Can throughput exceed the bandwidth of a networkThroughput of the network in the given scenariocan average througput be greater than bandwidth?Bandwidth is mimimum of the path?How to determine the throughput of the TCP connection?Why does throughput (consumed BW) increase when the packet error rate is increased in the TCP?Delays and throughputBandwidth vs Throughput vs Data(bit) rateCan tcp throughput be equal to bandwidth?How can I calculate the network throughput using ping responses?How get more data rate : Change the number of bits, the bandwidth or the packet duration
Can the Shape Water Cantrip be used to manipulate blood?
Being asked to review a paper in conference one has submitted to
Sometimes a banana is just a banana
How can neutral atoms have exactly zero electric field when there is a difference in the positions of the charges?
How to get the first element while continue streaming?
Can we carry rice to Japan?
Misplaced tyre lever - alternatives?
Correct physics behind the colors on CD (compact disc)?
PTIJ: Aharon, King of Egypt
How to fix my table, centering of columns
Difference between 'stomach' and 'uterus'
Should I use HTTPS on a domain that will only be used for redirection?
Would the melodic leap of the opening phrase of Mozart's K545 be considered dissonant?
Book about a time-travel war fought by computers
If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?
Create chunks from an array
How do we objectively assess if a dialogue sounds unnatural or cringy?
Are there other characters in the Star Wars universe who had damaged bodies and needed to wear an outfit like Darth Vader?
Is every open circuit a capacitor?
Is there a full canon version of Tyrion's jackass/honeycomb joke?
Make me a metasequence
It doesn't matter the side you see it
Draw bounding region by list of points
Where is the fallacy here?
Can throughput exceed the bandwidth of a network
Throughput of the network in the given scenariocan average througput be greater than bandwidth?Bandwidth is mimimum of the path?How to determine the throughput of the TCP connection?Why does throughput (consumed BW) increase when the packet error rate is increased in the TCP?Delays and throughputBandwidth vs Throughput vs Data(bit) rateCan tcp throughput be equal to bandwidth?How can I calculate the network throughput using ping responses?How get more data rate : Change the number of bits, the bandwidth or the packet duration
I took an introductory course to networking this semester and I was wondering:
looking at things at the layer 4 level using TCP can the throughput on the network exceed its bandwidth? According to the definition I believe throughput is defined as the percentage of packets on a link whether they fail to reach the other end or not.
If that's the true definition and a network theoretically can run at 100% of its bandwidth wouldn't all window sizes of senders on that link now grow larger too and altogether exceed the bandwidth of the entire link?
In other words the throughput momentarily would exceed 100% which would surely lead to packet loss, am I correct to think of it this way?
tcp bandwidth throughput
New contributor
add a comment |
I took an introductory course to networking this semester and I was wondering:
looking at things at the layer 4 level using TCP can the throughput on the network exceed its bandwidth? According to the definition I believe throughput is defined as the percentage of packets on a link whether they fail to reach the other end or not.
If that's the true definition and a network theoretically can run at 100% of its bandwidth wouldn't all window sizes of senders on that link now grow larger too and altogether exceed the bandwidth of the entire link?
In other words the throughput momentarily would exceed 100% which would surely lead to packet loss, am I correct to think of it this way?
tcp bandwidth throughput
New contributor
1
Can there be 25hrs in a day? A 1Gb link is a 1Gb link. No amount of prayer or math can make it move more than 1Gb. You can throw more than 1Gb at it, but only 1Gb will ever get through it. The rest is either delayed (queued) or lost (dropped)
– Ricky Beam
yesterday
add a comment |
I took an introductory course to networking this semester and I was wondering:
looking at things at the layer 4 level using TCP can the throughput on the network exceed its bandwidth? According to the definition I believe throughput is defined as the percentage of packets on a link whether they fail to reach the other end or not.
If that's the true definition and a network theoretically can run at 100% of its bandwidth wouldn't all window sizes of senders on that link now grow larger too and altogether exceed the bandwidth of the entire link?
In other words the throughput momentarily would exceed 100% which would surely lead to packet loss, am I correct to think of it this way?
tcp bandwidth throughput
New contributor
I took an introductory course to networking this semester and I was wondering:
looking at things at the layer 4 level using TCP can the throughput on the network exceed its bandwidth? According to the definition I believe throughput is defined as the percentage of packets on a link whether they fail to reach the other end or not.
If that's the true definition and a network theoretically can run at 100% of its bandwidth wouldn't all window sizes of senders on that link now grow larger too and altogether exceed the bandwidth of the entire link?
