I am having trouble understanding the Bandwidth Usage statistic at tm.lds.org and request some help in understanding it.
We have a 2M downlink at the receiving meetinghouse. The bandwidth usage today showed about 900k. Is that a maximum bandwidth?
I ask because we tested a 720k broadcast successfully for two weeks, but today we were not able to stream a 360k broadcast.
Doing the math, if the maximum BW Usage was 900k, the broadcast should have worked even on a 1M downlink. What am I missing?
Meetinghouse Bandwidth
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11460
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34421
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
Re: Meetinghouse Bandwidth
Good question. I think it has to be averaged over some period of time, but I've no clue about how long/short that is.lajackson wrote:I am having trouble understanding the Bandwidth Usage statistic at tm.lds.org and request some help in understanding it.
What else was using bandwidth?lajackson wrote:I ask because we tested a 720k broadcast successfully for two weeks, but today we were not able to stream a 360k broadcast.
Doing the math, if the maximum BW Usage was 900k, the broadcast should have worked even on a 1M downlink. What am I missing?
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11460
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
Re: Meetinghouse Bandwidth
Probably 500 members. [sigh]russellhltn wrote:What else was using bandwidth?
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11460
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
Re: Meetinghouse Bandwidth
So the bandwidth chart at tm.lds.org is not reliable?
Or I do not know how to properly read it?
I would like to understand what is happening. As I understand the numbers, the broadcast should have worked. But it did not.
I need to find out why before I will obtain permission to try again.
Or I do not know how to properly read it?
I would like to understand what is happening. As I understand the numbers, the broadcast should have worked. But it did not.
I need to find out why before I will obtain permission to try again.
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34421
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
Re: Meetinghouse Bandwidth
I don't know as it's unreliable, but I'm not sure just how to interpret the results.lajackson wrote:So the bandwidth chart at tm.lds.org is not reliable?
The numbers I'm seeing are quite low, so I'm thinking it must be the average over a period of time. The question is - how long?
But I don't know as it's a good tool to use to make a decision on the broadcast. (I see it as more of a tool to justify if your speed should be increased - that is, if that were an option.) I'd use the speedtest when no one else is a around. Then then kill all other users during the broadcast. Physically pull the plug on everyone and everything except what's needed to support the broadcast.
Is this by chance DSL? Because I had a recent DSL install in a chapel that the FMG failed to filter. 1MB instead of 3MB. <sigh>
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11460
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
Re: Meetinghouse Bandwidth
They are using it for exactly that, or rather, the opposite of that. "You do not need any more bandwidth because you are not using what you have." We have a few hundred members who would disagree with that statement.russellhltn wrote:(I see it as more of a tool to justify if your speed should be increased - that is, if that were an option.)