In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The reason I think plusnet's QoS is ineffective is simple, they still buffer a ton of traffic so it does nothing to maintain latency whilst downloading.

I expect the real reason you find that is because you are not maxing out your connection.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

This is why I see plusnet's QoS as a failure, if it was working as promised, then I would expect to see no packetloss whilst downloading from steam but i did, not so bad as sky but still enough to affect other activities.

Isn't steam counted as a download server? and so will get traffic managed more heavily?
I personally suspect that there might be an issue with the Traffic management not working as promised. Several people have suggested that they may not have enough CPU capacity on the Traffic management servers now and there's been absolutely no comment from Plusnet on that (unless I missed something).

so you think I dont know what throughput I am getting?

yes but that would only be managed for the legacy plusnet packages. Steam will max out on a plusnet unlimited line.

Note I mean packet loss for non steam traffic.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Last year, on my previous line, I did some testing for Dave Tomlinson. When he set the profile to 77.4, I got speeds averaging 72.5. When he changed the profile to 92, I got speeds of 74.7.

But what Gateway(s) were you on? From my observations the amount of speed drop seems to be dependant on which Gateway you are connected to.
I haven't kept notes, and appreciate you may not reply until you get back.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

so you think I dont know what throughput I am getting?

I didn't say that, but also I didn't read you later posts before replying, so my comment there is really irrelevant.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

yes but that would only be managed for the legacy plusnet packages. Steam will max out on a plusnet unlimited line.

Note I mean packet loss for non steam traffic.

What traffic specifically? VoiP or gaming? And sorry, traffic is still "managed" even on plusnet unlimited fibre, but maybe/likely not correctly.
(see http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/tr... or http://usergroup.plus.net/prodcomp2.php and select Plusnet Unlimited Fibre).

In reply to a post by tommy45:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It was pointed out earlier that 200kbps seems to be the case.

I think you may be saying that there seem to be other throughput losses. I think you may be right, but that isn't the same thing as the hard cap that the Current line speed sets before those kick in.

It could be to do with the buffering involved in the prioritisation system. Given the overall throughput increase due to the increase in the number of customers, plus the radical change in the way people use the net in the last couple of years, it wouldn't be surprising if that side of the system wasn't creaking.

Queuing systems are complex beasties . A small slowdown in one place can cause a huge jam elsewhere, as on motorways.

Well the affects in reality for me where a dam sight more than only 200kbps when set to 77.4 or a 77.44 BTW profile , it improved when set to 78mbps but still resulted in a lower throughput than what i should of had, I don't really care what part of they system was responsible,

Whilst the CLS may be set upto 200kbps lower than the IP profile, there is still around a minimum 2Mbps drop in throughput below that at these higher speeds. You may well find that the larger decreases are dependant on which Gateway you are on. But tommy45 can't check that now, so there's little point in arguing about it any more.

In reply to a post by ChrisAO:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It was pointed out earlier that 200kbps seems to be the case.

I think you may be saying that there seem to be other throughput losses. I think you may be right, but that isn't the same thing as the hard cap that the Current line speed sets before those kick in.

It could be to do with the buffering involved in the prioritisation system. Given the overall throughput increase due to the increase in the number of customers, plus the radical change in the way people use the net in the last couple of years, it wouldn't be surprising if that side of the system wasn't creaking.

Queuing systems are complex beasties . A small slowdown in one place can cause a huge jam elsewhere, as on motorways.

Well the affects in reality for me where a dam sight more than only 200kbps when set to 77.4 or a 77.44 BTW profile , it improved when set to 78mbps but still resulted in a lower throughput than what i should of had, I don't really care what part of they system was responsible,

Whilst the CLS may be set upto 200kbps lower than the IP profile, there is still around a minimum 2Mbps drop in throughput below that at these higher speeds. You may well find that the larger decreases are dependant on which Gateway you are on. But tommy45 can't check that now, so there's little point in arguing about it any more.

No i can't but others can,

Re gateways, the newer BNG's gave me a higher downstream throughput of around 2-300kbps when compared to the older PTN's and PTW's

Latency was around 1-2ms lower on some of BNG's ,

buffer bloat was less on the older gateways though, going by tbbqm's

But there are no two ways about it their use of a secondary profile and associated traffic management was artificially restricting the max throughput on my connection, and i suspect I'm not the only customer to suspect this,it's probably more easily spotted on connections that sync at the full rate as easier to compare results from speed tests with customers from other ISP's that supply services via BTW .

And yes BTW's IP profile also does this , but going by Sky speedest results only by around 1mbps That considered Plusnet customers with FTTC could be losing upto 3-4mbps of throughput as they are getting hit twice