In other words the throughput momentarily would exceed 100% which would surely lead to packet loss, am I correct to think of it this way?
tcp bandwidth throughput
tcp bandwidth throughput
New contributor
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
Cown
6,33031030
6,33031030
New contributor
asked yesterday
edan pattedan patt
262
262
New contributor
New contributor
1
Can there be 25hrs in a day? A 1Gb link is a 1Gb link. No amount of prayer or math can make it move more than 1Gb. You can throw more than 1Gb at it, but only 1Gb will ever get through it. The rest is either delayed (queued) or lost (dropped)
– Ricky Beam
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Can there be 25hrs in a day? A 1Gb link is a 1Gb link. No amount of prayer or math can make it move more than 1Gb. You can throw more than 1Gb at it, but only 1Gb will ever get through it. The rest is either delayed (queued) or lost (dropped)
– Ricky Beam
yesterday
1
1
Can there be 25hrs in a day? A 1Gb link is a 1Gb link. No amount of prayer or math can make it move more than 1Gb. You can throw more than 1Gb at it, but only 1Gb will ever get through it. The rest is either delayed (queued) or lost (dropped)
– Ricky Beam
yesterday
Can there be 25hrs in a day? A 1Gb link is a 1Gb link. No amount of prayer or math can make it move more than 1Gb. You can throw more than 1Gb at it, but only 1Gb will ever get through it. The rest is either delayed (queued) or lost (dropped)
– Ricky Beam
yesterday
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
The bandwidth is the number of bits that can be sent on a link in one second. The throughput is the amount of data sent, and that will need to subtract the protocol overhead from the bandwidth, so no, the throughput cannot exceed the bandwidth. It may seem that way if you compress the data, but that is an illusion.
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
1
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
2
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
TCP also implements a receive window that's sent in the ACK for each received packet, so if you try to overload the host on the other end, it'll set the receive window to a smaller value as the TCP receive buffer fills, until finally it's set to 0 to tell the sending party to back off until it has had time process the incoming packets and hand them off to the upper layers of the networking stack. So this limits the sending capabilities. Also, if a network switch were to drop a frame due to over-congestion, that will cause TCP to halt everything, ask for a fast retransmit of the missing packet (since packets will start to arrive out of order), and then resume processing of the other packets. TCP doesn't care about maximum speed or throughput, it cares about getting every single frame through, in order and without errors. For what you're describing to even happen, you'd need to use another Layer 4 protocol, preferably something which doesn't care about anything, like UDP.
add a comment |
Throughput on the network device can and in fact it is highly recommended to be so.
Let's say we have an industrial switch with 24 gigabit ports. It's bandwidth will always be gigabit on any of the ports but the total throughput it can sustain can be 10 gigabit or more. The closer the value is to the total combined speed of the ports, the better the switch will be under heavy traffic load. Example: a 52-port XGS2210 switch can sustain a throughput of 176 Gpbs, which is more than 48Gbps from ethernet ports + 40Gbps from optical ports. That means it will never be overloaded even if full traffic is present on all ports.
A bad implementation example are some home routers that do offer gigabit ports for both LAN and WAN but their throughput is limited to 500Mbps or less.
New contributor
add a comment |
Yes, sort of. ISPs often "oversell" the capacities of their lines, so that the total throughput available to the users is greater than the capacity of their line. They do this because usually the data the users use is significantly less than what they'd be allowed to use, theoretically - it's rare for all of the users to use their maximum allocated capacity at the same time. For instance, if they have a line that has 1 GB/s of throughput, they might sell 50 100 MB/s plans to their customers.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
edan patt is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57427%2fcan-throughput-exceed-the-bandwidth-of-a-network%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The bandwidth is the number of bits that can be sent on a link in one second. The throughput is the amount of data sent, and that will need to subtract the protocol overhead from the bandwidth, so no, the throughput cannot exceed the bandwidth. It may seem that way if you compress the data, but that is an illusion.
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
1
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
2
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
The bandwidth is the number of bits that can be sent on a link in one second. The throughput is the amount of data sent, and that will need to subtract the protocol overhead from the bandwidth, so no, the throughput cannot exceed the bandwidth. It may seem that way if you compress the data, but that is an illusion.
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
1
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
2
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
The bandwidth is the number of bits that can be sent on a link in one second. The throughput is the amount of data sent, and that will need to subtract the protocol overhead from the bandwidth, so no, the throughput cannot exceed the bandwidth. It may seem that way if you compress the data, but that is an illusion.
