If you haven't noticed shaw has bumped standard from 5Mbit to 7.5 and I-Extreme from 10 to 15Mbit.
Also all versions have speed boost which seems to get you something like 15-20Mbits for transfers that last less than a few seconds.
Note however that if you have a QOS router and have set your sevice levels you will not get the speed boost advantage, also it is a good time to go adjust those settings to take advantage of the increases in the basic service.
I have gained almost 3Mbit/s with my new settings.
I wondered why I "maxxed" my bandwidth the other day...!
Hehe, I saw that before I got the email. It seems they rolled it out to business accounts much earlier than residential.
I started seeing speeds of 1.5M/s to 1.8M/s a couple weeks ago. Thats before speedboost. With speedboost I get up over 3MB/s with no problems ;D but as you know, it doesn't last long per connection, but in BitTorrent, thats perfect ;) some torrents max my OLD limit, and others still have room to download :D
They are also moving to DOCSIS3, which is fairly important, because DOCSIS3 provides speeds per node upwards of 150-300mb/s downstream and 108mb/s upstream, supports channel bonding, meaning you can get more than one single wavelength (42Mb/s per channel downstream, 10-30Mb/s per channel upstream) in each direction meaning you could theoretically get the max via cable. DOCSIS3 also supports IPv6, which should be quite useful.
How does one go about enabling the speed increase? I have moved my CPU into the basement and so am going wireless, have a strong signal (have "130.0 Mbps" apparently) but seems a bit slower than it maybe can be?
If you have not imposed your own caps through QOS settings then you just GET the speed.
The connection speed on WiFi means almost nothing, I have never been able to get that speed when measuring with other tools
Hmm, I'm maxing out at 1.4MB/s in uTorrent. I don't know if its the machines on the other end not sending fast enough, but some of 'em are directly on fiber-optical connections, so...
I have a QoS engine in my router - it gets turned on with a checkbox. I haven't configured any special rules for it, as D-Link's manual says that shouldn't be necessary.
3MB/s, or even 2MB/s, would be nice. The only downside I can find is that now it's so easy and so quick to download stuff that multiple hard drives get filled up before everything's been watched...
1.85MB/s is the theoretical max speed for 15mb/s (which is what shaw is advertising now). It may just be that theres noise on the line, or your router isn't fast enough to keep up with 1.8MB/s. To be honest though 1.4MB/s is pretty decent.. Unfortuneatly I can't test my speeds right at the moment, my line has been quite noisy and I'm lucky to get 10mb/s let alone 15mb/s.
QuoteThe only downside I can find is that now it's so easy and so quick to download stuff that multiple hard drives get filled up before everything's been watched...
Theres a reason I splurged when I got my new "server" box. My $300+ GST refund went into buying 3 more 640G Hard drives for it ;) theres four in that machine running RAID5, which gives me nearly 2TB of disk space. That plus my old 596G raid5 array gives me quite a lot of extra space. Its actually some what hard to fill up 2.4TB of space that fast :)
With my full download speed available it would take 16.2 days to fill up all of my RAID storage. But I find I don't have that much do download these days. So it'll take me months, and much of it will be stuff I consider temporary, so if it starts getting full, I'll just delete it (CSI, NCIS, etc).
http://speedtest.net/ and run the test several times.. The fist few times you should see boosted speeds but after about 4 runs it should show you your standard speed.
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2009, 12:03:07 PM
(CSI, NCIS, etc).
Finally, another NCIS fan! Most people don't know what show I'm talking about...
Raeofsunshine got me into NCIS as well..
Double-Yay!
The show's completely far-fetched, but I've really gotten into it. I was very sad when they killed off Kate... Just like when Tasha Yar actually died.
Anyway, off-topic.
Quote from: Lazybones on February 27, 2009, 12:38:57 PM
http://speedtest.net/ and run the test several times.. The fist few times you should see boosted speeds but after about 4 runs it should show you your standard speed.
I consistently hit between 9.7MB/s and 12.5MB/s (ran the test 12 times). It was either right by the lower amount or right by the upper amount.
Quote from: Thorin on February 27, 2009, 04:57:25 PM
Double-Yay!
The show's completely far-fetched, but I've really gotten into it. I was very sad when they killed off Kate... Just like when Tasha Yar actually died.
Anyway, off-topic.
Quote from: Lazybones on February 27, 2009, 12:38:57 PM
http://speedtest.net/ and run the test several times.. The fist few times you should see boosted speeds but after about 4 runs it should show you your standard speed.
I consistently hit between 9.7MB/s and 12.5MB/s (ran the test 12 times). It was either right by the lower amount or right by the upper amount.
