Adam Corolla wrote:
>
> "Brian" <brianmcadam@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:2m9j2295ole14f6dp0eeml490dhpeapgjm@4ax.com...
> > "Bother!", said Pooh, as he read Adam Corolla's latest post to
> > alt.games.warcraft.
> >
> >>
> > Of course, this bit of advice does *nothing* for those of us that are
> > sitting behind firewalls that we don't admin. Like university networks
> > that don't like bittorrent. Or my cable company, for some godforsaken
> > reason. I get 1-2k, at most, no matter what I do. I'm not willing to
> > wait
> > a day and a half to download the patch, thanks.
> >
> > Just use Filefront. Unless you simply *must* have it 5 minutes after it
> > comes out. For me, the delay between release and it being up on FileFront
> > has never been a problem, since I work or have classes during the day, so
> > I
> > can't play until the evening anyways.
> >
> > Brian
>
> Good info Brain, thanks!

That's why we call him Brain!

"Ashen Shugar" <deathsabyss@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:442ba4d4.5127562@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> If you download a lot of por--er, files, then you might
>>want to look into getting a satellite internet connection. I think they
>>cost about the same as cable internet, and they are pretty fast if I
>>recall
>>correctly...
>>
>
> I don't believe satellite is very good for gaming though. You might
> get good download speeds, but your ping/latency is nasty. That's what
> I hear anyway.
>
> Ashen Shugar
>

Yeah, I suppose it would be. I hadn't thought of that.

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand."

"Bother!", said Pooh, as he read RogerM's latest post to
alt.games.warcraft.

>Adam Corolla wrote:
>>
>> "Brian" <brianmcadam@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:2m9j2295ole14f6dp0eeml490dhpeapgjm@4ax.com...
>> > "Bother!", said Pooh, as he read Adam Corolla's latest post to
>> > alt.games.warcraft.
>> >
>> >>
>> > Of course, this bit of advice does *nothing* for those of us that are
>> > sitting behind firewalls that we don't admin. Like university networks
>> > that don't like bittorrent. Or my cable company, for some godforsaken
>> > reason. I get 1-2k, at most, no matter what I do. I'm not willing to
>> > wait
>> > a day and a half to download the patch, thanks.
>> >
>> > Just use Filefront. Unless you simply *must* have it 5 minutes after it
>> > comes out. For me, the delay between release and it being up on FileFront
>> > has never been a problem, since I work or have classes during the day, so
>> > I
>> > can't play until the evening anyways.
>> >
>> > Brian
>>
>> Good info Brain, thanks!
>
>That's why we call him Brain!
>

*headdesk*

I shall never escape that joke. Argh.

Brian
--
ICQ#: 68214833 | AIM: LineNoise54
..
No Radio - Already Stolen

I think it was Brian <brianmcadam@pobox.com> that wrote something
like...

>"Bother!", said Pooh, as he read RogerM's latest post to
>alt.games.warcraft.
>
>>Adam Corolla wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brian" <brianmcadam@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2m9j2295ole14f6dp0eeml490dhpeapgjm@4ax.com...
>>> > "Bother!", said Pooh, as he read Adam Corolla's latest post to
>>> > alt.games.warcraft.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> > Of course, this bit of advice does *nothing* for those of us that are
>>> > sitting behind firewalls that we don't admin. Like university networks
>>> > that don't like bittorrent. Or my cable company, for some godforsaken
>>> > reason. I get 1-2k, at most, no matter what I do. I'm not willing to
>>> > wait
>>> > a day and a half to download the patch, thanks.
>>> >
>>> > Just use Filefront. Unless you simply *must* have it 5 minutes after it
>>> > comes out. For me, the delay between release and it being up on FileFront
>>> > has never been a problem, since I work or have classes during the day, so
>>> > I
>>> > can't play until the evening anyways.
>>> >
>>> > Brian
>>>
>>> Good info Brain, thanks!
>>
>>That's why we call him Brain!
>>
>
>*headdesk*
>
>I shall never escape that joke. Argh.
>
>Brian

If you're Brain, who's Pinky?

Ashen Shugar
--
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!

"RogerM" <rodger.mckay@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4429AFD2.15226206@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Adam Corolla wrote:
>>
>> "Brian" <brianmcadam@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:2m9j2295ole14f6dp0eeml490dhpeapgjm@4ax.com...
>> > "Bother!", said Pooh, as he read Adam Corolla's latest post to
>> > alt.games.warcraft.
>> >
>> >>
>> > Of course, this bit of advice does *nothing* for those of us that are
>> > sitting behind firewalls that we don't admin. Like university networks
>> > that don't like bittorrent. Or my cable company, for some godforsaken
>> > reason. I get 1-2k, at most, no matter what I do. I'm not willing to
>> > wait
>> > a day and a half to download the patch, thanks.
>> >
>> > Just use Filefront. Unless you simply *must* have it 5 minutes after
>> > it
>> > comes out. For me, the delay between release and it being up on
>> > FileFront
>> > has never been a problem, since I work or have classes during the day,
>> > so
>> > I
>> > can't play until the evening anyways.
>> >
>> > Brian
>>
>> Good info Brain, thanks!
>
> That's why we call him Brain!
>

LOL, what an appropriate typo!