The bandwidth is the number of bits that can be sent on a link in one second. The throughput is the amount of data sent, and that will need to subtract the protocol overhead from the bandwidth, so no, the throughput cannot exceed the bandwidth. It may seem that way if you compress the data, but that is an illusion.
answered yesterday
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.6k1369124
66.6k1369124
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
1
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
2
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
1
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
2
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
Well if I send more than the network link can handle wouldn't it still be accounted for? As in we could exceed 100% although it would surely cause segments to be lost
– edan patt
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
It would simply be queued or dropped at the interface. You cannot send more bits than the interface can send during a specific time period (one second).
– Ron Maupin♦
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
I see, so what matters is what is physically sent, I've always looked at the throughput "through the eyes" of the sender meaning the sender could send more than what the network could handle. Thanks for making it clear.
– edan patt
yesterday
1
1
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
@edanpatt I wonder if what you're really asking is what would happen if you tried to send move bits in one second than the physical interface could handle. Generally, every layer of the network stack is designed to prevent this, so one answer is, "you just can't". In situations where it is possible to attempt this, the data that is attempted beyond the bandwidth limit is dropped or otherwise lost in some way. The net effect being that you have reduced your throughput because the fragmentary data is useless and everything must be re-transmitted.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
2
2
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
@edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?
– immibis
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
TCP also implements a receive window that's sent in the ACK for each received packet, so if you try to overload the host on the other end, it'll set the receive window to a smaller value as the TCP receive buffer fills, until finally it's set to 0 to tell the sending party to back off until it has had time process the incoming packets and hand them off to the upper layers of the networking stack. So this limits the sending capabilities. Also, if a network switch were to drop a frame due to over-congestion, that will cause TCP to halt everything, ask for a fast retransmit of the missing packet (since packets will start to arrive out of order), and then resume processing of the other packets. TCP doesn't care about maximum speed or throughput, it cares about getting every single frame through, in order and without errors. For what you're describing to even happen, you'd need to use another Layer 4 protocol, preferably something which doesn't care about anything, like UDP.
add a comment |
TCP also implements a receive window that's sent in the ACK for each received packet, so if you try to overload the host on the other end, it'll set the receive window to a smaller value as the TCP receive buffer fills, until finally it's set to 0 to tell the sending party to back off until it has had time process the incoming packets and hand them off to the upper layers of the networking stack. So this limits the sending capabilities. Also, if a network switch were to drop a frame due to over-congestion, that will cause TCP to halt everything, ask for a fast retransmit of the missing packet (since packets will start to arrive out of order), and then resume processing of the other packets. TCP doesn't care about maximum speed or throughput, it cares about getting every single frame through, in order and without errors. For what you're describing to even happen, you'd need to use another Layer 4 protocol, preferably something which doesn't care about anything, like UDP.
add a comment |
TCP also implements a receive window that's sent in the ACK for each received packet, so if you try to overload the host on the other end, it'll set the receive window to a smaller value as the TCP receive buffer fills, until finally it's set to 0 to tell the sending party to back off until it has had time process the incoming packets and hand them off to the upper layers of the networking stack. So this limits the sending capabilities. Also, if a network switch were to drop a frame due to over-congestion, that will cause TCP to halt everything, ask for a fast retransmit of the missing packet (since packets will start to arrive out of order), and then resume processing of the other packets. TCP doesn't care about maximum speed or throughput, it cares about getting every single frame through, in order and without errors. For what you're describing to even happen, you'd need to use another Layer 4 protocol, preferably something which doesn't care about anything, like UDP.
TCP also implements a receive window that's sent in the ACK for each received packet, so if you try to overload the host on the other end, it'll set the receive window to a smaller value as the TCP receive buffer fills, until finally it's set to 0 to tell the sending party to back off until it has had time process the incoming packets and hand them off to the upper layers of the networking stack. So this limits the sending capabilities. Also, if a network switch were to drop a frame due to over-congestion, that will cause TCP to halt everything, ask for a fast retransmit of the missing packet (since packets will start to arrive out of order), and then resume processing of the other packets. TCP doesn't care about maximum speed or throughput, it cares about getting every single frame through, in order and without errors. For what you're describing to even happen, you'd need to use another Layer 4 protocol, preferably something which doesn't care about anything, like UDP.
answered yesterday
StuggiStuggi
1,462521
1,462521
add a comment |
add a comment |
Throughput on the network device can and in fact it is highly recommended to be so.
