In reply to a post by legume:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

He said WWM which is nonsense.

I had previously said that WWM wouldn't help.

WWM does not exist.

My understanding of WMM was flawed here. Apologies.

QOS wise, I did mean on the upstream, as my understanding is when the upstream becomes saturated, the downstream performance suffers massively.

I have never set up QOS on downstream personally.

I don't believe you can set downstream QOS on your router. It's too late after they have been sent.

WWM does not exist.

Well it exists in the sense that a quick google comes up with something to do with wi-fi and QOS.
Fair enough, I have no idea whether "normal" kit can do it or not. Even if it could, as I said, it wouldn't help here.

Maybe you're thinking of wireless multi-media (WMM) ?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Maybe you're thinking of wireless multi-media (WMM) ?

Yes I mis-typed WMM.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I don't believe you can set downstream QOS on your router. It's too late after they have been sent.

It is not perfect, but you can make a shared connection with bulk traffic and gaming work - I started doing this back when everyone had 288/576 sync with BTs BRAS buffer around 600ms long. That was hard.

As downstream bit rates increase it gets easier. It's not free, as I said initially, you have to sacrifice bandwidth.
On a fast ish connection like the OPs you could probably set limits say 85 -90% for normal downloads, for a heavily seeded torrent you would need less.

It is of course not the same as upstream as your line limits the incoming speed, plus you don't have total control, but as you set the QOS to less than downspeed you will build up a queue to work with. The idea then is to let through/prio what you deem latency sensitive and to queue up the bulk with a shortish buffer so you soon drop a packet (head drop is possible with some qdiscs and is preferred). This causes tcp congestion control of the sender to back off and keeps the remote buffer from getting filled up with bulk packets that block your interactive packets.

Why would you cripple your connection when prioritising outgoing ACKs is a much more elegant solution?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Why would you cripple your connection when prioritising outgoing ACKs is a much more elegant solution?

That is not a solution for one person downloading preventing another gaming at the same time.

I also don't consider 85-90% of full speed a crippled connection when it allows multiple users to co-exist, plus if you want you can turn it on/off as required.

In reply to a post by legume:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Why would you cripple your connection when prioritising outgoing ACKs is a much more elegant solution?

That is not a solution for one person downloading preventing another gaming at the same time.

I think it is.