Mitch (WebCob) wrote:

>>trying that AIM direct connection, my latency to their 768k connection
>>was under 40ms. With traffic shaping turned off, I could hit my max
>>speed. With it on, I couldn't.
>>    
>>
>
>One more test to try... use larger ping packets. Try packets that are around
>your MTU. Say 1000 bytes? See what happens then?
>
>  
>
>>I've never seen the traffic shaper introduce enough latency to reduce my
>>uploads while ping testing. Always stayed the same regardless of being
>>on or off.
>>    
>>
>
>Guess it depends on how they work and what "fudge factors" they have built
>in. My understanding of traffic shaping is that it basically works by
>throttling the acks to cause the other side to slow it's sending... If you
>lied to it to say you had a bigger channel than you do, you might find the
>delay goes away... I've heard that if there isn't a margin of error all
>(which I think is how some of them work) that there CAN be momentary
>interruptions in service due to saturation of the link - but the way this
>one is designed to work, it should NEVER saturate completely, but that does
>have some overhead - I think.
>
>  
>
>>BTW, thanks for following up with me on this! It's very appreciated!
>>    
>>
>
>No worries - it helps me learn too.  ;-)
>
>m/
>
>
>  
>
Hmmm, I tried a 1456 byte ping and see a 130ms latency without the 
shaper on. Wow, I didn't think about doing this. That would certainly 
make sense! Glad to see it wasn't m0n0wall after all! I guess my best 
option would be to find a way to increase my upload.