You mean 9.7mb/s and 12.5mb/s right? even with speed boost getting 12.5MB/s is rather impossible. The most I've ever seen is 3-4MB/s and 4MB/s is like 32mb/s.
I like the results I get at work.. They very a lot but are mostly awesome.
46517 kb/s Down 13432 kb/s up
Quote from: Lazybones on February 27, 2009, 05:08:54 PM
I like the results I get at work.. They very a lot but are mostly awesome.
46517 kb/s Down 13432 kb/s up
nice. I'd love to have 50mb/s down and 15mb/s up. I really hope shaw pushes out higher upload speeds soon. 1mb/s isn't enough to actually handle any speeds much faster than 15-20mb/s. Most of your upstream will fill up with ACK packets ::)
Shaw wants 300$ a month for the new server connect plan, and all you get is 5/5mb, no speed boost, no i extreme. But it does come with like 5 static ips or something. but 300 is still too much.
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: Thorin on February 27, 2009, 04:57:25 PM
I consistently hit between 9.7MB/s and 12.5MB/s (ran the test 12 times). It was either right by the lower amount or right by the upper amount.
You mean 9.7mb/s and 12.5mb/s right? even with speed boost getting 12.5MB/s is rather impossible. The most I've ever seen is 3-4MB/s and 4MB/s is like 32mb/s.
Thanks for the correction, too bad you weren't quite right. No, I did not mean megabytes per second (MB/s), I meant megabits per second (Mb/s). I definitely was not talking about millibits per second (mb/s). See? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli <-- lower-case "m" is milli.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.
Quote from: Thorin on February 27, 2009, 05:43:23 PM
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: Thorin on February 27, 2009, 04:57:25 PM
I consistently hit between 9.7MB/s and 12.5MB/s (ran the test 12 times). It was either right by the lower amount or right by the upper amount.
You mean 9.7mb/s and 12.5mb/s right? even with speed boost getting 12.5MB/s is rather impossible. The most I've ever seen is 3-4MB/s and 4MB/s is like 32mb/s.
Thanks for the correction, too bad you weren't quite right. No, I did not mean megabytes per second (MB/s), I meant megabits per second (Mb/s). I definitely was not talking about millibits per second (mb/s). See? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli <-- lower-case "m" is milli.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.
lol. I suppose I deserve that. I just didn't feel like being THAT pedantic.
If you want to continue, what I meant by mb really is Megabits, and MB should have been MiB/s Since M means 1,000,000 bytes, and I meant 1,048,576 bytes, which has been standardized by SI to be MiB.
Speedtest.net reports in kbps (aka kb/s), which is kilobits per second. Thus I moved the decimal three spaces and referred to Mb/s, megabits per second (but mistakenly capitalized the "b"). I assumed Speedtest.net was speaking in powers of ten, not powers of two.
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2009, 05:56:41 PM
If you want to continue, what I meant by mb really is Megabits, and MB should have been MiB/s Since M means 1,000,000 bytes, and I meant 1,048,576 bytes, which has been standardized by SI to be MiB.
No, Kibi (Ki), Mebi (Mi), etc are not SI units. They are prefixes for binary units defined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in standard 60027 amendment 2 revision 2005 (about to be replaced with a combination of ISO standard 80000 and IEC standard 80000, which will maintain the same definition of these prefixes).
In fact, the old KB, kB, MB, kb, mb, etc, aren't SI units either. The base unit of these "measurements" are "B" and "b" or bytes and bits, neither of which appear in any official SI base unit or derived unit list. Just as one could say the dealership has a kilocar sitting on its lot, one can say that a program uses a kilobyte on a drive. Both statements use prefixes from the SI system to make a new term that is not an official standard but
is understood by consumers. In fact, in SI "B" means Bel, a unit of measurement most commonly used in it's one-tenth form "deciBel" or "dB".
If I remember correctly, "bit" is officially defined by an IEEE standard, but "byte" still isn't. We accept that a byte is eight bits because that's what everyone uses it as, but at this point you could make a system with seven or nine bits per byte and not be wrong according to any published international standard. It should be noted that the IEEE recommends "b" for bit and "B" for byte, while the IEC recommends "bit" for bit and "B" for byte.
And if a dealership has a kilocar sitting on its lot, I hope they're selling more than a decacar a day or it'll take 'em over three months to clear the lot...
Welcome to Pedantic City, population 2.
Funny I didn't see Thorin's reply sooner. This forum software is weird. If a browser window closes, the unread posts link will clear the posts at random.
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2009, 02:42:54 PM
This forum software is weird. If a browser window closes, the unread posts link will clear the posts at random.
