Choose style:

Author Topic: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?  (Read 3999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline summat

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 26/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:44:00 pm »
I'm looking forward to getting my Almond+ (Before too much longer! Hopefully?) and am curious to know the expected throughput Almond+ should be capable of  for a PPPoE session with to my provider NAT'ing to LAN?

I realise there may be no exact number with non-final sfotware. but I'd really like to get a vague idea, hoping it'll be quick enough :)
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 03:50:41 pm by summat »

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2014, 11:32:58 pm »
We're going to have to get back to you on this one, right now we're testing Wi-Fi performance and are optimizing that, once that is done, we'll move on to testing other things, but we can't see this being an issue unless you have a really fast internet connection at home.

Offline summat

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 26/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2014, 07:14:20 am »
300/30mbit fttp? :)

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2014, 07:22:42 am »
Oh wow, we only have 100/20Mbps PPPoE over VDSL in the office here in Taiwan, but I'll get you some figures from that connection, although I'm waiting for a new firmware that contains some optimizations for PPPoE.

Offline summat

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 26/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2014, 09:34:06 am »
Oh wow, we only have 100/20Mbps PPPoE over VDSL in the office here in Taiwan, but I'll get you some figures from that connection, although I'm waiting for a new firmware that contains some optimizations for PPPoE.


FTTP in the UK is pretty limited in rollout but where there is a large enough new housing development occasionally FTTP is the only connection actually available. Got lucky! :)

Will await some figures from your VDSL line with great interest. Thankyou!

-summat

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2014, 10:27:14 am »
I remember when I god ADSL when I lived in the UK, my first "broadband" experience was 512/512Kbps through the "toad" from BT and boy did it feel fast compared to dial-up... ;D

It sounds like the UK is slowly but surely getting a lot better when it comes to broadband. It's actually quite rare to get anything over 100Mbps down in Taiwan which might surprise some of you, but this isn't Japan, Korea or Hong Kong...  :-\

Offline summat

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 26/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2014, 01:39:54 pm »
The UK is getting better statistically, average speeds are going up - but there's still a huge divide which is growing larger and larger. Cities and large towns get things like fibre to the cabinet VDSL2, DOCSIS 3 cable, and in some cases, full FTTP if you're lucky. Many rural towns and villages don't even necessarily have anything more than basic ADSL - sometimes no faster than 1-2mbps if you don't live close to your exchange.

If you're really unlucky your only option may be putting up with the cost (and latency..) of satellite broadband.

PS. I got broadband so late 'the toad' had already been superceded by the BT Voyager (I think?) black modem thing. At least it was ethernet vs the toad's USB! :)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 01:42:02 pm by summat »

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2014, 10:55:37 pm »
Sounds like you were lucky even back then, the "toad" was a terrible device, I had to get a dedicated USB card to power it, as it was using that much power...

I'm using some kind of FTTx service where I live, although the service provider doesn't really specify what it is,  but it's Ethernet to the building from a switch somewhere that's meant to connect to their fibre network. This is quite rare in Taiwan though.

I guess BT has been a stalwart in the UK when it comes to moving to better technologies which has lead to many areas not getting any kind of decent broadband. I live in the outskirts of Taipei and can still get over 100Mbps here by two different service providers, so it's clearly doable, but I guess there's little financial gain to be had for BT to give people something better...

Anyhow, I'll do some testing and get you some numbers.

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2014, 03:10:58 am »
Ok, here we go, first PPPoE test, do note that I've never seen speeds in excess of the 100Mbps on our office connection, so I guess we're getting a little bit less than what we're paying for.


Offline summat

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 26/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2014, 01:10:49 pm »
Thanks for the test Lars, any ideas on the kind of load that put on the Almond+? I'm interested in a vague idea of what it *might* be capable of.

Obviously you can't spend too much time testing this stuff, especially since it's still not final firmware, I just really appreciate you taking the time to look for us! :)

Also if it's anything like the UK connections, '100mbit' means more like the 93mbit mark you saw. Link might be 100, but overheads pull it down. BT frustrate people by saying they can get, for instance, 80/20 VDSL2, and have been forced to change it to say 76/18 as that's the best 'real' speed you could *ever* see on it taking into account the overheads! Maybe something similar going on there :)

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2014, 01:18:09 pm »
I didn't think to look, but it can't have been much. I'll re-do it next week and look at CPU load.

Usually the internet providers here are pretty good, but I wasn't the only one using the internet at that point of time in the office.

This is what I have at home at the moment and technically I'm only paying for 50/5


LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2014, 04:06:06 am »
We got slightly faster upload speed in the office now and it's no problem handling that.



« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 04:12:27 am by Lars »

Offline summat

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 26/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2014, 04:04:27 am »
Thanks for the update Lars!

At the very least I know for sure I could use the Almond+ for my parents house (80/20) VDSL2 if it can't quite manage the full 300/30 I have here!

Is there any way you could see how hard its working for that speed? Load average for a sustained transfer etc?

Really looking forward to seeing what it can do once I get my hands on it :)

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2014, 05:56:38 am »
I highly doubt it'll be an issue with your connection, as the switch is more than fast enough to handle your connection. I'll have a look at the load, but I doubt it'll be very high.
Looking at my static IP connection at home I can't really see any change in CPU usage running speedtest (i.e. it's not measurable), but I'm not sure if PPPoE is affected differently.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 06:03:42 am by Lars »

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Rough WAN -> LAN PPPoE performance?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2014, 11:41:53 am »
Well, that kind of sucked, I got moved to DOCSIS 3.0 as my internet provider is now part of a cable company, so they no longer to FTTB...
Still, the speed is a lot better, although a bit short of 120/20  ;)

« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 12:00:54 pm by Lars »

 

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 24 queries.