Hubbry Logo
Network throughputNetwork throughputMain
Open search
Network throughput
Community hub
Network throughput
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Network throughput
Network throughput
Network throughput
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Network throughput (or just throughput, when in context) refers to the rate of message delivery over a communication channel in a communication network, such as Ethernet or packet radio. The data that these messages contain may be delivered over physical or logical links, or through network nodes. Throughput is usually measured in bits per second (bit/s, sometimes abbreviated bps), and sometimes in packets per second (p/s or pps) or data packets per time slot.

The system throughput or aggregate throughput is the sum of the data rates that are delivered over all channels in a network.[1] Throughput represents digital bandwidth consumption.

The throughput of a communication system may be affected by various factors, including the limitations of the underlying physical medium, available processing power of the system components, end-user behavior, etc. When taking various protocol overheads into account, the useful rate of the data transfer can be significantly lower than the maximum achievable throughput; the useful part is usually referred to as goodput.

Maximum throughput

[edit]
See also: Peak information rate

Users of telecommunications devices, systems designers, and researchers into communication theory are often interested in knowing the expected performance of a system. From a user perspective, this is often phrased as either "which device will get my data there most effectively for my needs?", or "which device will deliver the most data per unit cost?". Systems designers often select the most effective architecture or design constraints for a system, which drive its final performance. In most cases, the benchmark of what a system is capable of, or its maximum performance is what the user or designer is interested in. The term maximum throughput is frequently used when discussing end-user maximum throughput tests. Maximum throughput is essentially synonymous with digital bandwidth capacity.

Four different values are relevant in the context of maximum throughput are used in comparing the upper limit conceptual performance of multiple systems. They are maximum theoretical throughput, maximum achievable throughput, peak measured throughput, and maximum sustained throughput. These values represent different qualities, and care must be taken that the same definitions are used when comparing different maximum throughput values.

Each bit must carry the same amount of information if throughput values are to be compared. Data compression can significantly alter throughput calculations, including generating values exceeding 100% in some cases.

If the communication is mediated by several links in series with different bit rates, the maximum throughput of the overall link is lower than or equal to the lowest bit rate. The lowest value link in the series is referred to as the bottleneck.

Maximum theoretical throughput

[edit]

Maximum theoretical throughput is closely related to the channel capacity of the system,[2] and is the maximum possible quantity of data that can be transmitted under ideal circumstances. In some cases, this number is reported as equal to the channel capacity, though this can be deceptive, as only non-packetized systems technologies can achieve this. Maximum theoretical throughput is more accurately reported taking into account format and specification overhead with best-case assumptions.

Asymptotic throughput

[edit]

The asymptotic throughput (less formal asymptotic bandwidth) for a packet-mode communication network is the value of the maximum throughput function, when the incoming network load approaches infinity, either due to a message size,[3] or the number of data sources. As with other bit rates and data bandwidths, the asymptotic throughput is measured in bits per second (bit/s) or (rarely) bytes per second (B/s), where 1 B/s is 8 bit/s. Decimal prefixes are used, meaning that 1 Mbit/s is 1000000 bit/s.

Asymptotic throughput is usually estimated by sending or simulating a very large message (sequence of data packets) through the network, using a greedy source and no flow control mechanism (i.e., UDP rather than TCP), and measuring the volume of data received at the destination node. Traffic load between other sources may reduce this maximum network path throughput. Alternatively, a large number of sources and sinks may be modeled, with or without flow control, and the aggregate maximum network throughput measured (the sum of traffic reaching its destinations). In a network simulation model with infinitately large packet queues, the asymptotic throughput occurs when the latency (the packet queuing time) goes to infinity, while if the packet queues are limited, or the network is a multi-drop network with many sources, and collisions may occur, the packet-dropping rate approaches 100%.

A well-known application of asymptotic throughput is in modeling point-to-point communication where message latency is modeled as a function of message length as where is the asymptotic bandwidth and is the half-peak length.[4]

As well as its use in general network modeling, asymptotic throughput is used in modeling performance on massively parallel computer systems, where system operation is highly dependent on communication overhead, as well as processor performance.[5] In these applications, asymptotic throughput is used modeling which includes the number of processors, so that both the latency and the asymptotic throughput are functions of the number of processors.[6]

Peak measured throughput

[edit]

Where asymptotic throughput is a theoretical or calculated capacity, peak measured throughput is throughput measured on a real implemented system, or on a simulated system. The value is the throughput measured over a short period of time; mathematically, this is the limit taken with respect to throughput as time approaches zero. This term is synonymous with instantaneous throughput. This number is useful for systems that rely on burst data transmission; however, for systems with a high duty cycle, this is less likely to be a useful measure of system performance.

Maximum sustained throughput

[edit]

Maximum sustained throughput is the throughput averaged or integrated over a long time. For networks under constant load, this is likely to be the most accurate indicator of system performance. The maximum throughput is defined as the asymptotic throughput when the load is large. In packet-switched networks while packet loss is not occurring, the load and the throughput always are equal. The maximum throughput may be defined as the minimum load in bit/s that causes packet loss or causes the latency to become unstable and increase towards infinity.

Channel utilization and efficiency

[edit]

Throughput is sometimes normalized and measured in percentage, but normalization may cause confusion regarding what the percentage is related to. Channel utilization, channel efficiency and packet drop rate in percentage are less ambiguous terms.

The channel efficiency, also known as bandwidth utilization efficiency, is the percentage of the net bit rate (in bit/s) of a digital communication channel that goes to the achieved throughput. For example, if the throughput is 70 Mbit/s over a 100 Mbit/s Ethernet connection, the channel efficiency is 70%.

Channel utilization includes both the data bits and the transmission overhead in the channel. The transmission overhead consists of preamble sequences, frame headers and acknowledgment packets. In a simplistic approach, channel efficiency can be equal to channel utilization assuming that acknowledge packets are zero-length and that the communications provider will not see any bandwidth relative to retransmissions or headers. Therefore, certain texts mark a difference between channel utilization and protocol efficiency.

In a point-to-point or point-to-multipoint communication link, where only one terminal is transmitting, the maximum throughput is often equivalent to or very near the physical data rate (the channel capacity), since the channel utilization can be almost 100% in such a network, except for a small inter-frame gap.

For example, the maximum frame size in Ethernet is 1526 bytes: up to 1500 bytes for the payload, eight bytes for the preamble, 14 bytes for the header, and 4 bytes for the trailer. An additional minimum interframe gap corresponding to 12 bytes is inserted after each frame. This corresponds to a maximum channel utilization of 1526 / (1526 + 12) × 100% = 99.22%, or a maximum channel use of 99.22 Mbit/s inclusive of Ethernet datalink layer protocol overhead over a 100 Mbit/s Ethernet connection. The maximum throughput or channel efficiency is then 1500 / (1526 + 12) = 97.5%, exclusive of the Ethernet protocol overhead.

