Router not dividing bandwidth fairly?

[AstroBenny]

We've just had new internet installed (76Mbps down and 18Mbps up) and I'm having issues getting the router to divide bandwidth equally..

For example if I'm downloading a game through Steam it's downloading at about 70Mbps but the youtube video that I'm watching in the mean time at 1080P is buffering very heavily.

The same goes for if I I'm downloading something from the web but someone else is watching a video downstairs..It buffers because some devices will hog the bandwidth..

Isn't the router supposed to divide bandwidth fairly? Because it's not doing a great job

[cesrai]

You should use QoS ( how to do that I would recommend doing your own research because from my experience it's kinda different from one router to another ) .

[AstroBenny]

1 minute ago, cesrai said:

You should use QoS ( how to do that I would recommend doing your own research because from my experience it's kinda different from one router to another ) .

Will look into that. I don't know why it shouldn't be doing that by default though.

[Naeaes]

14 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

We've just had new internet installed (76Mbps down and 18Mbps up) and I'm having issues getting the router to divide bandwidth equally..

For example if I'm downloading a game through Steam it's downloading at about 70Mbps but the youtube video that I'm watching in the mean time at 1080P is buffering very heavily.

The same goes for if I I'm downloading something from the web but someone else is watching a video downstairs..It buffers because some devices will hog the bandwidth..

Isn't the router supposed to divide bandwidth fairly? Because it's not doing a great job

Routers only manage bandwidth allocation between computers, not between programs. That's a job for your computer's NIC and third party softwares like NetLimiter. Most programs that do downloading themselves have a way to limit their Network usage built in. That's definitely the most efficient way, but I don't think Steam can do it.

[JefferyD90]

2 minutes ago, Naeaes said:

Routers only manage bandwidth allocation between computers, not between programs. That's a job for your computer's NIC and third party softwares like NetLimiter. Most programs that do downloading themselves have a way to limit their Network usage built in. That's definitely the most efficient way, but I don't think Steam can do it.

Steam can most certainly manage bandwidth.

 

And while you're right, these third party programs can manage it (and in some cases do a good job) it is ALWAYS best to manage network traffic at the router.  This is the best practice overall and will give every user on the network the best chance at being able to get the most out of their internet connection.

[AstroBenny]

1 minute ago, JefferyD90 said:

Steam can most certainly manage bandwidth.

 

And while you're right, these third party programs can manage it (and in some cases do a good job) it is ALWAYS best to manage network traffic at the router.  This is the best practice overall and will give every user on the network the best chance at being able to get the most out of their internet connection.

But what should I do if I want to download something from the web (that doesn't have a speed limiter) but also want to watch something at the same time on the same system, as routers divide bandwidth between devices not programs?

[Naeaes]

1 minute ago, JefferyD90 said:

Steam can most certainly manage bandwidth.

 

And while you're right, these third party programs can manage it (and in some cases do a good job) it is ALWAYS best to manage network traffic at the router.  This is the best practice overall and will give every user on the network the best chance at being able to get the most out of their internet connection.

Oh. I missed the second paragraph about other computers, and thought there was just the one. Definitely QoS for them. But my stance is still the same, a normal consumer-level router cannot dictate which program on a specific client computer gets bandwidth. A thousand-dollar router/firewall is not an efficient way for home use in my books...

 

Also, I found the setting in Steam. It's under Settings/Downloads/Limit Bandwidth to...

[Lurick]

7 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

But what should I do if I want to download something from the web (that doesn't have a speed limiter) but also want to watch something at the same time on the same system, as routers divide bandwidth between devices not programs?

That's where everything gets complicated, and for me fun. You would need to setup rules to tag specific traffic with certain QoS values so that traffic is properly prioritized.

[JefferyD90]

20 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

But what should I do if I want to download something from the web (that doesn't have a speed limiter) but also want to watch something at the same time on the same system, as routers divide bandwidth between devices not programs?

 

12 minutes ago, Naeaes said:

Oh. I missed the second paragraph about other computers, and thought there was just the one. Definitely QoS for them. But my stance is still the same, a normal consumer-level router cannot dictate which program on a specific client computer gets bandwidth. A thousand-dollar router/firewall is not an efficient way for home use in my books...

