What is a Normal KBPS Speed?

sara505

Uploading images seems slower than usual. Is it me? What is the normal mbps speed? I know my 5D files are large, but this is ridiculous.

Damon016

It's not you, it's WEAK at best........ I am only getting 230 up and that is pathetic!

sara505

Damon016 wrote: »

It's not you, it's WEAK at best........ I am only getting 230 up and that is pathetic!

I have been attempting to upload a wedding since last night. Slower than molasses. Out of 800 images, only 250 uploaded over-night. At this rate, it's going to take all week.

What's going on with SM lately??

Damon016

(shrugs) top money paid for medi-ocre service. I see no offerings of a credit either to offset the slowness and sitewide crap. Even some of my galleries are red "x"ing... no one can see their photos or some work, some dont... its crap!

sara505

Damon016 wrote: »

(shrugs) top money paid for medi-ocre service. I see no offerings of a credit either to offset the slowness and sitewide crap. Even some of my galleries are red "x"ing... no one can see their photos or some work, some dont... its crap!

It hasn't always been this way. Something is way off.

devbobo

Damon016 wrote: »

It's not you, it's WEAK at best........ I am only getting 230 up and that is pathetic!

Damon,

That's not what our logs are currently showing....how are you measuring your bandwidth ? Out of the 2,247 files you have uploaded in the last 24 hours, our logs show the min 0.26 Mbps, the max 1.98 Mbps...with an average of 1.782 Mbps.

David

Damon016

devbobo wrote: »

Damon,

That's not what our logs are currently showing....how are you measuring your bandwidth ? Out of the 2,247 files you have uploaded in the last 24 hours, our logs show the min 0.26 Mbps, the max 1.98 Mbps...with an average of 1.782 Mbps.

David

Going by avg (not peak...) And I am not sure where you're grabbing those numbers from. Bandwidth monitor, logs from software, also seeing the all out avg of SE.

Not to mention, I uploaded the same files "already" from my assistants house which ironically enough has the same speed avg's I do - up to my fotki site. What took less than a day to upload has taken (going on 2 days) here. Even deleted the gallery and uploaded again due to the "issues I had arranging" and still the same thing.

I appreciate you responding, but I am not the only one with this complaint.

devbobo

Damon016 wrote: »

Going by avg (not peak...) And I am not sure where you're grabbing those numbers from. Bandwidth monitor, logs from software, also seeing the all out avg of SE.

Not to mention, I uploaded the same files "already" from my assistants house which ironically enough has the same speed avg's I do - up to my fotki site. What took less than a day to upload has taken (going on 2 days) here. Even deleted the gallery and uploaded again due to the "issues I had arranging" and still the same thing.

I appreciate you responding, but I am not the only one with this complaint.

The numbers I quoted are directly from logs on our upload cluster.

Perhaps StarExplorer is displaying Mbps instead of Kbps. If so, 230 KBps == 1840 Kbps (or 1.84 Mbps) which would match what I am seeing in our logs.

sara505

Okay, another 170 images uploaded overnight.

What is going on here???

Seriously??

Once upon a time I could upload an entire wedding overnight, sometimes 800 - 1,000 images, yes, smaller files, but do the math - this just does not add up.

Seriously, at this rate, it will take four over-nights to upload these 800 images.

And I might be convinced it is me, except that I have two computers in two locations and it's the same thing in both places.

Seriously, what is going on at Smug Mug??? I can drop the video debacle - I have basically moved on to Vimeo - but this is unacceptable.

Andy

Damon016 wrote: »

It's not you, it's WEAK at best........ I am only getting 230 up and that is pathetic!

Hi, we don't control your upload speed. It's not something we can even touch. We are able to receive, and process your files as fast as you can send them. This is from an upload of mine yesterday, 7 Mb/sec.



If you will write our Support Heroes, we do have some things we can do with you to see if we can help you speed things up.

Andy

sara505 wrote: »

Seriously, what is going on at Smug Mug??? I can drop the video debacle - I have basically moved on to Vimeo - but this is unacceptable.

Sara, our heroes are standing by 365 days a year to help - please write our Support Heroes and give details so we can look for possible things that may help.

sara505

Andy wrote: »

Sara, our heroes are standing by 365 days a year to help - please write our Support Heroes and give details so we can look for possible things that may help.