<jes.t.er@hexduxhmp.org> wrote in message
news:wLCdnas4i7ekNbTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Adam Corolla <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote:
>> I think DSL is generally about 1/5th to1/10th as fast as cable internet
>> (though DSL is MUCH faster than dial-up!!) so I would expect your
>> download
>> to go a bit faster than 2MB/min. Is your connection 512Kbps, 256Kbps,
>
> There are so many variabilities involved in "dsl" vs "cable" that
> discussing
> things like that really doesn't make much sense.

Incorrect, there are no variabilities in DSL. 512Kbps is always exactly 512
Kbps.

Cable internet connections are shared bandwidth and it's possible if you
have a cheap, irresponsible cable company that you get too many people on
one loop it can bring your speed down during peak hours. That's the ONLY
variable I'm aware of in the comparison between DSL and cable.

I've never experienced any bogdowns with my Roadrunner cable internet
connection which I've had for five years, though, my connection is always at
or very close to the advertised 4.5 Mbps and sometimes even 4.6.

Adam Corolla <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote:
> Incorrect, there are no variabilities in DSL. 512Kbps is always exactly 512
> Kbps.

Your problem here is believing that everyone who has "DSL" has
"512Kbps".

> Cable internet connections are shared bandwidth and it's possible if you
> have a cheap, irresponsible cable company that you get too many people on
> one loop it can bring your speed down during peak hours. That's the ONLY
> variable I'm aware of in the comparison between DSL and cable.

The other issue that you're neglecting is that the "local loop" portion
of your cable connection is only *one* potential speed bottleneck.
Do you really think that someone with a 512k DSL line *always* gets
512k transfer rates? Of course not.

> I've never experienced any bogdowns with my Roadrunner cable internet
> connection which I've had for five years, though, my connection is always at
> or very close to the advertised 4.5 Mbps and sometimes even 4.6.

My largest complaint is that Comcast (I originally had MediaOne, which
was bought by AT&T, which was bought by Comcast) keeps upping our
download rate but lowering our upload rate. Since I actually use
upload a fair amount, it really pisses me off.

My fastest transfers were on my previous cable modem (MediaOne back
then, about a mile away in another portion of Cambridge,MA) where I
was doing a linux install via FTP to a server at MIT. The speed
was insane - I don't recall the exact transfer rate but recall it being
absoludicrous (even by today's standards). When I did a traceroute
I wasn't even hitting up the main router but only had 1 or 2 hops over
to the MIT server. Nice.

<jes.t.er@hexduxhmp.org> wrote in message
news:n_GdnZKpNZgaJ7TZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Adam Corolla <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote:
>> Incorrect, there are no variabilities in DSL. 512Kbps is always exactly
>> 512
>> Kbps.
>
> Your problem here is believing that everyone who has "DSL" has
> "512Kbps".

You misunderstand. I in no way ever said or indicated that everyone who has
DSL has 512 Kbps. I asked him what his DSL speed was and that's when you
came up with the claim that there were too many variables to compare. I
only gave 512 Kbps as an example. Most people I know with DSL have 256K or
512K connections. The connection speed is the *only* variable in DSL,
that's why I asked him what it was.


> The other issue that you're neglecting is that the "local loop" portion
> of your cable connection is only *one* potential speed bottleneck.
> Do you really think that someone with a 512k DSL line *always* gets
> 512k transfer rates? Of course not.

What are you talking about? A 512 Kbps DSL connection is always going to
download data at512Kbps unless the site they're downloading from is not
capable of sending it out to them that fast, but that's a different issue
and isn't related to the speed of the user's connection.


> My largest complaint is that Comcast (I originally had MediaOne, which
> was bought by AT&T, which was bought by Comcast) keeps upping our
> download rate but lowering our upload rate. Since I actually use
> upload a fair amount, it really pisses me off.

Yeah, that would bute. Upload speeds suck in general, for them to decrease
it is outrageous.


>
> My fastest transfers were on my previous cable modem (MediaOne back
> then, about a mile away in another portion of Cambridge,MA) where I
> was doing a linux install via FTP to a server at MIT. The speed
> was insane - I don't recall the exact transfer rate but recall it being
> absoludicrous (even by today's standards). When I did a traceroute
> I wasn't even hitting up the main router but only had 1 or 2 hops over
> to the MIT server. Nice.

Cool! By the way, if you're ever tempted to uncap your cable modem for
faster uploads, think twice and then twice more. I don't know how they've
done it, but cable companies have actually gotten modem uncappers sentenced
to prison for doing that!!