LOL for the life of me I can't reproduce these "bugs". I've tried, really! I can't fix it if I can't troubleshoot it :(
Quote from: Melbosa on February 28, 2009, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2009, 02:42:54 PM
This forum software is weird. If a browser window closes, the unread posts link will clear the posts at random.
LOL for the life of me I can't reproduce these "bugs". I've tried, really! I can't fix it if I can't troubleshoot it :(
I often get "bad gateway" errors too. Not sure what that's all about but I only get it on RW... :-?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 28, 2009, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: Melbosa on February 28, 2009, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2009, 02:42:54 PM
This forum software is weird. If a browser window closes, the unread posts link will clear the posts at random.
LOL for the life of me I can't reproduce these "bugs". I've tried, really! I can't fix it if I can't troubleshoot it :(
I often get "bad gateway" errors too. Not sure what that's all about but I only get it on RW... :-?
That one I am aware of and trying to fix. I know the cause of it.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on February 28, 2009, 01:01:46 PM
Welcome to Pedantic City, population 2.
But daddy, he started it!
I'm just interested to see if Tom will actually say, "Yes, that is the absolute correct truth, I was not completely correct." Most Internet technical-jargon-nazis that I've exchanged words with lack the humility to admit mistakes, which bugs me. I mean, if you're going to pick on someone else's mistake, make sure you're ready to admit your own.
Quote from: Melbosa on February 28, 2009, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2009, 02:42:54 PM
This forum software is weird. If a browser window closes, the unread posts link will clear the posts at random.
LOL for the life of me I can't reproduce these "bugs". I've tried, really! I can't fix it if I can't troubleshoot it :(
Yeah, Mel, I've been trying to make sure I get a list of steps to reproduce a problem... One of the things I reported was the (to me at least) weirdness of marking a post "new" without showing it in the "new posts" page. But we had that discussion before. The other thing I've noticed is that if a thread has new posts and you go to the "new posts" page and click the "new" button, and the oldest post that you haven't read yet is not on the last page, there's no indication that there are more posts on more pages other than the page numbers at the bottom.
So, for example, I check the "new posts" page. It tells me there's a new post in thread xyz. Now, thread xyz has 20 posts, 7 of which are new posts since I last read the thread, the last 5 of which are on page 2. When I click the "new" button next to the thread name, I get taken to page 1 post 14 (the oldest new post), and unless I look carefully to see if there are more pages in the thread, I won't know that there are 5 more posts on page 2.
It'd be nice if posts not shown on the current page are not flagged as read - that'd take care of missing posts on newer pages.
2.0 of the forum software is comming soon, maybe it will fix that issue.
Quote from: Lazybones on March 02, 2009, 02:09:22 AM
2.0 of the forum software is comming soon, maybe it will fix that issue.
We can only hope!
Quote from: Thorin on March 01, 2009, 11:24:47 PM
I'm just interested to see if Tom will actually say, "Yes, that is the absolute correct truth, I was not completely correct." Most Internet technical-jargon-nazis---
Warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law): thread civility metric nearing zero.
;) j/k, I know what you're saying.
Yeah, I meant that term in the same general sense as the term Grammar Nazi (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grammar+nazi). I was not attempting to derail the thread by comparing subject matter being debated to Nazis or the Holocaust, thus I did not consider myself engaging in Reductio ad Nazium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Nazium). I suppose I would've been better off finding synonyms for pedantry.
Quote from: Melbosa on March 02, 2009, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on March 02, 2009, 02:09:22 AM
2.0 of the forum software is comming soon, maybe it will fix that issue.
We can only hope!
Would be nice. I wonder if anyone's reported it as a bug? I imagine it won't get changed if no one's complained about it...
And Tom? In case I've gotten under your skin or pissed you off, sorry.
Quote from: Thorin on March 02, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Yeah, I meant that term in the same general sense as the term Grammar Nazi (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grammar+nazi). I was not attempting to derail the thread by comparing subject matter being debated to Nazis or the Holocaust, thus I did not consider myself engaging in Reductio ad Nazium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Nazium). I suppose I would've been better off finding synonyms for pedantry.
Quote from: Melbosa on March 02, 2009, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on March 02, 2009, 02:09:22 AM
2.0 of the forum software is comming soon, maybe it will fix that issue.
We can only hope!
Would be nice. I wonder if anyone's reported it as a bug? I imagine it won't get changed if no one's complained about it...
And Tom? In case I've gotten under your skin or pissed you off, sorry.
I thought we were having some good fun, sorry if I pissed you off :silenced:
^ cue that 3-note "feel good, family moment" musical piece from the Family Guy episode...
You know what else is great? Porn.
Especially at Shaw's new speeds.
Indeed.