My current Internet speed is 54mbps.

My upload speed is reporting 384 kb/s.

Slower than frickin molasses and I don't have time to mess with this today, many other things going on.

Nikolai

devbobo wrote: »

The numbers I quoted are directly from logs on our upload cluster.

Perhaps StarExplorer is displaying Mbps instead of Kbps. If so, 230 KBps == 1840 Kbps (or 1.84 Mbps) which would match what I am seeing in our logs.

David, thank you for bringing this to my attention!

Here's a gist to S*E's speed indication:
1) all speeds are in xBytes per second, not in xbits per second.
2) all numbers are "smart", scaling up and down as needed. So whether you're on modem, dsl, cable or fiber, you'll only get a few important digits, the rest would go into K (~x10^3), M(~x10^6), etc. prefix.

Hence, S*E's 250KB/s= 250 * 8 (8 bits per byte) = ~2.0Mbps, and S*E's 4.0 MB/s = 4*2 = ~32mbps.
The reason: the file sizes are in kilobytes/megabytes, so it's easier to get an idea of how long would it take without constantly performing "times 8" operation, the latter being not natural for people unaccustomed to binary/octal math.

However, it's not all.

Depending on the settings, S*E may or may not display the following:

1) volatile speed: speed of the last buffer uploaded. This one is fairly representative, and, to the best of my knowledge, measures well against the various speed tests and ISP-provided hard "cap" numbers.
2) running average upload speed. Average of all such volatile speeds for this file. This gets less representative if there are multiple threads in action and files are large.
3) average upload speed: the #2 once the file send is complete. Mind you, this does not mean the upload as a whole is complete; only the send part. It means that now the sending thread goes into a sleep mode awaiting the response and doesn't use the "up" bandwidth, so the other threads (if configured properly) can use it for uploading.
4) when response from SM is received the total time divided by the file size is logged again. Granted, if there is more than one thread this value should be used very lightly, as it consists of both uploading part (when the bandwidth is actively used) and waiting part (when pretty much nothing on the client side is used).

All in all, given the multithreaded nature of S*E uploads and the two-stage (client request vs server response) nature of the individual uploads, I do *NOT* recommend using any of S*E-provided information for anything else except comparing your own current experience with your own past one.
If a serious benchmarking is really needed (I totally understand that for a commercial outfit it can be vital), please have an IT person contact me directly.

HTH

Damon016

Nikolai wrote: »

David, thank you for bringing this to my attention!

Here's a gist to S*E's speed indication:
1) all speeds are in xBytes per second, not in xbits per second.
2) all numbers are "smart", scaling up and down as needed. So whether you're on modem, dsl, cable or fiber, you'll only get a few important digits, the rest would go into K (~x10^3), M(~x10^6), etc. prefix.

Hence, S*E's 250KB/s= 250 * 8 (8 bits per byte) = ~2.0Mbps, and S*E's 4.0 MB/s = 4*2 = ~32mbps.
The reason: the file sizes are in kilobytes/megabytes, so it's easier to get an idea of how long would it take without constantly performing "times 8" operation, the latter being not natural for people unaccustomed to binary/octal math.

However, it's not all.

Depending on the settings, S*E may or may not display the following:

1) volatile speed: speed of the last buffer uploaded. This one is fairly representative, and, to the best of my knowledge, measures well against the various speed tests and ISP-provided hard "cap" numbers.
2) running average upload speed. Average of all such volatile speeds for this file. This gets less representative if there are multiple threads in action and files are large.
3) average upload speed: the #2 once the file send is complete. Mind you, this does not mean the upload as a whole is complete; only the send part. It means that now the sending thread goes into a sleep mode awaiting the response and doesn't use the "up" bandwidth, so the other threads (if configured properly) can use it for uploading.
4) when response from SM is received the total time divided by the file size is logged again. Granted, if there is more than one thread this value should be used very lightly, as it consists of both uploading part (when the bandwidth is actively used) and waiting part (when pretty much nothing on the client side is used).

All in all, given the multithreaded nature of S*E uploads and the two-stage (client request vs server response) nature of the individual uploads, I do *NOT* recommend using any of S*E-provided information for anything else except comparing your own current experience with your own past one.
If a serious benchmarking is really needed (I totally understand that for a commercial outfit it can be vital), please have an IT person contact me directly.


