Packet loss on FTTP on Speedtest.net

alreet99

alreet99

alreet99

Associate
Joined
20 Feb 2022
Posts
65
Location
Newcastle
Had 900mbit full fibre installed yesterday and noticed on Speedtest.net it was saying packet loss of about 6%. Looked back at previous tests on my old FTTC and it was 0%. Is this normal on fttp? Getting full speed and doesn’t seem to be any issues.

Just did another speed test and said 15% packet loss.
 
Last edited:
ISP is Sky.

Did that test and it said 0% packet loss. But the download and upload only went up to 680/94 compared to 920/107 on speedtest.net
 
The ack's being sent during your download are saturating the connection hence the increase in packet loss. Limit upload to 90% of the upload capacity (ie, 90 Mbps) and the issue should go away.
 
Some routers such as DrayTek Vigor, also have 'Outbound TCP ACK Prioritize' that can be enabled to solve this. See if there is anything similar in the QOS settings.
 
g67575 said:
I tested my ping to bbc.co.uk when uploading a file to Google Drive at full speed (Virgin Media FTTP).

The reported latencies were nearly all above 200ms.
Click to expand...

This is the reason why I terminated my so called 512mbps VM connection 10 years ago and switched to 40 mbps VDSL+ :cry: Best move ever
Originally with Telewest yr 2k until VM ruined it for everyone
 
Last edited:
Subliminal Aura said:
This is the reason why I terminated my so called 512mbps VM connection 10 years ago and switched to 40 mbps VDSL+ :cry: Best move ever
Originally with Telewest yr 2k until VM ruined it for everyone
Click to expand...

I've completely fixed / mitigated this problem on my VM FTTP connection now. Tbh, the upload isn't likely to be fully saturated very often, but it's nice to know that I can rely on the connection now even under load:

9r96xCE.png


Basically, this can be done with OpenWrt installed on a device like a Raspberry Pi.

I am using Smart Que Management (SQM) to limit the upload bandwidth to 38000kbps.

Under the devices menu, I configured the Lan (Bridge device) to use 2 network adapters (one 'input' and one 'output'), like this:

396WOle.png


Then you can install the SQM module to limit the bandwidth on the LAN side of the network, like this:


oGX2yGi.png


In this config, the firewall can be disabled on the Lan interface, and DHCP should also be disabled.

The nice thing is that this configuration should work alongside any router.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
Basically, this can be done with OpenWrt installed on a device like a Raspberry pie.

I am using Smart Que Management (SQM) to limit the upload bandwidth to 38000kbps.
Click to expand...

Yes, running the same setup with 3 openwrt routers in active passive passive setup

I stand by saying that applying QoS works at your expense, we shouldn't need to fix carpy connections like this
 
Yeah, tbh it does need quite decent hardware for this to work well. And a little time invested.

I have another TP-Link cheap managed switch (with a bandwidth control option), and this just introduced problems (large spikes in latency, odd delays communicating with the switch), but gave the illusion of improved reliability / lower latency.

I checked what the latency is like (with the OpenWrt device) when uploading a large file to Google Drive, and it's much better now, maxing out at 11ms when pinging bbc.co.uk.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone got any experience configuring SQM que disciplines in OpenWRT?

I tried this config earlier:

35jZTQd.png


I haven't noticed any problems yet. Cake seems to deal much better with network congestion than other que disciplines. I tested it on Geforce Now while playing, and sudden burst of downstream traffic didn't cause packet loss / congestion with it enabled.

Latency can spike to ~100ms, but it seems to cope well.
 
Last edited:
@alreet99 managed that wired in Speedtest yet?

I’m not saying the others are wrong but I’m sceptical of even a 900/100 maxing the upload with acks on a Speedtest, there is an ack flow which I’m not denying but it’s not 1:1 with your download speed.

Start at the shallow end.
 
Last edited:
Subliminal Aura said:
This is the reason why I terminated my so called 512mbps VM connection 10 years ago and switched to 40 mbps VDSL+ :cry: Best move ever
Originally with Telewest yr 2k until VM ruined it for everyone
Click to expand...
Virgin didn’t ruin anything, it’s literally just a licensed brand, nothing to do with the underlying company. Telewest did a reverse buyout of NTL and licensed the Virgin brand, behind the scenes a massive amount of investment took place to standardise based on the TW systems, it was then sold to Liberty Global, who further invested and standardised further. At this point the FUP/speed limits were removed, profile speeds increased etc. LG then made sweeping reforms to head count and moved most things to outsourced providers for CS/installs etc.
 
Avalon said:
Virgin didn’t ruin anything, it’s literally just a licensed brand, nothing to do with the underlying company. Telewest did a reverse buyout of NTL and licensed the Virgin brand, behind the scenes a massive amount of investment took place to standardise based on the TW systems, it was then sold to Liberty Global, who further invested and standardised further. At this point the FUP/speed limits were removed, profile speeds increased etc. LG then made sweeping reforms to head count and moved most things to outsourced providers for CS/installs etc.
Click to expand...
All I go by is experience
Connection was great in the y2k which degraded as soon as Virgin took over and year on year since then until I switched over to a much slower VDSL+ connection which offered far better latency
 
Subliminal Aura said:
All I go by is experience
Connection was great in the y2k which degraded as soon as Virgin took over and year on year since then until I switched over to a much slower VDSL+ connection which offered far better latency
Click to expand...
That makes about as much sense as your other nonsensical posts on this sub forum. For starters, the merger didn't happen till 2006, the licence to use the Virgin brand was the back end of 06 and the first branding didn't roll till 2007, from your description, the service had declined year-on-year from 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom