Upload rate lower than expected

I want to get the best out of our connection... predicted speed was 55/20, engineer reported 80/20 (19.5 dbs for line length?, snr up/down 15.2/11.2) with his kit yet every speed test i've tried indicates 74/16. The BTW further diagnostics gives http error 500. Leaving out the router and connecting directly to the modem doesn't change the speed.
I know some throughput is lost to overheads but 16 vs 20 is a loss of about 20%. Where I can find more stats etc.?

Check the speedtest at http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
That is more accurate for upload speeds.
You can find out more stats if you unlock the modem (easy with HG612, google for it, hard with ECI modem).
Also, if you unlock the modem and disable QoS you will get around 1 to 1.5Mb higher upload speeds.
I have slight line issues right now, but when things were going right I saw:
15 or 16 Mbps, fastest upload with BT wholesale tester (QoS operating)
17Mbps, upload to Thinkbroadband or 'real' backup to SquirrelSave (QoS operating)
18.5Mbps, upload to Thuinkbroadband or 'real' backup to SquirrelSave (QoS off)

Similar Messages

Schema version is lower than expected value

While configuring the database at Step 3 of 9, it threw me an exception: INST-6177 OIM Schema version is lower than expected value.
Create OIM 11g schema using repository creation utility and proceed with configuration.
Now, Please help me...

For the exception, the trace says that:
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.511+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
[OIM_CONFIG_INTERVIEW] MDS Schema Version is correct
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Exiting method executeHandler
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
[OIM_CONFIG_INTERVIEW] Database is not encryped. This is not an upgrade flow.
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Could not fetch the schema version from the database
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
ERROR ====>>>>:INST-6177
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
Cause:OIM Schema version is lower than the expected value
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
Action:Create OIM 11g schema using Repository Creation Utility and proceed with configuration.
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
[OIM_CONFIG_INTERVIEW] Retrieving default locale set in the machine.
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Exiting method executeHandler
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Handler launch end: oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Handler returned status: FAILED
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Error in validating schema details

Lower than expected battery life? (pic warning)

I have the x61s w/ the UltraLight screen and 4-cell cylindrical battery. According to the specs I should be getting up to 4.5h.From what I've heard, lenovo's estimations are actually normally quite accurate.
Well here's the thing - I probably top out at about 3hrs. This is QUITE a bit lower than expected. Could it be a faulty battery? I'm expecting more out of this baby!
Message Edited by Kaitlyn2004 on 05-01-2009 07:13 PM
Message Edited by JaneL on 05-01-2009 10:59 PM

The 4.5 hours estimate is when you don't use your laptop for anything other than word processing, and dim out your LCD. In addition it would also require you not use any wireless connection or lot of background processes.
You can check your battery condition, by going into power manager and look at what is the design capacity and actual capacity?
Message Edited by JaneL on 05-01-2009 10:59 PM
Regards,
Jin Li
May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

Upload Maximum Date Rate Lower Than Upload Data Ra...

Hello there,
I have just brought up my BT Home Hub 5 stats and my upload data rate is higher than my upload maximum date rate. Is this normal? My upload noise margin has dropped to 4.9 - 5.1 dB. I've had BT Infinity just over 2 days and was wondering if this was normal for FTTC connections?
Many thanks,
William

normally the data rate will be lower than max data rate but yours is that close I would not bother unless it starts to affect your connection which is unlikely
If you like a post, or want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side of the post.
If someone answers your question correctly please let other members know by clicking on ’Mark as Accepted Solution’.

Solution For Poor/Capped Uploads Lower Than Expect...

I have been trying to find out why my Windows 7 machine performed poorly compared to my Untangle Linux Box and Win2008 Server.
The uploads always seemed capped at 10Mbps or thereabouts. If I fired it through my Untangle Box I could get 18- 20Mbps.
A little more digging around it seemed a OS problem as I tried 2 different routers my ASUS N56U and a Dlink DIR655, and tried 3 different Network Cards.
So if you have a Windows 7 machine I suggest you try this, but of course at your own risk although I doubt whether you will really do much harm.
Anyways try this.
start, run, type REGEDIT and open it, then find this
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\services\AFD\Parameters
create a new dword 32bit string in Parameters and name it "DefaultSendWindow"
Exactly as sated here case sensitive without the quotes
then double click it, choose Decimal and type this number 1640960
exit regedit, reboot pc.
After reboot run speedtest and see the difference.
My speeds are as expected now on all my machines.
BEFORE
AFTER

Why 1640960?
According to this , the formula is (Upload Speed Kbps / 8 ) * 1024 = DefaultSendWindow
which I work out as 2560000 for 20Mbps
If you found this post helpful, please click on the star on the left
If not, I'll try again

BT Infinity - speed much lower than expected

Morning all,
I will be raising a call with BT this morning but thought I would post here too. Eventually got BT infinity installed on the 16th of March after BT messed up the order - I am less than 90 metres to the cabinet.
My speed fluctuates between 17MB and 36MB - I was told by BT that I should expect at least 70MB - I have checked speeds in the AM, mid afternoon, evening and night and have done so for the last week - numerous speed test sites used : speedtest.net / the BT speed test and others provided by other ISPs - all show the same speeds or thereabouts.
Have to say, not massively impressed with Infinity or the service provided by BT.

