Question - Latency Shapped vs UnShapped

S

Slooth

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
122
Hi Guys,

I have a question, if I had a game that used port 443 would a shaped account have the same latency as an unshaped account?
 
Last edited:
It would have stabler latency, but no it wont have lower latency..

Put it like this: Shaped account going via normal access to game X would have at best 500ms, now if the port stays shaped it will jump around between 500ms to xxxxMS.

Playing the game via unshaped port over a shaped adsl account, you could improve the performance to stay in the 500-800ms range most of the time if not allways.

An unshaped account would be able to give you in the range of 280-400ms most of the time with average of 400-500ms(this is taken from our unshaped vpn, the unshaped saix performance is about 100-200ms higher overall)
 
Slooth said:
Hi Guys,

I have a question, if I had a game that used port 443 would a shaped account have the same latency as an unshaped account?
Click to expand...

No, your shaped will be a lot slower as the UDP (P2P) is being throttled to next to nothing. They will tell you if you want to play games get an unshaped account. You can however try port forwarding as an option. I use it playing Battlefield 2, before I could not even stay more than about 20 sec before I was logged out. Now I seem to be able to play with no problems. I have however not compared this to an unshaped account to see the difference however.:p

Here is the link that will explain how it done.

http://www.portforward.com/routers.htm
 
Thanks guys,

So I still have to pay for an unshaped account to ensure lower latency for a text based game that uses far less bandwidth a day then me reading the news twice that day.

I currently have ISDN, 260ms to the box in question. ADSL, friend reckons around 300ms.

mume.pvv.org
 
Slooth said:
Hi Guys,

I have a question, if I had a game that used port 443 would a shaped account have the same latency as an unshaped account?
Click to expand...
Port 443? --- that is the SSL (https) port used so it is not shaped --I think
 
Like Maskie said, port 443 shouldn't be shaped anyway. That is if the server is accepting connections on port 443. As far as I know, if the server uses a shaped port, you can't bypass the shaping if you change the port you use for your client. Reason being that you are only changing _your_ listening port, not the server's, thus you still connect to the shaped server port, if that makes sense.

If you're getting ADSL, checkout Clipse's signature on how to bypass shaping, otherwise stick to ISDN as it is not shaped.
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys,

Yes the server accepts connections on that port, hence my question. If port 443 ain't shaped; should I get the same latency on a shaped account as I would on an unshaped account on that port?
 
You should get the same latency and speeds then, yeah, since with both accounts, port 443 is unshaped.
 
newb5000 said:
You should get the same latency and speeds then, yeah, since with both accounts, port 443 is unshaped.
Click to expand...

Actually 443 is shaped, but not to the extend of the full port range. We have done multiple tests and this is why we dont use port 443 to bypass shaping.

Its not the best port ;-)

However newb5000, you will not get the same latency, from SA internationally shaped adsl go via a much smaller pipe and "higher latency" pipe than unshaped adsl. This is why shaped and unshaped adsl get different icmp ping which is naturally unshaped since icmp doesnt get shaped.

When doing a ping request via unshaped accounts, u get anything in the range of 150-200ms less than with a shaped account, this ping difference you will not be able to remove, not even tunneling via unshaped ports on the shaped network.
 
Actually just some general comments on the shaped and unshaped. Theoretically you should have better pings on unshaped but the unshaped seems to be totally screwed. I get better ping times and no lag spikes on a shaped account while on a damn unshapped account i can't even connect to the server
 
saix unshaped is a piece of pooo :)

This I can tell you because we have gotten alot of ex-saix unshaped users onto our vpn and noticing a big difference.
 
I have needed to connect to a VPN in New York and tried to do it with an unshaped account. As said before its a piece of POO.

Ultimately a local VPN solution proved to be the best solution. But we found that simply being in africa gave us more latancy than we could handle. Packets still need to travel from here to there.

I have some boxes in UUNETS data centre and have tested various ping times to international serveres and have never had anything below 200MS.
 
We get from our uunet host 220ms to us hosts, no packetloss whatsoever and really 220-250ms is sweet for ssh sessions, I have no problem with delay.
 
Clipse said:
...from SA internationally shaped adsl go via a much smaller pipe and "higher latency" pipe than unshaped adsl.
Click to expand...

Now that's interesting, never knew that :o
Thanks for the info.

Sigh, your LowPing VPN is starting to look more and more attractive by the day...I might be tempted to sign up soon ;)
 
Well Ive tested saix unshaped and saix shaped to similar international hosts.. saix shaped go via 5 more hops and a completely seperate "****ty" backbone.

All and all, SAIX is not for me, thank you very much :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X