HTH

Bottom line, I uploaded the SAME FILES to Fotki via FTP and they finished in one day. Took 2 to get it to you all. There is a bottleneck some where. The reason people are complaining is they UPLOAD TO YOU ALL THE TIME, they KNOW how long iit takes to upload RAW files, then all of a sudden it's not as fast. Some testing should be done to identify the bottle neck. No one wants to see the "Owner" of the companies bandwidth numbers. OF COURSE he would "NOT" have any issues. Nor any of the company trolls, rather people whom are having this issue. (Respectfully)

SamirD

From my experience of uploading to SM over the past half-decade, here's what I've figured out.

Until recently, your uploading speed to SM would never be your full bandwidth. The new uploader does a good job of maxing out the available bandwidth if you have a single connection. It still can't max out multiple connections.

FTP is still superior to even the newest SM uploader because of the reduced overhead. But not being a native feature, smugftp does have its limitations.

I'm having all sorts of intermittent problems with SM right now, so I'm assuming it will be a matter of time before ops figures out something is broken.

sara505

Andy wrote: »

Sara, our heroes are standing by 365 days a year to help - please write our Support Heroes and give details so we can look for possible things that may help.

I'm not writing any more support heroes, Andy.

Something has been amiss for approximately the past three weeks - yes, starting with the video issues - and now it is affecting my (and apparently many others,' according to a nearby thread) image uploading, and I for one, am sick of the stock answers and the run arounds.

I've been an ardent supporter of SM, but I'm pretty disgusted at this point.

Please - how about a straight answer - WTF is going on?????

SamirD

The upload issues must be hit or miss because I'm uploading with almost 100% utilization of three 5Mb pipes for a total of 15Mb/sec. That's about 1.5 megs/second. Now, it's important to note that I have 6 Simple upload sessions going simultaneously.

Try running simultaneous sessions. If one isn't enough, keep adding more, especially if each is getting 250k or so, the that will eventually add up.

Rogue 1

sara505 wrote: »

I'm not writing any more support heroes, Andy.

Something has been amiss for approximately the past three weeks - yes, starting with the video issues - and now it is affecting my (and apparently many others,' according to a nearby thread) image uploading, and I for one, am sick of the stock answers and the run arounds.

I've been an ardent supporter of SM, but I'm pretty disgusted at this point.

Please - how about a straight answer - WTF is going on?????

Hi Sara -

I'm Seán - one of the support heroes here at SmugMug -

As you know, we don't usually handle support by phone, because we all work from our homes -

I'll ask you to shoot us one more email - Att Sean - and provide me with a phone number and a good time to call - I'll ring you from my personal phone and we'll do our best to help you identify and resolve this issue -

I'm standing by -

Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help

Damon016

Im with Sara on this, and she is right... On the other hand, talking to someone via phone, via here, emailing a (wanna be hero) etc... isn't going to fix the technical slowness nor restore the speed! There is an issue that many users are having and there is no resolution.:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorseover and over and getting the same answer... (Insanity)

Damon016

SamirD wrote: »

The upload issues must be hit or miss because I'm uploading with almost 100% utilization of three 5Mb pipes for a total of 15Mb/sec. That's about 1.5 megs/second. Now, it's important to note that I have 6 Simple upload sessions going simultaneously.

Try running simultaneous sessions. If one isn't enough, keep adding more, especially if each is getting 250k or so, the that will eventually add up.

How to open more on SE? =/

Andy

Damon016 wrote: »

Im with Sara on this, and she is right... On the other hand, talking to someone via phone, via here, emailing a (wanna be hero) etc... isn't going to fix the technical slowness nor restore the speed! There is an issue that many users are having and there is no resolution.:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorseover and over and getting the same answer... (Insanity)

Damon, we're going to contact you - Sean will. We have to find out why it's slow for you, and to see if there's something amiss (we can't replicate it - yet- but if it can be replicated, we'll be all over it like nobody's business. To do this, I need your SmugMug site name - can't find it based on your Dgrin info.