Factors affecting throughput

[edit]

The throughput of a communication system will be limited by a number of factors. Some of these are described below.

Analog limitations

[edit]

The maximum achievable throughput (the channel capacity) is affected by the bandwidth in hertz and signal-to-noise ratio of the analog physical medium. Limited current drive capability in communications equipment can limit the effective signal-to-noise ratio for high capacitance links.

Despite the conceptual simplicity of digital information, all electrical signals traveling over wires are analog. The analog limitations of wires or wireless systems inevitably provide an upper bound on the amount of information that can be sent. The dominant equation here is the Shannon–Hartley theorem, and analog limitations of this type can be understood as factors that affect either the analog bandwidth of a signal or as factors that affect the signal-to-noise ratio. The bandwidth of twisted pair cabling used by Ethernet is limited to approximately 1 GHz, and PCB traces are limited by a similar amount.

Digital systems refer to the knee frequency,[7] the amount of time for the digital voltage to rise from 10% of a nominal digital 0 to a nominal digital 1 or vice versa. The knee frequency is related to the bandwidth of a channel, and can be related to the 3 db bandwidth of a system by the equation:[8] Where Tr is the 10% to 90% rise time, and K is a constant of proportionality related to the pulse shape, equal to 0.35 for an exponential rise, and 0.338 for a Gaussian rise.

Other analog factors include:

  • RC losses: Wires have an inherent resistance, and an inherent capacitance when measured with respect to ground. This causes all wires and cables to act as RC lowpass filters.
  • Skin effect: As frequency increases, electric charges migrate to the edges of wires or cable. This reduces the effective cross-sectional area available for carrying current, increasing resistance and reducing the signal-to-noise ratio. For AWG 24 wire (of the type commonly found in Cat 5e cable), the skin effect frequency becomes dominant over the inherent resistivity of the wire at 100 kHz. At 1 GHz the resistivity has increased to 0.1 ohm per inch.[9]
  • Termination and ringing: Wires longer than about 1/6 wavelengths must be modeled as transmission lines and termination must be taken into account. Without termination, reflected signals will travel back and forth across the wire, interfering with the information-carrying signal.[10]
  • Wireless channel effects: For wireless systems, all of the effects associated with wireless transmission limit the SNR and bandwidth of the received signal, and therefore the maximum transmission rate.

Hardware and protocol considerations

[edit]

Large data loads that require processing impose data processing requirements on hardware. For example, a gateway router must examine and perform routing table lookups on billions of packets per second.

CSMA/CD and CSMA/CA backoff waiting time and frame retransmissions after detected collisions slows transmissions. This may occur in Ethernet bus networks and hub networks, as well as in wireless networks.

Flow control, for example, in the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol, affects the throughput if the bandwidth-delay product is larger than the TCP window. In that case, the sending computer must wait for acknowledgement of the data packets before it can send more packets.

TCP congestion avoidance controls the data rate. A so-called slow start occurs in the beginning of a file transfer, and after packet drops caused by router congestion or bit errors in, for example, wireless links.

Multi-user considerations

[edit]

Ensuring that multiple users can harmoniously share a single communications link requires some kind of equitable sharing of the link. If a bottleneck communication link offering data rate R is shared by "N" active users (with at least one data packet in queue), every user typically achieves a throughput of approximately R/N, if fair queuing best-effort communication is assumed.

  • Packet loss due to network congestion. Packets may be dropped in switches and routers when the packet queues are full due to congestion.
  • Packet loss due to bit errors.
  • Scheduling algorithms in routers and switches. If fair queuing is not provided, users that send large packets will get higher bandwidth. Some users may be prioritized in a weighted fair queuing (WFQ) algorithm if differentiated or guaranteed quality of service (QoS) is provided.
  • In some communications systems, such as satellite networks, only a finite number of channels may be available to a given user at a given time. Channels are assigned either through preassignment or through Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA).[11] In these cases, throughput is quantized per channel, and unused capacity on partially utilized channels is lost.

Goodput and overhead

[edit]
Main article: Goodput

The maximum throughput is often an unreliable measurement of perceived bandwidth, for example the file transmission data rate in bits per seconds. As pointed out above, the achieved throughput is often lower than the maximum throughput. Also, the protocol overhead affects the perceived bandwidth. The throughput is not a well-defined metric when it comes to how to deal with protocol overhead. It is typically measured at a reference point below the network layer and above the physical layer. The simplest definition is the number of bits per second that are physically delivered. A typical example where this definition is practiced is an Ethernet network. In this case, the maximum throughput is the gross bit rate or raw bit rate.

However, in schemes that include forward error correction codes (channel coding), the redundant error code is normally excluded from the throughput. An example in modem communication, where the throughput typically is measured in the interface between the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) and the circuit-switched modem connection. In this case, the maximum throughput is often called net bit rate or useful bit rate.

To determine the actual data rate of a network or connection, the "goodput" measurement definition may be used. For example, in file transmission, the "goodput" corresponds to the file size (in bits) divided by the file transmission time. The "goodput" is the amount of useful information that is delivered per second to the application layer protocol. Dropped packets or packet retransmissions, as well as protocol overhead, are excluded. Because of that, the "goodput" is lower than the throughput. Technical factors that affect the difference are presented in the "goodput" article.

Other uses of throughput for data

[edit]

Integrated circuits

[edit]

Often, a block in a data flow diagram has a single input and a single output, and operate on discrete packets of information. Examples of such blocks are fast Fourier transform modules or binary multipliers. Because the units of throughput are the reciprocal of the unit for propagation delay, which is 'seconds per message' or 'seconds per output', throughput can be used to relate a computational device performing a dedicated function such as an ASIC or embedded processor to a communications channel, simplifying system analysis.

Wireless and cellular networks

[edit]

In wireless networks or cellular systems, the system spectral efficiency in bit/s/Hz/area unit, bit/s/Hz/site or bit/s/Hz/cell, is the maximum system throughput (aggregate throughput) divided by the analog bandwidth and some measure of the system coverage area.

Over analog channels

[edit]

Throughput over analog channels is defined entirely by the modulation scheme, the signal-to-noise ratio, and the available bandwidth. Since throughput is normally defined in terms of quantified digital data, the term 'throughput' is not normally used; the term 'bandwidth' is more often used instead.

See also

[edit]
Look up network throughput in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Network throughput

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Network throughput refers to the actual rate at which data is successfully transferred from one point to another across a network within a given time period, typically measured in bits per second (bps), megabits per second (Mbps), or gigabits per second (Gbps). Unlike bandwidth, which represents the theoretical maximum capacity of a network link, throughput accounts for real-world limitations and reflects the effective performance under operational conditions. In benchmarking contexts, it is defined as the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped by a network device, providing a standardized metric for evaluating interconnection equipment like routers and switches. Key factors influencing network throughput include latency, which is the delay in data transmission; , where data packets fail to reach their destination; and , which occurs when traffic exceeds available capacity, leading to reduced efficiency. Protocol overhead, such as headers added by TCP or IP, also reduces effective throughput by consuming bandwidth without contributing to data. For TCP-based connections, throughput is particularly affected by the congestion window size, round-trip time (RTT), and the (BDP), where equilibrium is reached after initial slow-start phases to sustain maximum data rates. These elements collectively determine how closely a network's actual approaches its theoretical limits. Measuring network throughput involves tools and methodologies that capture successful data delivery rates, often using protocols like SNMP for monitoring or packet analyzers such as for detailed traffic inspection. Standardized tests, such as those outlined in RFC 2544, assess throughput by sending frames at varying rates and identifying the highest rate without loss, commonly applied in device testing scenarios. In operational networks, throughput is critical for ensuring (QoS), optimizing , and supporting applications like video streaming or , where consistent performance directly impacts .

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Network throughput refers to the rate at which data is successfully transmitted from one point to another over a communication network, excluding any retransmissions or errors, and is typically measured in bits per second (bps). This metric captures the effective data delivery rate in the presence of real-world constraints such as protocol overhead, congestion, and hardware limitations, distinguishing it from raw transmission capacity. In essence, it quantifies the usable performance of a network link or system for end-to-end data transfer. The scope of network throughput primarily encompasses digital communication networks, including local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), and the broader infrastructure, where data is exchanged via packetized formats across shared or dedicated channels. While analogous concepts exist in non-network domains, such as throughput in computing hardware, the term in this context is confined to networked environments involving multiple nodes and potential interference sources. A basic prerequisite for understanding throughput is familiarity with data packets—discrete units of information routed independently—and transmission channels, which serve as the physical or logical pathways for data propagation. The concept of throughput originated in manufacturing processes, where it measured units produced per unit of time, later evolving to describe efficient data handling in communication systems during the mid-20th century. A pivotal advancement came with Claude Shannon's 1948 paper, "," which established the theorem as the theoretical upper limit on reliable data transmission rates over noisy channels, laying the foundational principles for modern analysis. This theorem marked a key evolution, shifting focus from ideal conditions to practical limits influenced by noise and bandwidth, thereby influencing throughput metrics in subsequent network designs.

Units and Measurement

Network throughput is conventionally measured in bits per second (bps), reflecting the rate of successful data transmission over a network link. This unit aligns with the binary nature of digital data transmission, where information is encoded in bits. Common prefixes scale the measurement for higher capacities: kilobits per second (Kbps = 10^3 bps), megabits per second (Mbps = 10^6 bps), gigabits per second (Gbps = 10^9 bps), and terabits per second (Tbps = 10^12 bps). In some contexts, particularly storage or application-level reporting, throughput is expressed in bytes per second (Bps), where 1 byte equals 8 bits, so 1 Bps = 8 bps; this conversion accounts for the grouping of bits into octets for data handling. Empirical measurement of throughput employs specialized tools and protocols to quantify data transfer rates. For controlled testing in laboratory settings, —a widely used open-source tool—generates synthetic traffic (via TCP, UDP, or SCTP) between endpoints to assess maximum achievable bandwidth, reporting results in bits per second or bytes per second over configurable intervals. In operational environments, (SNMP) enables ongoing monitoring through (MIB) objects like ifInOctets and ifOutOctets, which track cumulative bytes received and transmitted; throughput is derived by calculating the delta in these counters over a polling interval and multiplying by 8 to convert to bps. Laboratory measurements typically involve steady, unidirectional traffic for repeatable baselines, whereas real-world monitoring captures dynamic patterns, including variable loads and protocols, often revealing lower effective rates due to environmental factors. Standardization of throughput units and measurement practices is established by bodies like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IETF RFCs, such as RFC 1242 (Benchmarking Terminology) and RFC 2544 (Benchmarking Methodology), define throughput as the maximum rate of packet transfer without loss, expressed in bps or packets per second, with methodologies emphasizing frame size distributions and trial repetitions for accuracy. IEEE standards, including 802.3 for Ethernet, similarly specify link speeds and capacities in bps, ensuring interoperability across local area networks. However, measurements can introduce errors in bursty traffic scenarios, where short-term spikes lead to high variability; IETF guidance in RFC 7640 highlights how such patterns stress management functions and necessitate robust averaging to mitigate inaccuracies. To address temporal variability, throughput is frequently reported as an average over defined time intervals, such as 1 second, smoothing fluctuations from intermittent or bursty flows. For instance, in tests, bandwidth is computed as the total transferred data divided by the test duration (default 10 seconds), with optional periodic reports every interval to track changes; similarly, SNMP-derived rates use polling periods (e.g., 1-5 minutes) to compute averages, balancing with reduced overhead. This approach provides a stable metric for comparison, though shorter intervals may amplify noise from bursts, while longer ones obscure transient issues.

Theoretical Maximums

Maximum Theoretical Throughput

The maximum theoretical throughput in a communication channel is defined by the Shannon-Hartley theorem, which establishes the upper limit on the rate at which information can be reliably transmitted over a noisy channel. This theorem, formulated by Claude Shannon in 1948, quantifies the channel capacity CC in bits per second (bps) as C=Blog⁡2(1+SNR)C = B \log_2(1 + \text{SNR}), where BB is the channel bandwidth in hertz (Hz) and SNR\text{SNR} is the signal-to-noise ratio, a dimensionless measure of signal power relative to noise power. The derivation of this formula assumes an (AWGN) channel model, where noise is uncorrelated, has a flat power , and follows a Gaussian distribution; it further posits that transmission occurs over infinite time with optimal coding schemes that approach the capacity limit arbitrarily closely but never exceed it. Under these conditions, the theorem proves that reliable communication is possible at rates up to CC, but any higher rate leads to an unavoidable error probability. To illustrate, consider a channel with bandwidth B=1B = 1 MHz (10610^6 Hz) and SNR=30\text{SNR} = 30 dB, equivalent to a power ratio of 1030/10=100010^{30/10} = 1000. The capacity is calculated as C=106log⁡2(1+1000)=106log⁡2(1001)C = 10^6 \log_2(1 + 1000) = 10^6 \log_2(1001). Since log⁡2(1001)≈9.97\log_2(1001) \approx 9.97 (computed via log⁡2(x)=ln⁡(x)/ln⁡(2)\log_2(x) = \ln(x)/\ln(2), with ln⁡(1001)≈6.908\ln(1001) \approx 6.908 and ln⁡(2)≈0.693\ln(2) \approx 0.693), C≈9.97C \approx 9.97 Mbps. This example demonstrates how capacity scales logarithmically with SNR while linearly with bandwidth, providing a fundamental benchmark for network design. While the Shannon-Hartley theorem sets an idealized upper bound, it relies on perfect assumptions and error-free coding efficiency, which real-world channels rarely achieve due to non-ideal noise distributions and practical coding limitations.

Asymptotic Throughput

In the high (SNR) regime, where SNR ≫ 1, the throughput of an (AWGN) channel asymptotically approaches C≈Blog⁡2(SNR)C \approx B \log_2 (\text{SNR}), with BB denoting the bandwidth. This behavior arises from the Shannon capacity formula C=Blog⁡2(1+SNR)C = B \log_2 (1 + \text{SNR}), which simplifies under the high-SNR approximation by neglecting the 1 relative to SNR. In wideband regimes, a pre-log factor emerges to characterize the number of independent signaling dimensions, influencing the scaling of throughput with SNR; for single-input single-output systems, this factor is 1, but it generalizes to higher values in advanced configurations. In the low-SNR regime, corresponding to power-limited conditions where SNR ≪ 1, the throughput scales linearly with transmit power PP but becomes independent of bandwidth BB for fixed total power. Specifically, C≈PN0log⁡2eC \approx \frac{P}{N_0} \log_2 e, where N0N_0 is the spectral , highlighting that additional bandwidth does not yield proportional gains when power is constrained. This linear dependence on power underscores the energy efficiency focus in such scenarios, with each doubling of power approximately doubling the achievable rate. Multi-carrier techniques like (OFDM) extend these asymptotic models to frequency-selective channels in modern wireless systems, such as LTE and , by dividing the channel into parallel flat-fading subchannels that collectively approach the AWGN capacity bounds. With adaptive power allocation via waterfilling across subcarriers, OFDM systems can closely attain the theoretical asymptotic throughput, minimizing the gap to the Shannon limit in both high- and low-SNR conditions. In systems, the concept of further refines the high-SNR asymptote, where throughput grows as C≈min⁡(Nt,Nr)Blog⁡2(SNR)C \approx \min(N_t, N_r) B \log_2 (\text{SNR}), with NtN_t and NrN_r representing the number of transmit and receive antennas, respectively. This gain, or pre-log factor of min⁡(Nt,Nr)\min(N_t, N_r), captures the additional parallel channels enabled by spatial separation, fundamentally enhancing asymptotic performance over single-antenna setups.

Practical Performance

Peak Measured Throughput

Peak measured throughput refers to the highest instantaneous transfer rate achieved in a network under controlled, ideal conditions, such as short-burst transmissions with minimal latency and no competing traffic. This metric captures the upper limit of during brief, optimized operations, distinct from sustained rates over longer periods. Such peaks are typically measured using specialized benchmarking tools like Netperf, which conducts unidirectional throughput tests across TCP and UDP protocols to quantify maximum achievable rates without external interference. In laboratory settings, these measurements often involve single-stream transfers over dedicated links to isolate hardware and protocol capabilities. For Ethernet networks, peak measured throughput on 10 GbE interfaces has reached approximately 9.24 Gbps using UDP over IPv4 in controlled tests with optimized cabling like CAT8. In (IEEE 802.11ax) environments, lab measurements under ideal conditions with 160 MHz channels and multiple spatial streams have approached the advertised maximum of 9.6 Gbps, though real-world peaks are often lower due to environmental variables. Recent fiber-optic trials in 2024 demonstrated peaks of 400 Gbps over distances exceeding 18,000 km on subsea cables, leveraging coherent for high-capacity wavelengths. Achieving these peaks requires factors like buffer optimization to handle bursty traffic efficiently and environments with near-zero to prevent retransmissions. As of 2025, 6G prototypes have recorded peaks over 100 Gbps using integrated photonic chips across multiple frequency bands, surpassing theoretical maxima of prior generations in sub-THz tests. However, such peak rates are rarely sustained, as they depend on fleeting ideal conditions and quickly degrade with any protocol overhead or contention.

Maximum Sustained Throughput

Maximum sustained throughput refers to the steady-state data transfer rate that a network can reliably maintain over extended periods under operational loads, reflecting long-term performance after initial transients like TCP slow start have subsided. This metric captures the equilibrium where the network operates consistently without significant degradation, often limited by protocol behaviors and resource constraints. In TCP streams, sustained throughput typically achieves 90-95% of the link speed in optimized setups, such as when receive window sizes exceed the to avoid bottlenecks. For instance, the framework for TCP throughput testing emphasizes measuring this equilibrium state to ensure buffers fully utilize available capacity. In enterprise LANs, links commonly sustain around 940 Mbps using TCP, representing about 94% of the 1 Gbps nominal rate after accounting for headers and inter-frame gaps, though this can vary with configuration details like frame sizes. (FEC) plays a key role in upholding these rates on error-prone paths by embedding parity data to reconstruct lost packets, reducing retransmission overhead and preserving steady flow—particularly vital in high-speed or wireless extensions of enterprise networks. Testing for maximum sustained throughput involves long-duration benchmarks, such as sessions lasting 10 minutes or longer, to verify stability beyond short bursts and capture effects like buffer saturation. Real-world limitations, including routing dynamics, further influence these rates; BGP convergence, which can take seconds to minutes during failures, temporarily disrupts path stability and caps sustained performance until alternate routes propagate. As of 2025, 5G mmWave deployments in urban areas demonstrate sustained throughputs averaging several hundred Mbps, with field trials achieving over 2 Gbps downlink under favorable conditions, though dense environments often yield lower averages due to interference and mobility.

Efficiency Metrics

Channel Utilization

Channel utilization, also known as link utilization, is defined as the ratio of the actual data throughput achieved over a communication channel to the channel's maximum capacity, expressed as a percentage. This metric quantifies how effectively the available bandwidth is employed for productive data transmission, with values below 100% indicating periods of idle time or inefficiency in channel usage. The standard formula for channel utilization UU in a single-channel model is given by U=(ThroughputCapacity)×100%U = \left( \frac{\text{Throughput}}{\text{Capacity}} \right) \times 100\%, where throughput represents the effective data rate and capacity is the theoretical maximum bit rate of the channel. A primary cause of underutilization is idle time resulting from delays, particularly in protocols like stop-and-wait, where the sender must await acknowledgment before transmitting the next packet, leaving the channel unused during the round-trip time (RTT). In such scenarios, utilization drops significantly when the delay exceeds the transmission time, as quantified by the a=[propagation](/page/Propagation) timetransmission timea = \frac{\text{[propagation](/page/Propagation) time}}{\text{transmission time}}, leading to U=11+2aU = \frac{1}{1 + 2a} for error-free stop-and-wait operation. For example, in satellite links with geosynchronous orbits, the one-way delay is approximately 250 ms, resulting in an RTT of around 500-560 ms, which causes TCP slow-start mechanisms to underutilize the channel, often achieving less than 10% utilization in basic configurations due to prolonged idle periods. Similarly, in early Ethernet networks using CSMA/CD (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with ), channel utilization is reduced by collisions and backoff delays; the efficiency approximates U=11+6.4aU = \frac{1}{1 + 6.4a} under light load, where aa is the ratio of to , leading to maximum utilizations around 80-90% in typical 10 Mbps setups but dropping lower with increasing contention. To mitigate these issues, pipelining techniques, such as those employed in sliding window protocols (e.g., Go-Back-N or Selective Repeat), allow multiple packets to be in transit simultaneously, overlapping transmission with propagation and acknowledgment delays to approach 100% utilization when the window size WW satisfies W≥1+2aW \geq 1 + 2a. In (SDN), dynamic channel allocation further enhances utilization by centrally optimizing user associations and channel assignments based on real-time conditions, achieving up to 30% higher throughput in dense environments compared to static methods. This approach is particularly effective in single-channel models by reducing interference and idle slots through software-controlled reconfiguration.

Throughput Efficiency

Throughput efficiency quantifies the effectiveness of a network in delivering relative to its theoretical capacity, accounting for various losses. It is formally defined as the ratio of the achieved throughput to the theoretical maximum throughput, expressed as a : η=(RachievedRtheoretical)×100%\eta = \left( \frac{R_{\text{achieved}}}{R_{\text{theoretical}}} \right) \times 100\% where RachievedR_{\text{achieved}} represents the actual rate observed under operational conditions, and RtheoreticalR_{\text{theoretical}} is the ideal capacity limit, such as the Shannon capacity for a given channel. This metric incorporates both coding gains, which enhance reliability and potentially increase effective throughput by reducing retransmissions, and coding losses from overhead that diminish the net rate. A key metric for assessing throughput efficiency is , measured in bits per second per hertz (bps/Hz), which evaluates how densely information is packed into the available spectrum. For instance, in ideal uncoded conditions with minimal error correction, (QAM) schemes achieve log2(M) bps/Hz, where M is the number of symbols: 64-QAM yields 6 bps/Hz, while 256-QAM reaches 8 bps/Hz. However, in practical systems like 3.0, overheads reduce these to approximately 4.15 bps/Hz for 64-QAM (upstream) and 6.33 bps/Hz for 256-QAM (downstream). As of 2025, and emerging standards achieve higher spectral efficiencies, with 1024-QAM enabling up to 10 bps/Hz in mmWave bands under low error conditions, further enhanced by AI-driven resource allocation. These values highlight the trade-off between modulation order and robustness, as higher-order QAM improves efficiency but requires better signal-to-noise ratios to maintain low error rates. Factors influencing throughput efficiency include overhead from (FEC), which adds redundant bits to combat errors but reduces the effective payload fraction, thereby lowering net throughput by 10-20% depending on the code rate. In contemporary applications, particularly in 2025 networks, AI-driven optimizations mitigate such losses by dynamically adjusting FEC parameters and for real-time workloads, such as high-frequency financial data streaming, achieving up to 15-20% gains in efficiency over traditional methods. Additionally, the concept of the Pareto frontier describes the optimal trade-offs in multi-objective scenarios, such as balancing throughput efficiency against latency in routing protocols, where no single configuration improves one without degrading the other, guiding designs in delay-tolerant networks.

Influencing Factors

Protocol Overhead and Limitations

Network protocols introduce various forms of overhead that diminish the effective throughput by consuming bandwidth and introducing delays, primarily through header information, control mechanisms, and error recovery processes. Header overhead arises from the inclusion of metadata in each packet, such as addressing, sequencing, and checksums; for instance, the TCP/IP stack typically adds 40 bytes for IPv4 (20 bytes TCP header plus 20 bytes ) or up to 60 bytes for , reducing the usable relative to the total packet size. In unreliable channels prone to , protocols like TCP trigger retransmissions to ensure reliability, which further erode throughput by duplicating data transmission and increasing contention on the medium. Specific protocols exemplify these limitations. TCP's congestion control, such as the Reno variant, employs a sawtooth pattern in its congestion window adjustment—doubling during slow start and congestion avoidance, then halving upon loss detection—which results in average link utilization of approximately 75% of the available bandwidth under steady-state conditions, as the window oscillates between the threshold and half that value. In contrast, UDP minimizes overhead with an 8-byte header, offering lower per-packet costs and no built-in reliability or congestion control, which can yield higher raw throughput in loss-tolerant applications like streaming, though it risks without recovery. The impact of header overhead on effective throughput can be quantified using the formula: Effective Throughput=(Payload SizePayload Size+Header Size)×Raw Bit Rate\text{Effective Throughput} = \left( \frac{\text{Payload Size}}{\text{Payload Size} + \text{Header Size}} \right) \times \text{Raw Bit Rate} This expression highlights how fixed header sizes penalize smaller payloads more severely; for example, with a 1500-byte MTU, Ethernet frame, and 40-byte TCP/IP headers, the efficiency is about 97% for a 1460-byte payload. The Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) plays a critical role here, as larger MTUs (e.g., 9000 bytes in jumbo frames) reduce the relative overhead per packet, allowing fewer packets to achieve the same data volume and thus improving overall throughput by minimizing header repetition. Modern protocols address some TCP limitations; the QUIC protocol, standardized in the 2010s and built over UDP, integrates transport and security handshakes to reduce connection establishment overhead, achieving 10-20% lower latency in scenarios compared to TCP/TLS, which indirectly boosts sustained throughput by avoiding .

Hardware and Physical Constraints

Network throughput is fundamentally constrained by the physical properties of transmission media and hardware components, which impose limits on and processing capacity. In analog systems, signal occurs as electromagnetic waves propagate through media like cables, where resistance and dielectric losses cause the signal to decrease exponentially with , reducing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and thereby limiting achievable data rates. This is exacerbated by environmental factors such as variations, but its primary impact is a degradation in throughput beyond certain lengths, as weaker signals require more error correction or retransmissions. Additionally, thermal noise, arising from the random motion of electrons in conductors at (approximately 290 K), establishes a fundamental of -174 dBm/Hz, below which signals become indistinguishable from noise, capping the maximum information transfer rate per Shannon's capacity formula. Integrated circuit (IC) hardware in network devices further delineates throughput boundaries through processing limitations. Clock speeds determine the rate at which data can be serialized and deserialized; for instance, higher clock frequencies enable faster packet handling but are bounded by signal propagation delays within the silicon, typically limiting core routers to frequencies around 1-2 GHz without advanced cooling. Buffer sizes in routers and switches also play a critical role, as insufficient buffering leads to packet drops during bursts, reducing effective throughput; the optimal size is often tuned to the bandwidth-delay product of the link, but oversized buffers introduce latency. Application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) outperform field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) in router throughput due to their customized pipelines, achieving up to 10-20% higher packet processing rates at equivalent power levels, though FPGAs offer flexibility for evolving standards at the cost of lower peak performance. Transmission media exemplify these constraints in practice. For cabling, Category 6 (Cat6) twisted-pair supports a maximum of 10 Gbps over 55 meters, beyond which exceeds tolerable limits, necessitating lower speeds like 1 Gbps up to 100 meters per TIA-568 standards. In contrast, fiber optic cables mitigate distance-related through low-loss silica cores (around 0.2 dB/km at 1550 nm), allowing theoretically unlimited throughput extension via erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) that boost signals every 80-100 km without converting to electrical domains, enabling terabit-per-second rates over transoceanic distances. Extensions of into 2025 have facilitated 100 Gbps Ethernet chips with transistor densities exceeding 100 billion per die, but power dissipation—reaching 100-200 W per chip—imposes scaling limits, as heat generation outpaces cooling advancements and threatens reliability.

Multi-User and Environmental Effects

In multi-user environments, network throughput is significantly degraded by contention mechanisms designed to manage shared medium access. In networks employing with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA), overlapping transmissions from multiple devices lead to unequal channel access opportunities, resulting in performance degradation and long-term unfairness among nodes. This contention causes nodes with fewer interferers to dominate the medium, reducing overall throughput by increasing collision probabilities and backoff delays, with simulations showing improvements of up to 80% when mitigated through adaptive backoff schemes, albeit with minor throughput trade-offs. In cellular networks, multi-user scheduling via (OFDMA) allocates resource blocks to mitigate contention, dynamically assigning frequency-time chunks based on channel quality to balance throughput and fairness. Algorithms such as proportionally fair scheduling select active users per time-slot and optimize power and bandwidth distribution, achieving near-optimal utilities that enhance system throughput—for instance, suboptimal methods yield utilities around 54,000 in simulations with 40 users, compared to baseline integer allocations. Environmental factors further exacerbate throughput degradation through signal propagation challenges. , a model for non-line-of-sight multipath environments, introduces time-varying channel losses that correlate packet errors, reducing TCP throughput as Doppler spread increases (e.g., from 10 Hz to 30 Hz), with steady-state models showing drops tied to higher state transition frequencies and optimal packet lengths around 1000 bytes to minimize overhead. Mobility-induced Doppler shift compounds this by causing frequency offsets that distort signals, particularly in high-speed scenarios; for networks under random mobility, increasing user speeds from 1 m/s to 10 m/s elevates bit error rates and lowers throughput due to inter-symbol interference. Advanced techniques like in networks address multi-user and environmental losses by spatially directing signals to improve (SINR), enabling simultaneous transmissions that boost capacity and mitigate interference from mobility or . In dense deployments, this can enhance network efficiency, with implementations increasing overall capacity by approximately 50% through null-forming to suppress non-target interference. Conversely, intentional jamming attacks, such as reactive or sweeping interference, can drastically reduce throughput by overwhelming the medium; game-theoretic analyses show that optimal jamming strategies may decrease network throughput by up to 90% in systems. To evaluate multi-user throughput allocation, fairness metrics like Jain's index quantify resource equity, defined as f(x)=(∑i=1nxi)2n∑i=1nxi2f(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i)^2}{n \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2}, where xix_i is the normalized throughput for user ii and nn is the number of users, yielding 1 for perfect equality and approaching for severe disparity. This index, independent of population size and scale, relates inversely to the variance of allocations (f=11+COV2f = \frac{1}{1 + \text{COV}^2}), guiding scheduling to prevent in contended environments.

Goodput

Definition and Distinction from Throughput

Goodput refers to the application-level throughput of a communication, representing the number of useful information bits delivered by the network to the application per unit of time. It is measured in bits per second (bps) and specifically accounts for the successfully received, excluding protocol headers, retransmissions, and erroneous bits. This emphasizes the effective rate at which an application can utilize the transferred , ignoring all forms of network and protocol overhead that do not contribute to the end-user . In contrast, network throughput—often simply called throughput—measures the total rate of bits transmitted over the network link, encompassing both the useful payload and all associated overhead, such as packet headers, acknowledgments, control traffic, and any retransmitted data due to losses or errors. Goodput is therefore always a subset of throughput, as it filters out non-payload elements to focus solely on the application-useful data delivered without duplication or loss. This distinction is critical in performance analysis, where throughput might appear high due to retransmissions or verbose protocols, but goodput reveals the actual efficiency experienced by the application. For instance, during an HTTP over TCP, the TCP throughput includes the full volume of data sent across the wire, incorporating TCP sequence numbers, acknowledgment packets, and IP headers, along with any segments retransmitted due to . The , however, is limited to the rate at which the file's content bytes are successfully assembled and passed to the HTTP application, excluding all TCP/IP overhead and duplicates. Encryption layers, such as those provided by TLS, introduce additional overhead through cipher expansions and handshake messages, further differentiating from the underlying transport throughput; since its standardization in 2018, TLS 1.3 has mitigated some of this by reducing handshake rounds and eliminating legacy cipher options, thereby improving overall protocol efficiency.

Calculation and Overhead Impact

Goodput is calculated by adjusting the overall network throughput to account for the proportion of useful data and the impact of losses, providing a measure of the effective application-level data rate. The standard formula is: Goodput=Throughput×(Payload sizeTotal packet size)\text{Goodput} = \text{Throughput} \times \left( \frac{\text{Payload size}}{\text{Total packet size}} \right) Here, the payload fraction represents the ratio of application data to the total packet including headers. This approach ensures goodput excludes non-useful elements like protocol headers; losses further reduce goodput, as retransmissions do not contribute to useful data delivery. To evaluate goodput in complex scenarios, discrete-event simulators such as ns-3 are widely employed, enabling researchers to track application-layer data reception over simulated time intervals and compute metrics like bytes of useful data per second. Overhead sources significantly degrade goodput by consuming bandwidth and resources without advancing useful data transfer, and these can be categorized by network layer. At the transport layer, TCP acknowledgment (ACK) packets represent a key overhead, as they require transmission for reliability but carry no payload; studies in wireless access networks demonstrate that suppressing unnecessary ACKs can boost TCP goodput by approximately 50% under high-load conditions. In the network layer, routing protocols introduce control messages for path discovery and maintenance, which dilute the fraction of packets carrying application data and thereby lower goodput, as evidenced by comparisons showing reduced successful TCP delivery ratios in mobile ad-hoc networks. Application-layer overhead, such as the serialization and parsing of data formats like JSON, adds processing demands that indirectly limit goodput by increasing end-to-end delays, even though it occurs outside the wire; this is particularly pronounced in bandwidth-constrained environments where inefficient encoding inflates effective transmission costs. These overheads not only reduce the efficiency but also amplify latency, as queued control packets and processing steps delay the delivery of time-sensitive data, exacerbating issues in real-time systems. For instance, in VoIP applications, jitter buffers mitigate packet arrival variations by holding incoming audio packets for 20 to 200 milliseconds, smoothing playback but introducing additional that diminishes the effective for live streams by necessitating larger buffers and potential discards. In constrained IoT networks, protocols like CoAP demonstrate superior efficiency over HTTP by minimizing header overhead and leveraging UDP for lighter transmission, with evaluations in dynamic topologies revealing higher delivery rates and throughput, making CoAP preferable for battery-limited devices.

Applications Across Network Types

Wired and Optical Networks

In wired networks, Ethernet standards defined by IEEE 802.3 enable high-throughput data transmission over twisted-pair copper cabling, with recent advancements supporting speeds up to 800 Gbps by 2025 to meet escalating bandwidth demands in data centers and enterprise environments. For instance, the IEEE 802.3bt standard, ratified in 2018, facilitates Power over Ethernet (PoE) delivery of up to 90-100 W per port alongside data rates that can reach multi-gigabit levels on compatible cabling, powering devices like high-performance access points without separate power infrastructure. However, crosstalk—unwanted signal interference between adjacent wire pairs—imposes key limitations, particularly near-end crosstalk (NEXT) which degrades signal integrity at higher frequencies and longer distances, necessitating shielded cabling or Category 8 standards to maintain throughput over 100 meters. Optical networks, leveraging fiber-optic guided media, achieve vastly superior throughput due to their immunity to electromagnetic interference and support for dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM), which aggregates multiple wavelengths on a single to deliver terabits per second (Tbps) in total capacity. In DWDM systems, up to 192 channels each carrying 100 Gbps can yield an aggregate of 19.2 Tbps, enabling backbone networks to handle massive data volumes for cloud and AI applications. Key impairments include chromatic dispersion, which causes pulse broadening over distance due to varying light speeds across wavelengths, and nonlinear effects like , where interactions between signals generate unwanted frequencies, both of which reduce effective throughput unless mitigated by dispersion-compensating s or advanced modulation. In data centers, sustained throughput of 400 Gbps per link has become commonplace, as demonstrated by service providers offering Ethernet connectivity at this rate across multiple facilities to support AI workloads and high-speed interconnects. Optical systems routinely achieve bit error rates (BER) below 10^{-12}, ensuring reliable transmission over thousands of kilometers through (FEC) that corrects errors from residual and impairments. Recent coherent advancements, such as those demonstrated in , enable 1.2 Tbps per using probabilistic constellation shaping and high-spectral-efficiency modulation, extending high-capacity transmission over ultra-long distances like 3,050 km.

Wireless and Cellular Networks

In wireless networks, such as those based on standards, throughput is significantly influenced by spectrum availability, modulation schemes, and multi-user access techniques. The latest iteration, 7 (IEEE 802.11be), achieves a theoretical peak throughput of approximately 46 Gbps through enhancements like 4096-QAM modulation, wider 320 MHz channels, and multi-link operation (MLO), which allows simultaneous transmission across multiple frequency bands. Multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO) further amplifies these gains by enabling for up to 16 spatial streams, supporting concurrent data streams to multiple devices and improving aggregate throughput in dense environments by up to 4 times compared to single-user in prior standards. These features address the inefficiencies of contention-based access in shared wireless mediums, where interference and mobility can otherwise degrade effective rates. Cellular , particularly New Radio (NR), leverage frequency ranges to balance coverage and capacity, with throughput varying markedly by band. In sub-6 GHz frequencies (FR1), peak downlink throughput reaches up to 4 Gbps using 100 MHz bandwidth, 256-QAM, and 8-layer , providing reliable performance for urban mobility scenarios. In contrast, millimeter-wave (mmWave) bands () enable peaks of 20 Gbps with 400 MHz channels and higher-order modulation, though limited by shorter range and susceptibility to blockages. Handovers between cells, essential for maintaining connectivity in mobile users, introduce temporary throughput disruptions; for instance, TCP congestion window reductions average 48% post-handover, with recovery times up to 6.7 seconds, impacting real-time applications. Key challenges in these radio-based systems stem from propagation characteristics, including —which increases with frequency and distance, following models like free-space or log-distance—and shadowing from obstacles, which introduces variability in signal strength and can reduce achievable throughput by 10-20 dB in urban settings. (CA) mitigates such limitations by combining multiple component carriers across bands, boosting throughput by 2-3 times in LTE-Advanced and configurations, as specified in standards for enhanced spectral efficiency. As of 2025, visions for networks emphasize terahertz (THz) bands (0.1-10 THz) to target ultra-high throughputs exceeding 1 Tbps, leveraging vast unlicensed for applications like holographic communications, though challenges like molecular absorption and beam alignment remain under active by bodies such as IEEE and ITU.

Analog and Legacy Systems

In analog network systems, such as dial-up modems over traditional telephone lines, throughput is fundamentally constrained by the physical characteristics of the twisted-pair wiring and the need to modulate onto s. The V.92 standard, an enhancement to V.90, enables downstream data rates up to 56 kbit/s and upstream rates up to 48 kbit/s by leveraging (PCM) from the central office, where the is digitized at the to prevent . The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem dictates that for a voiceband signal with a bandwidth of approximately 4 kHz (300–3400 Hz), sampling must occur at least at 8 kHz to accurately reconstruct the signal, limiting the effective and thus throughput in these systems. Legacy digital hybrid systems, like early DSL variants, build on analog infrastructure but introduce discrete multi-tone (DMT) modulation to achieve higher speeds over existing copper lines. For instance, VDSL2, standardized under G.993.2, supports aggregate throughput up to 100 Mbit/s downstream and 50 Mbit/s upstream over distances up to 300 meters, using advanced profiles with (QAM) schemes, including simpler forms like QPSK for robust upstream transmission in noisy environments. These systems represent a bridge from pure analog, where modulation like QPSK encodes two bits per symbol to balance error rates and data efficiency on legacy phone lines. Throughput in these analog and legacy setups is further limited by quantization noise introduced during analog-to-digital conversion, which adds error equivalent to about 6 dB of (SNR) degradation per bit of resolution, capping achievable rates below theoretical maxima. As networks migrated toward fully digital architectures, technologies like 3.1 for cable modems enabled downstream throughput up to 10 Gbit/s by utilizing (OFDM) over coaxial lines, marking a significant evolution from analog constraints. In niche and historical contexts, such as rural areas with extensive legacy copper infrastructure, G.fast (ITU-T G.9701) has seen renewed deployment by 2025 to deliver up to 1 Gbit/s over short copper loops (under 100 meters), reducing the without full fiber replacement. This revival leverages existing phone wiring for gigabit access in underserved regions, prioritizing cost-effective upgrades over new installations.

