I have a problem. I live in Canada and currently subscribe to Rogers Ultimate internet package. It's the best I can get in the area, trust me I have looked. Its their highest tier package because I need upload speed. I really could not care for download, but hey its not bad at 50 mbps. Problem is my upload is only 2 mbps. I need faster because my livelihood depends on it.
I do live streaming and my income is dependent really on the upload speed. To make a long story short I do webcam porn and my ranking is based on customer satisfaction as well as my upload speed. Currently I am ranked #21 on the site when I am online, however I know I could be #1-#5 if my upload speed was better. Most of my competitors are in the USA and have upload speeds above 5 mbps.
I have heard about portforwarding, but is this really something to look into? Basically I want to improve my upload speed for the Adobe HD encoder.
Thanks!
Need better upload speed
There is not much you can do to increase the transfer rate above what your ISP provides... Port forwarding will not change that, it simply directs traffic to a single machine behind a NAT router.
What could eventually help is a specialized multi-wan router or a device with "outbound load-balancing" that would combine bandwidth from multiple internet connections.
Is the video feed uploaded to a web server (single transfer), or do you communicate in real time with multiple people from your machine (multiple video streams) without a server involved ?
There are usually settings in the way you encode video to reduce bandwidth requirements, most single streams would not consume that much bandwidth.
Considering the nature of your request, I'm sure there is a number of qualified network engineers on the forums that would be happy to take a closer look at the problem
What could eventually help is a specialized multi-wan router or a device with "outbound load-balancing" that would combine bandwidth from multiple internet connections.
Is the video feed uploaded to a web server (single transfer), or do you communicate in real time with multiple people from your machine (multiple video streams) without a server involved ?
There are usually settings in the way you encode video to reduce bandwidth requirements, most single streams would not consume that much bandwidth.
Considering the nature of your request, I'm sure there is a number of qualified network engineers on the forums that would be happy to take a closer look at the problem
Its live streaming. This is my direct profile on one of the sites I am on my profile (for some reason it does not allow you to browse online models unless you click the search at the top and then hit search on the bottom of that page), you will see what I mean. Any girl with the "HD" icon beside her name is using the adobe HD encoder to stream to the site.
I just feel as if my slow speed is holding me back. Heck most other Canadians would say my internet speed is fast, but the upload speed is a real drag for me.
I just feel as if my slow speed is holding me back. Heck most other Canadians would say my internet speed is fast, but the upload speed is a real drag for me.
Seems their business class accounts are only 2Mbps upstream as well: http://www.rogers.com/business/on/en/sm ... net/plans/
As to upstream load balancing... It will not be cheap, and will only help for multiple transfers, not a single transfer, that's why I asked for more details on the implementation.
As to upstream load balancing... It will not be cheap, and will only help for multiple transfers, not a single transfer, that's why I asked for more details on the implementation.
-
RaisinCain
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:11 pm
Going to have to ask for some samples to see just how slow and laggy you're videos are. 
opcorn:
Depending on the site you're pushing the feed thru they could process the feed better from their end... just curious as to what he ping looks like from the comp you use to the site...can you post that and also a tracert test?
Ajax use for caching the pages better, dropping the resolution and/or FPS from you may help some, better webcam I mean what are the comp specs you are using? Perhaps the computer is the issue too?
Post some speedtest results to a few canadian locations and US locations http://www.speedtest.net
ps: don't forget those samples
opcorn:Depending on the site you're pushing the feed thru they could process the feed better from their end... just curious as to what he ping looks like from the comp you use to the site...can you post that and also a tracert test?
Ajax use for caching the pages better, dropping the resolution and/or FPS from you may help some, better webcam I mean what are the comp specs you are using? Perhaps the computer is the issue too?
Post some speedtest results to a few canadian locations and US locations http://www.speedtest.net
ps: don't forget those samples
I usually use a mac, mine has an i5 processor. I also have a pc that has a i7 and runs vista. Doesn't seem to make a difference.Sava700 wrote:Going to have to ask for some samples to see just how slow and laggy you're videos are.
Depending on the site you're pushing the feed thru they could process the feed better from their end... just curious as to what he ping looks like from the comp you use to the site...can you post that and also a tracert test?
Ajax use for caching the pages better, dropping the resolution and/or FPS from you may help some, better webcam I mean what are the comp specs you are using? Perhaps the computer is the issue too?
Post some speedtest results to a few canadian locations and US locations http://www.speedtest.net
ps: don't forget those samples
As for the camera I use...well I invested ALOT in this. I have a few options...my built in "facetime HD" on my mac which I really like because of the portability issue. I also have a logitech 9000 as well as the quickcam orbit, both I think are pieces of crap yet raved about by many cam girls. I guess if you want to spend around $100 on a cam or less the logitechs are the way to go. I also have a very fancy camera which seems to be used by about 90% of the serious top 5 webcam girls- the sony eviD100 http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-indust ... ntiltzoom/ ....its an analog surveillance and the signal from this can be converted to HD, its not one of those old school black and whites, its rather high def with a remote zoom, pan/tilt option. I spent around $600 for one of these used on ebay. They go for around $1200 new. You also need to buy a capture card to convert the analog signal, for a mac this capture card is the Elgato and its around $150 here in Canada. For a PC you can get any run of the mill capture card, the person who had mine before sent me his along with my purchase. So yeah I have a few options to choose from when it comes to camera! I invest a lot in my cameras, but I know for a fact some other girls spend thousands on this technology. One girl I know has this http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-indust ... t-EVIHD3V/ Now that's an expensive camera!