 

Also, I found the setting in Steam. It's under Settings/Downloads/Limit Bandwidth to...

Every router I've ever had (granted I buy brands that make sense like ASUS, Netgear, or Old Linksys) has had amazing QoS abilities.

[Naeaes]

34 minutes ago, JefferyD90 said:

 

Every router I've ever had (granted I buy brands that make sense like ASUS, Netgear, or Old Linksys) has had amazing QoS abilities.

Interesting. I've only seen routes that can set QoS simply on/off and nothing else or stuff like limiting bandwidth according to ports or protocols. Like if I want to set a cap of 50Mbps down for steam.exe, I'll just click the name and type the figure in in NetLimiter instead of looking up if it's using UDP or TCP, FTP or HTTP, :80 or :443 , create rules for it and so on. But I guess it's about what you're used to. 

[BrightCandle]

The problem with Steam is it uses multiple connections in order to download the games, its one of the reasons it performs really well and also it can use load balanced connections fully which is a big boon for some people. So the router is probably sharing correctly between all the connections, youtube gets 1 and steam gets 10 and so youtube gets 1/11th of the bandwidth and stalls!

 

That is the why, QoS is kind of the solution potentially but getting it setup so this scenario works might be tricky.

[JefferyD90]

17 hours ago, BrightCandle said:

The problem with Steam is it uses multiple connections in order to download the games, its one of the reasons it performs really well and also it can use load balanced connections fully which is a big boon for some people. So the router is probably sharing correctly between all the connections, youtube gets 1 and steam gets 10 and so youtube gets 1/11th of the bandwidth and stalls!

 

That is the why, QoS is kind of the solution potentially but getting it setup so this scenario works might be tricky.

This is it exactly.  That's why it is important to have a great QoS router (right now I think ASUS has the best options) so it will actually look inside each packet and determine what is the best method.

[AstroBenny]

20 hours ago, BrightCandle said:

The problem with Steam is it uses multiple connections in order to download the games, its one of the reasons it performs really well and also it can use load balanced connections fully which is a big boon for some people. So the router is probably sharing correctly between all the connections, youtube gets 1 and steam gets 10 and so youtube gets 1/11th of the bandwidth and stalls!

 

That is the why, QoS is kind of the solution potentially but getting it setup so this scenario works might be tricky.

Would you recommend the Netgear D7000?

It has an integrated modem so that is what is pushing me towards it. I'd rather not use the supplied router/modem combo and my ISP said the D7000 would work.

[BrightCandle]

3 hours ago, AstroBenny said:

Would you recommend the Netgear D7000?

It has an integrated modem so that is what is pushing me towards it. I'd rather not use the supplied router/modem combo and my ISP said the D7000 would work.

I have an R7000 and replaced the firmware with DD-WRT. The throughput on router on ethernet and wifi has been remarkably better than the previous device I had. But I don't actually use it as my primary router anymore, I could not get the load balancing to work well enough on it so I use a Draytek Vigor 2860 and the R7000 is relegated to running the wifi rather than the main network.

 

The original firmware in the R7000 was pretty anemic and not really advanced on netgear stuff from 10-15 years ago its actually astonishing how little it actually changed. The hardware is good and high performance but I am not convinced by the software and DD-WRT is fair from easy to use when trying to do anything off the normal. But then I was really disappointed with the stability of the Asus router I had before it, the interface was much more capable but it was definitely slower and it didn't all work.

[AstroBenny]

1 hour ago, BrightCandle said:

I have an R7000 and replaced the firmware with DD-WRT. The throughput on router on ethernet and wifi has been remarkably better than the previous device I had. But I don't actually use it as my primary router anymore, I could not get the load balancing to work well enough on it so I use a Draytek Vigor 2860 and the R7000 is relegated to running the wifi rather than the main network.

 

The original firmware in the R7000 was pretty anemic and not really advanced on netgear stuff from 10-15 years ago its actually astonishing how little it actually changed. The hardware is good and high performance but I am not convinced by the software and DD-WRT is fair from easy to use when trying to do anything off the normal. But then I was really disappointed with the stability of the Asus router I had before it, the interface was much more capable but it was definitely slower and it didn't all work.