Hi Guys,
See below and these are the highest speeds I have had yet..
FAQ
1. Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Download Speed
40.71 Mbps
0 Mbps
77.44 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Download speedachieved during the test was - 40.71 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speedsis 16 Mbps-77.44 Mbps .
Additional Information:
IP Profile for your line is - 77.44 Mbps
2. Upstream Test: -provides background information.
Upload Speed
9.16 Mbps
0 Mbps
20 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Upload speed achieved during the test was - 9.16Mbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 20 Mbps
We were unable to identify any performance problem with your service at this time.

Network Utilization Lower Than Expected

We are imaging systems using PXE and have 8 of them going at the same time. We looked on the server and it had like 200 mbps usage. I would expect it to be much higher (we have 2 - 1 gig nics on the server).
Is there something that throttles this? Any thoughts?

Create this in registry on Your PXE WDS Server:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\SMS\DP\RamDiskTFTPBlockSize
Type Reg_Dword
Value: 16384 Dec (Do not use higher value than this!)
((Recommend that you increase this setting in multiples (4096, 8192, 16384, and so on) and that you not set a value higher than 16384.))
Juke Chou
TechNet Community Support

Lower than expected sound output from A100

Hi.
I have recently bought a Satellite A100 PSAA9E and have been pretty disappointed with the low sound output from it.
It's currently set to the highest volume level and is nowhere near the level I would expect.
Is this normal for this machine? All advice appreciated.
Thanks.

Hi
Well, its not easy to say what a low level is because its your own perception.
You know that the notebook speakers are not very powerful speakers because of the size and you can not compare it with other speakers.
But nevertheless; did you check also the settings in the control panel -- Sound and Audio devices?
There you can set the different sound controls to max. Maybe then you will notice a difference.

Lower than expected 1310 bridge performance

Hi All,
We have recently installed an wireless WAN link over 7 km (aproximate 4.5 milles) distance. The towers are sufficent for fresnel and earth bulge and obstacles requirements.
We have used Cisco Aironet 1310 bridges (one configured as root bridge, the other as non-root bridge). The antennas are 24 dBi from Hyperlink, connected by RP-TNC to N pigtails, also provided by Hyperlink. According the Cisco utilities, the antennas has more than enough gain for the distance, climatic and topographic conditions.
The alignement of the antennas was made visually (using binoculars) on one side, on the other with precision instruments.
To select the frequency (the automatic selection works awfuly bad, it establish connection one of three times) we use the Carrier Busy Test on the network interface / Radio 802.11G menu, where we are able to pick the frequency with zero percent (0%) utilization most of the time.
The problems we experiment are the following:
- The latency times are very variable. From 1 ms, to 207 ms, to other values. We have used other wireless equipment with more stable performance.
- There are lost packets frequently, even with the slightest network traffic (2 PC's with terminal service sessions). Supousedly, the link is of 54 Mbps speed, but the quality is very low.
- At the moment, we are losing connection every couple of minutes. After that the non-root configured bridge stays down and the only way to reestablish connection is by reseting the 1310.
- I see that the speed changes every time I refresh the IE utility.
I still havent configured any security, because the awful way the link works.
What could be the reason for such bad performance?
Best Regards,
Igor Sotelo.