lol umm well prob best to remove that link cause its against the rules but I was just messin about a samplecumgetme wrote:
as for the speed doesn't look bad at all... as for cams well you seem to really know you're way around hardware. I'm just kinda curious as to the extent of the issue because the way I understand it is you are streaming to a central location in which clients are logged into and pulling from at that point. Can you post a ping test and tracert to the IP# in which the cam is broadcasting?
Sava700 wrote:lol umm well prob best to remove that link cause its against the rules but I was just messin about a sample
as for the speed doesn't look bad at all... as for cams well you seem to really know you're way around hardware. I'm just kinda curious as to the extent of the issue because the way I understand it is you are streaming to a central location in which clients are logged into and pulling from at that point. Can you post a ping test and tracert to the IP# in which the cam is broadcasting?
how do I post a ping test and trace it to the IP#?
Basically how I log into the site and start streaming is via my model account which they provide me with a variable FMS (changes every time I log in) and stream (that's variable too) which I copy/paste into the Adobe encoder which then in turn streams to the site. Basically I am hosting my own bandwidth thus taking most of the load off the site itself (ie they don't have to pay as much for me being there, which in turn gives me better placement). Users on the site are able to view my room via the site, but I am not streaming via the site (again I just log into my model account to get the FMS/stream information for each time I log in).
The girl you see in the #1 position on the site gets to be in that slot based on her overall performance (ratings and time spent in private chat vs free time), her upload speed and if she is using the adobe HD encoder (basically hosting the bandwidth). Basically the site likes to offset some of their operating costs towards the models and get the best bang for their buck. So whoever has the best qualities at whatever point in time they are logged in gets a top spot. At any given time there could be as much as 1,000 girls online so me being around girl #20-25 isn't really all that bad considering what could be! Gosh I would hate to be girl #500 buried on the back of page 20 or so...I stutter to think what her income is like! I hear it can be bad back there. There are girls back there lucky to make $20 a day (yup a solid 8 hr shift). The catch 22 of all this is that the girls say in the bottom of the barrel (think of girls past page 1) probably need the income more then say girl #1 who makes hundreds of dollars in mere hours (its not impossible to make $500+ a day if you are in the #1 spot) and can justify buying a $4,000 camera! Right now as it currently stands I can justify a $700 camera (albeit a big investment for me and I really thought it was pricey even used), but certainly not one that costs $4,000!
There are about 50 girls per page. Rank is based on the above criteria. Part of me thinks being girl #20-25 and earning $800 a week ain't that bad, but I know it could be better. I just wish there were better internet options in this country aside from that Rogers LTE.
Did you guys hear about that? LTE supposedly has a download of 100 mbps and 50 mbps upload. However Rogers has a price on it that is too out of hand....$50 a month is the only package you can buy and it only includes 10 gb of data. Every GB there after is $10. On average I use about 100 gb a month, so that means my bill would be over $1,000!!! I would not mind paying say $200 a month for speeds of say 100 mbps down and say 30 mbps up, but would have a hard time justifying $1000. Besides LTE is only available in downtown Toronto and Montreal for now. I live in the suburbs of Toronto-the GTA.
You drop to command prompt (Start > Accessories > Command prompt) and type:
ping http://www.speedguide.net
tracert http://www.speedguide.net (you can change the URLs as needed, or use IPs instead)
Or, in other OSes you just drop to console/terminal, the linux command is "traceroute" instead of "tracert".
If the actual video streams are a direct connection between you and a third party, and they do not go through the website, it shouldn't matter much... It may be worth installing some network traffic monitoring software to see how much upstream bandwidth you're actually using, like: AnalogX NetStat Live
Also, there are probably settings in Adobe HD encoder that drastically change the amount of bandwidth used, it may be worth reading/tinkering with them.
ping http://www.speedguide.net
tracert http://www.speedguide.net (you can change the URLs as needed, or use IPs instead)
Or, in other OSes you just drop to console/terminal, the linux command is "traceroute" instead of "tracert".
If the actual video streams are a direct connection between you and a third party, and they do not go through the website, it shouldn't matter much... It may be worth installing some network traffic monitoring software to see how much upstream bandwidth you're actually using, like: AnalogX NetStat Live
Also, there are probably settings in Adobe HD encoder that drastically change the amount of bandwidth used, it may be worth reading/tinkering with them.
This sounds like nothing more than a Skype call but it wouldn't make sense for it to be like that if you have multiple viewers as even 2-3 viewers would kill even a decent upload as it just splits it off...more common thing would be that you are in fact uploading to a site IP# location and it bumps the speed up to adjust for the added connections but it won't alter the FPS you are sending in any form so it still relies on the bandwidth you are pushing. Now you are obviously using some sort of program to upload/keep track/maintain etc etc the whole setup so what is this called? Does anything in the site's FAQ of how you run it say anything? Can you call them or email them for that IP# information to check on this for the trace and ping testing?cumgetme wrote: Users on the site are able to view my room via the site, but I am not streaming via the site (again I just log into my model account to get the FMS/stream information for each time I log in).