ETA: Nevermind, found you from our help desk system.

sara505

Rogue 1 wrote: »

Hi Sara -

I'm Seán - one of the support heroes here at SmugMug -

As you know, we don't usually handle support by phone, because we all work from our homes -

I'll ask you to shoot us one more email - Att Sean - and provide me with a phone number and a good time to call - I'll ring you from my personal phone and we'll do our best to help you identify and resolve this issue -

I'm standing by -

Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help

Sean - I am looking into connection/speed issues on my end. My computer is reporting one number, Speedtest.net is reporting a much different scenario. I will be speaking with Verizon tomorrow and will get back to you.

I am paying for high-speed DSL, and I hope that's what I'm getting. According to my computer, I am; Speedtest.net numbers say no.

I'm now on day three of this up-load.

What's throwing me is, it's in both of my locations.

I will get back to you tomorrow. Thanks.

Nikolai

Damon016 wrote: »

How to open more on SE? =/

Tools|Options, Upload tab, increase number simultaneosly uploading threads.
Start running tests (10..20 typically-sized files) and watch the network performance. Start increasing the number of threads while keeping at least 2:1 ratio of total:uploading (also may vary; my system works best at ~35:7)
One you see you reached the plato, stop, don't go overboard, as it can make the situation worse.
It has to be fine-tuned for your specific system, there is no one single "fit-to-all" solution.

SamirD

Damon016 wrote: »

How to open more on SE? =/

You can't with SE. :cry One of the reasons I couldn't use it even if it didn't crash. This is why it takes me so long to setup and upload session. It would be nice to drop it into something and it automatically adjust the number of simultaneous streams to max out (or not max out) bandwidth.

Damon016

Andy wrote: »

Damon, we're going to contact you - Sean will. We have to find out why it's slow for you, and to see if there's something amiss (we can't replicate it - yet- but if it can be replicated, we'll be all over it like nobody's business. To do this, I need your SmugMug site name - can't find it based on your Dgrin info.

ETA: Nevermind, found you from our help desk system.

That is fine with me! If I can help I will....

Damon016

Nikolai wrote: »

Tools|Options, Upload tab, increase number simultaneosly uploading threads.
Start running tests (10..20 typically-sized files) and watch the network performance. Start increasing the number of threads while keeping at least 2:1 ratio of total:uploading (also may vary; my system works best at ~35:7)
One you see you reached the plato, stop, don't go overboard, as it can make the situation worse.
It has to be fine-tuned for your specific system, there is no one single "fit-to-all" solution.

Understood! It was set at default, maybe this is the issue?! Let's see... Sean/Andy keep an eye out, maybe see an improvement?

PS - several tests bring me at 27 to 30 on download and 4 to 5 up... I am just not seeing that by any means... =/

Nikolai

Damon016 wrote: »

Understood! It was set at default, maybe this is the issue?! Let's see... Sean/Andy keep an eye out, maybe see an improvement?

PS - several tests bring me at 27 to 30 on download and 4 to 5 up... I am just not seeing that by any means... =/

Default is 7:1 or 7:2 methinks. Can be a bit low for your case. I'd try 10..12 : 4..5 or so.
Also: 4...5mb[its]ps *up* means S*E cannot possibly report anything higher than 620KB[ytes]/sec. Average total (including server response time) most likely would be around 200..250KB/sec or lower.

Damon016

Still a bit low.. just from avg FTP tests to another site I am on... aggrovating =( esp since im uploading 5000 photos

Rogue 1

Damon016 wrote: »

Still a bit low.. just from avg FTP tests to another site I am on... aggrovating =( esp since im uploading 5000 photos

Hi Damon - I left you a voice mail a short time ago - are you available now?

Sean

Andy

Damon016 wrote: »

Still a bit low.. just from avg FTP tests to another site I am on... aggrovating =( esp since im uploading 5000 photos

Our data is showing that you've uploaded 15+ Gb in the last 24hours, over 2000 images, and a speed of between .3 (slowest) and 1.97 (fastest) Mbps. And an average speed of 1.85 Mpbs.

Sean's gonna get in touch with you.

Nikolai

Andy wrote: »

Our data is showing that you've uploaded 15+ Gb in the last 24hours, over 2000 images, and a speed of between .3 and 1.97 Mbps. Sean's gonna get in touch with you.

*M*bps?