References

  1. https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/throughput
  2. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1242.html
  3. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6349
  4. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2544
  5. https://www.dnsstuff.com/network-throughput-bandwidth
  6. https://www.webopedia.com/definitions/throughput/
  7. https://www.cyberghostvpn.com/glossary/throughput
  8. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf
  9. https://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-shannon-0115
  10. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1213
  11. https://iperf.fr/iperf-doc.php
  12. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1242
  13. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.3/10422/
  14. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7640
  15. https://web.stanford.edu/~dntse/Chapters_PDF/Fundamentals_Wireless_Communication_chapter5.pdf
  16. https://web.stanford.edu/~dntse/papers/tradeoff.pdf
  17. https://hewlettpackard.github.io/netperf/
  18. https://obkio.com/blog/network-optimization-how-to-optimize-network-performance/
  19. https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/3ed8cfcd-7eae-4472-965a-79c614bf86ed/content
  20. https://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless-networking/what-is-wi-fi-6-802-11ax-how-fast-is-it-and-what-are-its-benefits
  21. https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/asia-australia/indigo/aarnet-trials-400gbps-transmission-over-18%2C400km-on-indigo-subsea-cable-with-cisco-solutions
  22. https://techxplore.com/news/2025-09-scientists-world-6g-chip-capable.html
  23. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4696152
  24. https://www.cablefree.net/maximum-throughput-gigabit-ethernet/
  25. https://techdocs.f5.com/en-us/bigip-17-1-0/big-ip-access-policy-manager-network-access/using-forward-error-correction-with-network-access.html
  26. https://www.firewall.cx/networking/network-fundamentals/network-performance-testing.html
  27. https://www.iotforall.com/is-5g-mmwave-technology-paving-the-way-for-next-level-connectivity
  28. https://nilesecure.com/network-management/network-utilization
  29. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2488
  30. https://spinlab.wpi.edu/courses/ece2305_2014/flow_control.pdf
  31. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/computer-networks/efficiency-of-csma-cd/
  32. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8406265
  33. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6169
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/forward-error-correction
  35. http://www.hit.bme.hu/~jakab/edu/litr/Access/DOCSIS/ARRIS_Spectral_Efficiency_of_DOCSIS_wp.pdf
  36. https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups
  37. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11070794
  38. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10001319
  39. https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/s/question/0D53i00000Ksn5g/tcp-overhead
  40. https://www.extrahop.com/blog/retransmission-timeouts-rtos-application-performance-degradation
  41. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/computer-networks/differences-between-tcp-and-udp/
  42. https://packetpushers.net/blog/tcp-over-ip-bandwidth-overhead/
  43. https://www.ibm.com/docs/ssw_aix_72/performance/mtu_size_perf_impacts.html
  44. https://www.cablesandkits.com/learning-center/signal-attenuation-in-ethernet-cables/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/thermal-noise-power
  46. https://nwai.co/asic-vs-fpga-complete-technical-comparison-guide/
  47. https://labs.apnic.net/index.php/2019/12/10/sizing-the-buffer/
  48. https://www.comms-express.com/blog/the-difference-between-cat5-and-cat6/
  49. https://www.lindenphotonics.com/fiber-optic-cable-distance-a-comprehensive-guide
  50. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166531610001586
  52. https://users.eecs.northwestern.edu/~rberry/Pubs/OFDM_chapter.pdf
  53. https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-109.pdf
  54. https://ijcnis.org/index.php/ijcnis/article/view/3334/727
  55. https://www.ericsson.com/en/ran/massive-mimo
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389128611000995
  57. https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/atmf/ftp/atm99-0045.pdf
  58. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8238
  59. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5166
  60. https://www.nsnam.org/
  61. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~le/papers/ICC-07.pdf
  62. http://www.cs.utsa.edu/faculty/boppana/papers/Mobihoc01.pdf
  63. https://obkio.com/blog/goodput-vs-throughput/
  64. https://nextpointe.com/jitter-buffers/
  65. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2987386.2987400
  66. https://standards.ieee.org/beyond-standards/ethernets-next-bar/
  67. https://www.networkworld.com/article/3802351/next-gen-ethernet-standards-set-to-move-forward-in-2025.html
  68. https://www.skyworksinc.com/-/media/SkyWorks/SL/documents/public/white-papers/understanding-the-ieee-8023bt-poe-standard.pdf
  69. https://www.fs.com/blog/understanding-poe-standards-and-wattage-21.html
  70. https://www.flukenetworks.com/blog/cabling-chronicles/cable-testing-101-cross-talk-near-and-far
  71. https://www.truecable.com/blogs/cable-academy/when-aliens-attack-avoiding-ethernet-alien-crosstalk
  72. https://www.cablesandkits.com/learning-center/what-is-dwdm/
  73. https://www.ofsoptics.com/fiber-optic-dispersion-and-other-non-linear-effects/
  74. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9827679/
  75. https://ir.lumen.com/news/news-details/2025/Lumen-Turbocharges-Data-Centers-with-Up-To-400Gbps-Connectivity-to-Fuel-AI/default.aspx
  76. https://www.timbercon.com/resources/glossary/ber-bit-error-rate/
  77. https://www.cinch.com/resources/tech-papers/achieving-low-ber-in-optical-data-links-the-role-of-fec-in-aerospace-systems
  78. https://www.nokia.com/newsroom/nokia-and-ote-group-set-dual-world-record-optical-transmission-rates-over-ultra-long-distances/
  79. https://techblog.comsoc.org/2025/03/29/lumen-and-ciena-transmit-1-2-tbps-wavelength-service-across-3050-kilometers/
  80. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9217206
  81. https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/global/business/networks/insights/white-papers/3gpp-release-16-shifting-gears-to-increase-5g-speeds-on-multiple-network-highways/Samsung-3GPP-Release-16-Whitepaper.pdf
  82. https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~krish/mobicom24_5g_handover.pdf
  83. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4292867
  84. https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/101-carrier-aggregation-explained
  85. https://www.analog.com/en/resources/glossary/nyquist.html
  86. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/quadrature-phase-shift-keying-qpsk-modulation/
  87. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/quantization-nois-amplitude-quantization-error-analog-to-digital-converters/
  88. https://www.cablelabs.com/technologies/docsis-3-1
  89. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9701/en
  90. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241107707055/en/G.Fast-Chipsets-Business-Analysis-Report-2024-2030-Consumer-Trends-Toward-Streaming-Services-and-High-Bandwidth-Applications-Fueling-Market-Expansion---ResearchAndMarkets.com
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.