Great Download Speed-VERY poor Upload speed
I have an AR3 Dell Alienware, i7 Processor overclocked to 3.4 with SSD drive by Seagate, 8 gig of Ram. I have tried my best to get my upload speed up some, but can't get over 2.73 at Speedtest.net that in the compairsion area I am well above national average ( over 12.75) and at the same test, I start out a little above agerage, then fall quickly below the national average (2.73). I don't know but supect that my SSD is a large part of the problem. In April I bought a new AR3 and it locked up over and over until the Dell Tech said he was tired of fooling with it and knew I was. So he said can I send you another computer as good or better than the one you have. I agreed and got a refurbished AR3 with A 500 Gig SSD Seagate and a HHD-7200 rpm 2T to boot. I ran the Windows Experience Index and got a 5.9 rating on the SSD data performace. I have download the Sea Tool and also ran the Intel test and it passes every test. I don't know if there is a problem with the data transfer or if the WEI is not working well with an overclocked computer. I read the FAQs and saw where there was not much you could do with the performace of what the ISP was supplying, but then it went over my head with the talk about Routers and Modems.
So I have a Linksys E4200 Router and a DCM-202 D-Link Modem-both stock. I checked DD-WRT and they had a program in the works but not ready for use for the router. If there is anything I can do about the modem, I don't know what it is.
Can any of you Pros help me!
Thanks
harmie
So I have a Linksys E4200 Router and a DCM-202 D-Link Modem-both stock. I checked DD-WRT and they had a program in the works but not ready for use for the router. If there is anything I can do about the modem, I don't know what it is.
Can any of you Pros help me!
Thanks
harmie
Even the slowest first gen. SSD would easily outperform your Internet connection over 100 times, so I'd look elsewhere. The most likely culprit is not your PC, but your modem/router/cabling/ISP.
I'd separate the modem/router a couple of feet, and make sure they're not close to any sources of interference (EMI), such as fluorescent lights, power supplies, etc. Make sure cables are not coiled, and not passing through high levels of EMI as well.
I'd separate the modem/router a couple of feet, and make sure they're not close to any sources of interference (EMI), such as fluorescent lights, power supplies, etc. Make sure cables are not coiled, and not passing through high levels of EMI as well.
Philip. I am so unused to posting on the site that I probably should have posted in a different manner. I think you were answering my thread but not sure. If not, I apologize but you have sure touch on some things I never would have thought about. I am guilty of every thing you mentioned. The D link Modem and the E 4200 Router are within 6 inches to each other and the cables are crossed. I have them setting about 3 feet from the power supply. You may have been talking to some else but sure knocked me down a few pegs!
I have been a user of your site for a while but am very backward about asking for help. As soon as I have a good day, when I am not laid up, I will try to remedy this problem. I wish I could tell you if this is a first or second generation rig, but after getting a refurbished computer in exchange for a new faulty one, my guess is that it is a first generation that has been rode hard and put up wet. How can I determine which generation SSD i have? The 500 gig Seagate cam with the computer, but Dell charged me $800.00 for the 250gig OCZ. I would hope that it was a second generation, but I suppose they know how to recognize a sucker! If the reply was for me THANKS! If not for me Thanks! Would you please PM me if you know how to determine First and Second generation SSDs? I have been down for a couple of days and like to have never found this post again. Perhaps I will get better on the site as times speeds by. Again,
Thanks
harmie
I have been a user of your site for a while but am very backward about asking for help. As soon as I have a good day, when I am not laid up, I will try to remedy this problem. I wish I could tell you if this is a first or second generation rig, but after getting a refurbished computer in exchange for a new faulty one, my guess is that it is a first generation that has been rode hard and put up wet. How can I determine which generation SSD i have? The 500 gig Seagate cam with the computer, but Dell charged me $800.00 for the 250gig OCZ. I would hope that it was a second generation, but I suppose they know how to recognize a sucker! If the reply was for me THANKS! If not for me Thanks! Would you please PM me if you know how to determine First and Second generation SSDs? I have been down for a couple of days and like to have never found this post again. Perhaps I will get better on the site as times speeds by. Again,
Thanks
harmie
Philip. I should have mentioned that using the Sea Tool from Seagate and another utility form Seven Forms, You can watch the Seagate's performance. It starts off on the middle line-which I assume is normal, then you can watch it start dropping, then almost crashes before it starts to regain a little ground. You are familiar with this analyst tools I am sure. Are they reliable?
harmie
harmie
First or second generation SSD is just an expression, the point being, it should be faster than your broadband connection regardless.
Three feet is enough for EMI (it drops pretty rapidly with distance), but I'd keep your modem and router a couple of feet apart, because they're usually not shielded well.
Three feet is enough for EMI (it drops pretty rapidly with distance), but I'd keep your modem and router a couple of feet apart, because they're usually not shielded well.