Let's say we have an industrial switch with 24 gigabit ports. It's bandwidth will always be gigabit on any of the ports but the total throughput it can sustain can be 10 gigabit or more. The closer the value is to the total combined speed of the ports, the better the switch will be under heavy traffic load. Example: a 52-port XGS2210 switch can sustain a throughput of 176 Gpbs, which is more than 48Gbps from ethernet ports + 40Gbps from optical ports. That means it will never be overloaded even if full traffic is present on all ports.
A bad implementation example are some home routers that do offer gigabit ports for both LAN and WAN but their throughput is limited to 500Mbps or less.
New contributor
add a comment |
Throughput on the network device can and in fact it is highly recommended to be so.
Let's say we have an industrial switch with 24 gigabit ports. It's bandwidth will always be gigabit on any of the ports but the total throughput it can sustain can be 10 gigabit or more. The closer the value is to the total combined speed of the ports, the better the switch will be under heavy traffic load. Example: a 52-port XGS2210 switch can sustain a throughput of 176 Gpbs, which is more than 48Gbps from ethernet ports + 40Gbps from optical ports. That means it will never be overloaded even if full traffic is present on all ports.
A bad implementation example are some home routers that do offer gigabit ports for both LAN and WAN but their throughput is limited to 500Mbps or less.
New contributor
add a comment |
Throughput on the network device can and in fact it is highly recommended to be so.
Let's say we have an industrial switch with 24 gigabit ports. It's bandwidth will always be gigabit on any of the ports but the total throughput it can sustain can be 10 gigabit or more. The closer the value is to the total combined speed of the ports, the better the switch will be under heavy traffic load. Example: a 52-port XGS2210 switch can sustain a throughput of 176 Gpbs, which is more than 48Gbps from ethernet ports + 40Gbps from optical ports. That means it will never be overloaded even if full traffic is present on all ports.
A bad implementation example are some home routers that do offer gigabit ports for both LAN and WAN but their throughput is limited to 500Mbps or less.
New contributor
Throughput on the network device can and in fact it is highly recommended to be so.
Let's say we have an industrial switch with 24 gigabit ports. It's bandwidth will always be gigabit on any of the ports but the total throughput it can sustain can be 10 gigabit or more. The closer the value is to the total combined speed of the ports, the better the switch will be under heavy traffic load. Example: a 52-port XGS2210 switch can sustain a throughput of 176 Gpbs, which is more than 48Gbps from ethernet ports + 40Gbps from optical ports. That means it will never be overloaded even if full traffic is present on all ports.
A bad implementation example are some home routers that do offer gigabit ports for both LAN and WAN but their throughput is limited to 500Mbps or less.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 19 hours ago
OvermindOvermind
1111
1111
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes, sort of. ISPs often "oversell" the capacities of their lines, so that the total throughput available to the users is greater than the capacity of their line. They do this because usually the data the users use is significantly less than what they'd be allowed to use, theoretically - it's rare for all of the users to use their maximum allocated capacity at the same time. For instance, if they have a line that has 1 GB/s of throughput, they might sell 50 100 MB/s plans to their customers.
New contributor
add a comment |
Yes, sort of. ISPs often "oversell" the capacities of their lines, so that the total throughput available to the users is greater than the capacity of their line. They do this because usually the data the users use is significantly less than what they'd be allowed to use, theoretically - it's rare for all of the users to use their maximum allocated capacity at the same time. For instance, if they have a line that has 1 GB/s of throughput, they might sell 50 100 MB/s plans to their customers.
New contributor
add a comment |
Yes, sort of. ISPs often "oversell" the capacities of their lines, so that the total throughput available to the users is greater than the capacity of their line. They do this because usually the data the users use is significantly less than what they'd be allowed to use, theoretically - it's rare for all of the users to use their maximum allocated capacity at the same time. For instance, if they have a line that has 1 GB/s of throughput, they might sell 50 100 MB/s plans to their customers.
New contributor
Yes, sort of. ISPs often "oversell" the capacities of their lines, so that the total throughput available to the users is greater than the capacity of their line. They do this because usually the data the users use is significantly less than what they'd be allowed to use, theoretically - it's rare for all of the users to use their maximum allocated capacity at the same time. For instance, if they have a line that has 1 GB/s of throughput, they might sell 50 100 MB/s plans to their customers.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
nick012000nick012000
95
95
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
edan patt is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
edan patt is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
edan patt is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
edan patt is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57427%2fcan-throughput-exceed-the-bandwidth-of-a-network%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Can there be 25hrs in a day? A 1Gb link is a 1Gb link. No amount of prayer or math can make it move more than 1Gb. You can throw more than 1Gb at it, but only 1Gb will ever get through it. The rest is either delayed (queued) or lost (dropped)
– Ricky Beam
yesterday