Hi All,
I have noticed that when the switches have VLAN configured, the latency is very variable. In this particular case, the switches does not have this configuration. I haven't configured VLAN's on the wireless bridges either.
I will test the link without any switches, it's an good idea. Perhaps there is "something" with the wired network.
Other than that the specifics are:
- I have used Belden RG-6 1530A cable that has even higher grade than the Belden 9077 recommended by the manuals.
- The extension of the cables is around 40 meters (120 foot).
- We have installed another wireless link in the place, that uses the same frequency, but different polarity. Also we try to separate the channels at least 7 frequencies.
- The other system is omnidireccional in nature, and it doesn't have excessive gain.
- On the place where the equipment of both systems coexist, the physical separation between the antennas of the two systems is around 9 foots (3 meters).
The error messages we get are:
- On the root bridge:
Mar 1 00:00:57.238 Information Interface Dot11Radio0, Deauthenticating Station 0017.0ec6.a590 Reason: Previous authentication no longer valid
Mar 1 00:00:57.237 Warning Packet to client 0017.0ec6.a590 reached max retries, removing the client
- On the non-root bridge:
Mar 1 16:19:52.072 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:19:51.072 Error Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:19:51.071 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, Associated To AP Central-2 0017.0ec6.a580 [None]
Mar 1 16:16:00.255 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, cannot associate: No Response
Mar 1 16:15:50.397 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
Mar 1 16:15:49.398 Error Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
Mar 1 16:15:49.397 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, parent lost: Too many retries
Mar 1 16:14:56.788 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:14:55.788 Error Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:14:55.788 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, Associated To AP Central-2 0017.0ec6.a580 [None]
When we make a reload on any of the bridges the link reestablishes for some time. With this message on the root bridge:
Mar 1 00:00:44.194 Information Interface Dot11Radio0, Station NONROOTNAME 0017.0ec6.a590 Reassociated KEY_MGMT[NONE]
Mar 1 00:00:35.456 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
I will appreciate any additional help.
Best Regards,
Igor Sotelo.

DVD quality lower than expected

I’m trialling Premiere Elements 11 with a view to purchasing it to allow my Dad to easily edit video from his new camcorder. The importing and editing work great. (We are importing .m2ts in full HD from a Panasonic camcorder.)
However when we come to burn the DVD the quality is very poor, pretty much looks like a VHS!
We have got better quality by burning the same footage to DVD using the Panasonic own software (but it is difficult for my dad to use).
I have checked:
Project settings are correct (1920x1080)
We have rendered it with the preview render button before burning
We’re in the UK so selecting PAL-widescreen output on the DVD burning stage
We were only testing it with 10 mins footage, so no problem with length reducing quality
Would love to be able to fix this as the Premiere Elements 11 would be great for my dad in all other respects! Any ideas? Thanks!

I have the same software and a Panasonic camcorder.
To get high picture quality you have to stop making DVDs.
The very best quality will come from setting the camcorder to 1080p50. The files will be big. Both HDWriter (that comes with Panasonic camcorders) and PrE11 can use that level. It is also the best setting for action sports.
You did not say what you are using for a DVD player or what sort of TV or other viewing device you want to use.
If you want to play it in high definition you need to get it to a high definition screen some way without degrading it in a DVD player. Get a Blu-Ray Player, a media player like a WD TV Live or plug your computer into your HD TV with an HDMI cord.
With a Blu-Ray player you can have both of your editors make a thing called an AVCHD disk. It looks like a DVD, uses DVD disks, but it is not a DVD. It makes a 1080i version of your footage on an ordinary, cheap DVD in and ordinary DVD burner. The disk will play on most Blu-Ray players as it is part of the Sony/Panasonic AVCHD standard. Because you can only put about 4 GB on a DVD, your videos are limited to no more than 20 or 30 minutes. If you want more, move up to a Blu-Ray burner and use the more expensive disks. Most current BD players have a USB port. Panasonics have a SD card reader. Use either editor and make high definition "computer" files and get them on a memory stick or SD card and they should play. I have a Sony BD player that will even play high def video files directly off of a DVD, but only if the DVD was used as a data disk. The idea is that you copy your video to the DVD like you were backing up data files. The Sony BD player recognizes it as a playable file and sends it to the TV.
The WD TV Live media player is a small box that costs about $90 in the US. It is famous for being really good at playing every video file format, has a remote and a menu system. It will play anything you make with either editor.
The last way is to connect your laptop to your TV or monitor with an HDMI cable. I have a cheap 15 footer. Anything I play on my laptop is duplicated on my 55 inch TV.
There is one other alternative is to use the Panasonic camcorder as media player. You have to use HDWriter to move files to your computer for this. One of it's odd benefits is being able to move file, include edited ones, BACK to the camcorder so you can us it as a HD media player.
This stuff is confusing and it took me six months to figure it out after I bought my Panasonic camcorder. If I can help further, please ask.
Bill

Why is capacity on my ipod classic is significantly lower than expected?

I have a new 80 GB ipod classic. I loaded it with about 4 GB's or so of music in the first couple of days. Then on the the third day when I tried to add more music, it erased everything off the ipod that I had loaded previously and replaced it with the new music I had added by CD to my itunes library. Not knowing what to do, I "restored" the ipod by using the restore button then sync'd again with the result that all my music was back including the original music. The problem: it's as if the first 6 GB's of space is still used up and the scale on my summary tab shows the total capacity of my ipod as 74.31 GB's with only 5 GB's of music and other on the ipod. What is taking up the other space? It should be showing a total capacity of 80 BG with 75 GB's left. What's up? Any body know?

my summary tab shows the total capacity of my ipod as 74.31 GB's with only 5 GB's of music and other on the ipod. What is taking up the other space? It should be showing a total capacity of 80 BG with 75 GB's left. What's up? Any body know?
All hard drives never have the full advertised storage space, and as a general rule it's around 7% less than stated.
It's because hard drive manufacturers calculate hard drive space different than computers actually read it.
For a full technical explanation, see these.
Hard disk: Is it missing space?
How much content will fit on my iPod?

