received at B, then re-transmitted to C. The
window size is supposed to be adjusted dynamically to cope with this,
but clearly it doesn't.

-----

Has anybody else measured WiFi and seen the same degradation that the OP
describes as affecting upload to a greater extend than download?

Certainly wherever I have measured up and down speeds they have always
been worse using WiFi or Ethernet over mains (which is of course a
similar system) when compared with Ethernet using cat 5 cable - and if
the internet connection is already marginal the additional delay
interposed by WiFi makes the system unuseable.

--
Graham J

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <50b39b1e$0$1153$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Graham J wrote:
> I suspect a much bigger contribution is caused by the overheads required
> to cope with the shared spectrum of WiFi.
>
> An example of this:
>
> At A there is a wireless ADSL router
> At B an access point
> At C an access point

[...]

I think the OP's system is a lot simpler than this, just an ADSL wireless
modem/router with one computer connected by ethernet and another by
wireless. I think the modem/router is possibly broken, or might benefit
from a factory reset.

> Has anybody else measured WiFi and seen the same degradation that the OP
> describes as affecting upload to a greater extend than download?

No. Unless there's some other factor that he hasn't mentioned, e.g. he
lives in a 4 storey mansion or the laptop is in a shed at the bottom of the
garden, I think his wireless router may need attention, or replacing. On my
system, speedtest.net shows about 10Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up, close to the
sync speeds shown in the router config. I've measured these speeds on my
main PC connected by an Edimax wireless bridge, a media centre connected by
a Netgear wireless bridge, a netbook with a wireless-g adaptor running
Windows XP and Ubuntu, another PC running Ubuntu with a wireless-n adaptor,
and a Galaxy smartphone. They all work just fine, so it can be done.

Rod.
--

[alexd]

Graham J (for it is he) wrote:

> Your measured 100kbits/sec is pretty fair.

If you think 100kbps is pretty fair for wifi, then you have my sympathy! If
he can get ~33Mbps locally, then the wireless should not be a bottleneck in
this case.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)

20:20:40 up 11 days, 23:25, 5 users, load average: 1.09, 0.80, 0.73

[chris]

On 21/11/2012 16:34, Plusnet Support Team wrote:

Just noticed that your email address is unmonitored.

I've raised a ticket, number 62739518

[chris]

On 19/11/2012 09:10, chris wrote:

So a conclusion.

It was a wholesale cap issue. I'm now connected at 888Kbps up and my
ethernet-connected desktop gets a measured upload of 800Kbps whereas
wireless devices are nearer 700Kbps.

So kudos to plusnet for responding so quickly (ticket submitted Tuesday
night, yesterday got confirmation of uncapping and getting improvement
today).

However, shame that the cap was there in the first place. Why don't they
do this by default...?

Thanks to all for your contributions.

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <k98j8m$js7$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris wrote:
> However, shame that the cap was there in the first place. Why don't they
> do this by default...?

I'm not speaking for Plusnet, but I think the general reason for capping
new internet installs at low speeds by default is in case the line is not
capable of higher ones, so they need to prove the line quality by trying it
for a while. Something like learning to walk before you try to run.

As for why they don't *uncap* it by default once a consistent sync speed
has been achieved, you'd have to ask the individual ISPs. Sometimes you
have to request it, sometimes you don't.

Rod.
--

[Plusnet Support Team]

We will be soon. Some orders are placed with uncapped upstream by
default but those that originate from the signup journey aren't just yet.

We recently placed a bulk order to uncap a shed load of existing
customers' circuits.

> Thanks to all for your contributions.