Sorry for my newb-iness.

What's router throughput?

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

Sorry for my newb-iness.

What's router throughput?

Router throughput is what the device is actually capable of forwarding. So even though they have gigabit ports the router can't actually forward at gigabit linerate speeds.

[AstroBenny]

@Lurick @JefferyD90 @BrightCandle

Kind of off-topic to the question at hand... but does downloading something even if the connection is not fully saturated increase your ping?

And if downloading something, will that decrease your upload speed and vice-versa?

[JefferyD90]

47 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

@Lurick @JefferyD90 @BrightCandle

Kind of off-topic to the question at hand... but does downloading something even if the connection is not fully saturated increase your ping?

And if downloading something, will that decrease your upload speed and vice-versa?

Yes it will.  Now, it shouldn't be a HUGE difference.  For example, if you have a nice connection and you're using about 70% of your available bandwidth, you'd probably notice a ping that use to be 50ms jump up to about 70ms.  And your upload will decrease simple because of the increased traffic.

[Lurick]

1 hour ago, JefferyD90 said:

Yes it will.  Now, it shouldn't be a HUGE difference.  For example, if you have a nice connection and you're using about 70% of your available bandwidth, you'd probably notice a ping that use to be 50ms jump up to about 70ms.  And your upload will decrease simple because of the increased traffic.

I think he was talking about if he downloads something will his upload speed decrease and vice versa in which case it won't since traffic is bi-directional it can be sent and received at the same time.

[BrightCandle]

3 hours ago, AstroBenny said:

@Lurick @JefferyD90 @BrightCandle

Kind of off-topic to the question at hand... but does downloading something even if the connection is not fully saturated increase your ping?

And if downloading something, will that decrease your upload speed and vice-versa?

A normal download of just a single connection doesn't usually impact much because most games can work well with 1/2 your bandwidth and the typical router will just alternate the packets and being delayed a packet or two before send isn't more than a few milliseconds.

 

But when you start looking at a torrent download its different, it could be hundreds of connections of which your game is just one, now its 1/100 and performance will be awful. Upload is also a bigger problem than download partly because of its limitations and partly because its throttled closer to the source of the data.

[AstroBenny]

9 hours ago, BrightCandle said:

A normal download of just a single connection doesn't usually impact much because most games can work well with 1/2 your bandwidth and the typical router will just alternate the packets and being delayed a packet or two before send isn't more than a few milliseconds.

 

But when you start looking at a torrent download its different, it could be hundreds of connections of which your game is just one, now its 1/100 and performance will be awful. Upload is also a bigger problem than download partly because of its limitations and partly because its throttled closer to the source of the data.

What do you mean by hundreds of connections when downloading a torrent? You're only downloading from one server, right?

[BrightCandle]

6 hours ago, AstroBenny said:

What do you mean by hundreds of connections when downloading a torrent? You're only downloading from one server, right?

No torrents are a mechanism where you peer download and you are connected to hundreds of other computers around the world. Worse than that you are part of that network and are uploading part of the file to others. The end result of which is your upload and download bandwidth are being saturated with a lot of connections and fully utilising all bandwidth.

 

The ISP you use will manage to do a reasonable job of getting your game data to you if you are also downloading, its responsible for quality of service on your download and it will already use its own form of QoS to prioritise game traffic. But on your upload your router is responsible for it and without QoS its treating your game traffic the same as everything else, as in 1 in 100 connections and a low bandwidth use one as well. Games don't work well with running torrents.

[AstroBenny]

4 hours ago, BrightCandle said:

No torrents are a mechanism where you peer download and you are connected to hundreds of other computers around the world. Worse than that you are part of that network and are uploading part of the file to others. The end result of which is your upload and download bandwidth are being saturated with a lot of connections and fully utilising all bandwidth.

 

The ISP you use will manage to do a reasonable job of getting your game data to you if you are also downloading, its responsible for quality of service on your download and it will already use its own form of QoS to prioritise game traffic. But on your upload your router is responsible for it and without QoS its treating your game traffic the same as everything else, as in 1 in 100 connections and a low bandwidth use one as well. Games don't work well with running torrents.

So what were you talking about earlier where you said Steam had 10 connections and youtube only 1?