Resolutions Lower Than Expected

Hi folks.
I have a friend on an iMac whose resolutions in normal boot mode are very low. It isn't International Access, but the choices on her resolutions are low (1024 x 768 on a 20" iMac).
I've zapped the PRAM, nothing.
I've had her boot up in safe mode, and everything goes back to normal (1920 x 1200).
I can't find the displays preferences in her ~/preferences/ folder.
Any ideas how to fix this?
Cheers

I assume she has set her display resolution at 1920 X 1200 in Systems Preferences after clicking on "Display?"
virg

Lower than expected speed

Hi
When we signed up to BT a few months ago our estimated speed was 3.5mbps which is what we have been getting, however checking more recently it says we should get 11mbps, however we haven't had any increase in speed.
Modem info:
Modulation: ADSL2 PLUS
Annex Mode: ANNEX_A
Downstream Upstream
SNR Margin: 11.2 5.9 db
Line Attenuation: 51.0 30.2 db
Data Rate: 3755 1062 kbps
Max Rate: 4188 1068 kbps
POWER: 0.0 12.3 dbm
CRC: 4 0
Is there anything we can/should do to try and get a speed closer to the 11.5mbps advertised?
Thanks
Chris

BT BROADBAND AVAILABILITY CHECKER
Telephone Number --- on Exchange BERMONDSEY
Featured ProductsDownstream Line Rate(Mbps)Upstream Line Rate(Mbps)Downstream Range(Mbps)Availability Date
WBC ADSL 2+
Up to 11.5
7 to 16
Available
WBC ADSL 2+ Annex M
Up to 11.5
Up to 1
7 to 16
Available
ADSL Max
Up to 6.5
5.5 to 8
Available
WBC Fixed Rate
2
Available
Fixed Rate
2
Available
Other Offerings
Copper Multicast
Available
Not currently on the test socket, but we have tried it and the speeds were the same.

What is the reason behind upload speeds lower than...

Would anyone be able to explain it?

Hi Jamesey162,
There is no reason as such. Different providers have different packages. It just depends on what package your on.
E.g, Infinity option 2 gives 20mb upload speed but infinity option 1 only gives up to 9.5mb upload speed.
It basically varies with providers.
Hope this helps,
Dominic.

Lower than expected speeds due to high SNR

Hi, my connection was activated nearly 2 weeks ago.
Current router stats are;
Line state Connected
Connection time 1 day, 14:29:00
Downstream 1,728 Kbps
Upstream 448 Kbps
ADSL settings
VPI/VCI 0/38
Type PPPoA
Modulation ITU-T G.992.1
Latency type Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up) 14.9 dB / 19.0 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up) 52.0 dB / 25.5 dB
Output power (Down/Up) 16.5 dBm / 11.9 dBm
Loss of Framing (Local) 7
Loss of Signal (Local) 75
Loss of Power (Local) 0
FEC Errors (Down/Up) 284970 / 77
CRC Errors (Down/Up) 4093 / N/A
HEC Errors (Down/Up) N/A / 40
Error Seconds (Local) 976
Not really sure what is causing the disconnects although I did one manually to see if sync speed will increase.
I cannot plug into the master socket because the BT line is overhead and comes into the attic which is not easily accessible... don't even know if it has a plug socket!
There are two extensions within the house and I've checked both to see the ring wire was not connected. I had a 2.4Mbs sync last week, could the weather change contribute to the decrease in speed as the bt line runs above ground to the exchange? I'm just grasping whatever straws are available as I don't get why our SNR is so high!

Looks like the system is shifting my SNR automatically, just checked stats
ADSL line status
Connection information
Line state Connected
Connection time 0 days, 0:35:34
Downstream 2,112 Kbps
Upstream 448 Kbps
ADSL settings
VPI/VCI 0/38
Type PPPoA
Modulation ITU-T G.992.1
Latency type Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up) 11.4 dB / 20.0 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up) 52.0 dB / 25.5 dB
Output power (Down/Up) 16.7 dBm / 11.9 dBm
Loss of Framing (Local) 12
Loss of Signal (Local) 78
Loss of Power (Local) 0
FEC Errors (Down/Up) 28849 / 0
CRC Errors (Down/Up) 76 / N/A
HEC Errors (Down/Up) N/A / 0
Error Seconds (Local) 1016
Hope the only way is up now!

Upload rate lower than expected

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for