While digging out a new addition to the Den, DaFox found a scrap of parchment. On it,
Lehi <right@behin.edu> wrote:

>>>>I looked at Blizzard's troubleshooting page on this issue and did not find
>>>>anything helpful. I've turned off my firewall. The patch is about 25 MB
>>>>and that should only take a few seconds on my 4.6 Mbps connection, but
>>>>after one hour it says it's 20% downloaded.
>>>>
>>>> I checked my connection speed and it is at 100%.
>>>>
>>>> It's going to take five hours to download something that should only take
>>>> a few seconds? WTF?
>>>>
>>>> When I first installed WoW a couple weeks ago, the patches seemed to
>>>> download at my normal download speed. I was using the Blizzard
>>>> downloader then as well. I don't recall changing any system settings
>>>> since then.
>>>>
>>>> Is it because ten million people are trying to download the patch at the
>>>> same time as me?
>>>
>>> Your modem may also have a firewall.
>>
>>
>>Modems don't have firewalls. Routers can have firewalls, and my router
>>does, but I don't see how it should affect the download speed at all. It
>>certainly didn't affect the download speed of the other ten patches I
>>downloaded two weeks ago when I installed the game, so why should it affect
>>this one?
>>
>>Is anyone else having this trouble?
>
>I'm sure the other millions are having the same trouble. For some
>reason Blizzard does not compensate enough for the high number of
>downloaders on patch day. How are they supposed to know 75% of their
>customers are going to download the same file during the same ~5
>hours?
>
>I got on this morning and downloaded it before the rush started, and
>multi-tasked at the same time so it didn't take too long. During peak
>hours I go to Allakhazam and download it - I have a membership there.
>

I use Allakhazam's also, however your wrong on the "Blizzard does not compensate
enough for the high number of downloaders on patch day" ....
The downloader thingy uses Bittorrent aka BT file sharing, so the more ppl on the
torrent, the higher the transfer speed and faster the downloads. On Blizzards end,
they only have to supply the "seed" bandwidth for a short time to start the BT
"swarm". As people finish the download, they create a new seed, adding their upload
bandwidth to the swarm. During your download, you are also adding you upload to the
swarm, providing a larger base of " pieces " for other users to grab. The file is
broken down to a series of pieces, the download portion asks for a piece from the
swarm while the upload portion offers up a piece to share, this way even if there is
only one seed the overall combined swarm my contain many completed files ( depending
on the size of the swarm, could be 10~100s of thousands of complete files ). The file
is put together like a jigsaw puzzle, all the while each downloaded piece is checked
against a " hash " , pieces that fail the hash check are re-downloaded.

The problem is BT is real popular and a lot of ISP's/Nodes/PipeLines/Net Servers
block/throttle the data ports that Bittorrent uses, to lower the load of file
sharers. There was a report that BT data transfer accounts for 1/3 of all net traffic
worldwide.
Alot of broadband modems and routers get saturated by the BT swarm, causing many
types of problems that effect the download/upload rate.
If your upload rate reaches your ISP's cap-rate, it tends to effect the speed of your
download. Because Blizzards downloader thingy doesn't seems to have a setting to
throttle the upload rate, it can easily cause rate problems on non-even down-up rate
ISP connections ( most all broadband ISP's have a download rate much high that upload
to discourage people from setting up servers on their non-commercial accounts )
Users on the swarm who may have some issue causing the offering of pieces with bad
hashes cause a speed decay on the swarm as those who download this bad piece must
redownloaded it, wasting the time spent downloading it. I'm not sure if Blizzard's
downloader thingy "bans" the IP of the source of the bad piece like more customizable
torrent software can.

If they would offer a torrent file ( used by BT software, it contains the connection
info, files list, and hash table for the file(s) being offered for share..normally a
few KB in size ) as a supplement for experienced BT users to use, instead of just the
downloader thingy, some of the above problems could be negated.
--

When E-mailing me, remove the Anti-Spam Device (Super) from my reply address

On 28 Mar 2006 19:12:33 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Probably a lack of peers other than Blizzard for the 1.10 patch bits.
> Overtime, there will be more peers with full seeds. While I like the
> idea of bittorrent for this sort of distribution, I find that it is
> commericially inadequate, and it seems to prove out by what I constantly
> read in these forums.

I think Blizzard's problem using BT as their uploading system is that folks
don't spend enough time seeding. If I have a fast connection and knock the
file out in 5 minutes I'm not seeding anymore once I'm done. But the folks
with slow connections spend longer seeding away while they wait for the
download to finish.

If Blizzard would use a normal .torrent I would leave my BT client running
for a few days to seed away.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!

http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email!

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:08:09 GMT, Ashen Shugar wrote:

> I don't believe satellite is very good for gaming though. You might get
> good download speeds, but your ping/latency is nasty. That's what I
> hear anyway.

Very true. The signal has to go 22,500 miles up to the satellite and then
22,500 miles back down to the ISP's ground station. So before you even get
to the Internet, you already have a 1000ms or worse ping.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!

http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email!

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:36:55 -0600, jes.t.er@hexduxhmp.org wrote:

> My largest complaint is that Comcast (I originally had MediaOne, which
> was bought by AT&T, which was bought by Comcast) keeps upping our
> download rate but lowering our upload rate. Since I actually use upload
> a fair amount, it really pisses me off.

I like Comcast compared to the other cable company I've had Internet
service with. CableOne would throttle your speed for 1 hour after 350MB of
bandwidth used in an hours time.

With Comcast, it's steady 6Mbps download all the time. At least until more
folks move into the neighborhood.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!

http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email!