Can throughput exceed the bandwidth of a network

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












5















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



















  • 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
    Mar 5 at 23:58















5















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



















  • 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
    Mar 5 at 23:58













5












5








5


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
















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















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 6 at 19:16









Cown

6,81131031




6,81131031










asked Mar 5 at 20:01









edan pattedan patt

262




262







  • 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
    Mar 5 at 23:58












  • 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
    Mar 5 at 23:58







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
Mar 5 at 23:58





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
Mar 5 at 23:58










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















11














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
    Mar 5 at 20:10











  • 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
    Mar 5 at 20:11











  • 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
    Mar 5 at 20:14







  • 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
    Mar 5 at 23:23






  • 2





    @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

    – immibis
    Mar 5 at 23:56


















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














    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.






    share|improve this answer






























      -3














      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























        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
        );



        );













        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

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        11














        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
          Mar 5 at 20:10











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:11











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:14







        • 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
          Mar 5 at 23:23






        • 2





          @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

          – immibis
          Mar 5 at 23:56















        11














        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
          Mar 5 at 20:10











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:11











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:14







        • 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
          Mar 5 at 23:23






        • 2





          @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

          – immibis
          Mar 5 at 23:56













        11












        11








        11







        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 Mar 5 at 20:05









        Ron MaupinRon Maupin

        68k1369126




        68k1369126












        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:10











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:11











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:14







        • 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
          Mar 5 at 23:23






        • 2





          @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

          – immibis
          Mar 5 at 23:56

















        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:10











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:11











        • 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
          Mar 5 at 20:14







        • 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
          Mar 5 at 23:23






        • 2





          @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

          – immibis
          Mar 5 at 23:56
















        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
        Mar 5 at 20:10





        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
        Mar 5 at 20:10













        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
        Mar 5 at 20:11





        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
        Mar 5 at 20:11













        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
        Mar 5 at 20:14






        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
        Mar 5 at 20:14





        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
        Mar 5 at 23:23





        @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
        Mar 5 at 23:23




        2




        2





        @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

        – immibis
        Mar 5 at 23:56





        @edanpatt If the data is in a queue still waiting to go out of the network port, is it really "sent"?

        – immibis
        Mar 5 at 23:56











        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 Mar 5 at 21:25









            StuggiStuggi

            1,542523




            1,542523





















                1














                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.






                share|improve this answer



























                  1














                  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.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    1












                    1








                    1







                    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.






                    share|improve this answer













                    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.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Mar 6 at 9:39









                    OvermindOvermind

                    1111




                    1111





















                        -3














                        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



























                          -3














                          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

























                            -3












                            -3








                            -3







                            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













                            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












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 6 at 2:38









                            nick012000nick012000

                            95




                            95



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                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

                                How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                                How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?