Can throughput exceed the bandwidth of a network












4















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?










share|improve this question









New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 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
    7 hours ago
















4















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?










share|improve this question









New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 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
    7 hours ago














4












4








4


1






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?










share|improve this question









New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












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






share|improve this question









New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









psmears

24315




24315






New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 11 hours ago









edan pattedan patt

211




211




New contributor




edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






edan patt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 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
    7 hours ago














  • 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
    7 hours ago








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
7 hours ago





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
7 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago













  • The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

    – Ron Trunk
    11 hours ago











  • Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

    – Ron Maupin
    11 hours ago





















2














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.






share|improve this answer































    -1














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      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.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      9














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago













      • The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

        – Ron Trunk
        11 hours ago











      • Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

        – Ron Maupin
        11 hours ago


















      9














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago













      • The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

        – Ron Trunk
        11 hours ago











      • Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

        – Ron Maupin
        11 hours ago
















      9












      9








      9







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 11 hours ago









      Ron MaupinRon Maupin

      66.6k1369123




      66.6k1369123













      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago













      • The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

        – Ron Trunk
        11 hours ago











      • Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

        – Ron Maupin
        11 hours ago





















      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago











      • 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
        11 hours ago













      • The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

        – Ron Trunk
        11 hours ago











      • Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

        – Ron Maupin
        11 hours ago



















      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
      11 hours ago





      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
      11 hours ago













      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
      11 hours ago





      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
      11 hours ago













      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
      11 hours ago







      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
      11 hours ago















      The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

      – Ron Trunk
      11 hours ago





      The bandwidth limits the number of bits that can be transmitted per second. So you can't send more than that.

      – Ron Trunk
      11 hours ago













      Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

      – Ron Maupin
      11 hours ago







      Typically, the throughput is measured in bytes, not bits, of the application data sent during a specific time period. You must subtract the protocol overhead to arrive at the throughput, which can also be affected by slow host processing, waiting for ACKs, etc. It is how much useful data is actually sent.

      – Ron Maupin
      11 hours ago













      2














      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.






      share|improve this answer




























        2














        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.






        share|improve this answer


























          2












          2








          2







          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.






          share|improve this answer













          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 10 hours ago









          StuggiStuggi

          1,462521




          1,462521























              -1














              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.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                -1














                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.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.























                  -1












                  -1








                  -1







                  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.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  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.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 4 hours ago









                  nick012000nick012000

                  99




                  99




                  New contributor




                  nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  nick012000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                      edan patt is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                      Alcedinidae

                      Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?