Has anyone found a fix to desync in games? (Behind the server feeling)

[taupemouton]

Hi, I want to share with you my experience with desync in games. In 2020, I was playing on a Vivobook Pro 17 on Minecraft PvP servers. For 6 months straight, I only played on multiplayer servers; I was really good at the game and winning Skywars with a lot of kills. I had 50 ms in game on Wifi.

From one day to the next (November 2020), I couldn't even win a single game with 4 kills. The feeling was different. I thought I was playing badly, but the next day I played again with the same feeling that most of you are describing. I don't know what is causing it.

In 2021, I changed my computer for this:

Motherboard: Aorus B560M
CPU: Intel Core i5-11400F
GPU: RTX 2060
RAM: Crucial Ballistix DDR4 3600 MHz (2x8)
OS: Windows 10

The problem was still there, with exactly the same feeling as on the first computer. I even moved to another house with this computer (with the same ISP), and nothing changed—the problem has been there since 2020. 

[xVenom]

Active powered fiber line, no PON.
I meant classic old style when people were connected trough SFP modules in smart switches directly to opposite SFP module at providers side again in some local smart multislot SFP switch (and very often combined with 1gbps local ethernet as a last mile and handover interface from smart local switch somewhere in basement). It was a little bit less reliable as it was prone to power outages, but for gaming this connection was way better than PON which is from my point of view a slight downgrade (more reliable but there is always a milisecond or two added in term of ping and jitter).

oh yeah, i see what you mean now. in Belgium this was never available to "normal" customers but i know that some hospitals, banks, airports, etc do have this technology available for them.

At work we called this (P2P - Point to Point) which is essentially a dedicated fiber directly between the provider's central office and your location. Are you sure that you used at some point this kind of technology? Is it extremely restricted to very specific uses here, nobody can access it here except if you are worth multi million dollars...

Btw i agree that PON is definitely not the best fiber optic system. And i wouldn’t call it more reliable either, there are tons of issues. But it is the one that can fill up ISP's pockets the fastest; you can literally split A SINGLE Pon link to 32 to 64 customers -- that is 2,5 Gbps down 1,25Gbps UP shared across 64 houses.... so no wonder why all the money hungry ISPs corporates moved to use it...

You've got the general concept right, but the issue is happening further down the line if at all, specifically after the junction point (where the all connections connects to olt).So in general PON or XGS-PON is really good at this time.

[xVenom]

Hi, I want to share with you my experience with desync in games. In 2020, I was playing on a Vivobook Pro 17 on Minecraft PvP servers. For 6 months straight, I only played on multiplayer servers; I was really good at the game and winning Skywars with a lot of kills. I had 50 ms in game on Wifi.

From one day to the next (November 2020), I couldn't even win a single game with 4 kills. The feeling was different. I thought I was playing badly, but the next day I played again with the same feeling that most of you are describing. I don't know what is causing it.

In 2021, I changed my computer for this:

Motherboard: Aorus B560M
CPU: Intel Core i5-11400F
GPU: RTX 2060
RAM: Crucial Ballistix DDR4 3600 MHz (2x8)
OS: Windows 10

The problem was still there, with exactly the same feeling as on the first computer. I even moved to another house with this computer (with the same ISP), and nothing changed—the problem has been there since 2020. 

I see a lot of people having issues with this, but having clear context would really help isolate what's actually going on. What are your PC specs, and what exactly do you mean by desync? Are you dealing with bad hit registration, a lack of peeker's advantage, or fast opponent movement or more like high interpolation buffer?

[taupemouton]

Hi, I want to share with you my experience with desync in games. In 2020, I was playing on a Vivobook Pro 17 on Minecraft PvP servers. For 6 months straight, I only played on multiplayer servers; I was really good at the game and winning Skywars with a lot of kills. I had 50 ms in game on Wifi.

From one day to the next (November 2020), I couldn't even win a single game with 4 kills. The feeling was different. I thought I was playing badly, but the next day I played again with the same feeling that most of you are describing. I don't know what is causing it.

In 2021, I changed my computer for this:

Motherboard: Aorus B560M
CPU: Intel Core i5-11400F
GPU: RTX 2060
RAM: Crucial Ballistix DDR4 3600 MHz (2x8)
OS: Windows 10

The problem was still there, with exactly the same feeling as on the first computer. I even moved to another house with this computer (with the same ISP), and nothing changed—the problem has been there since 2020. 

I see a lot of people having issues with this, but having clear context would really help isolate what's actually going on. What are your PC specs, and what exactly do you mean by desync? Are you dealing with bad hit registration, a lack of peeker's advantage, or fast opponent movement or more like high interpolation buffer?

It's not a simple "lag" with Fake hits or even obvious player teleportation. It doesn't feel like it is a network issue. In every 50/50 situations, even with new players, it's impossible to win that. It's like all the other players have the infos 0.5 seconds before you, it's constant since 2020. I still remembers the old feeling before 2020. Even if i am 100% sure it's not placebo, i should invite one of my Friends to play and let him tell me what he thinks.

The first time i had this issue was when I had this laptop: vivobook pro17 (i can't check now the specs but I remember this):

- Intel uhd graphic 620
- 8go ram
- windows 10 (now windows 11 After the day it desynced)

All my new computers are on intel CPU and on NVIDIA GPU.

Because I know the probleme started in september or november 2020. I can make some research and try to find anything that have been update these months.
I don't really think it's network related, because I remember playing with different ISP, even tried VPN, exitlag. I checked packet loss, jitter... Nothing appears to be wrong.

Sry for my english.

[vnb]

Active powered fiber line, no PON.
I meant classic old style when people were connected trough SFP modules in smart switches directly to opposite SFP module at providers side again in some local smart multislot SFP switch (and very often combined with 1gbps local ethernet as a last mile and handover interface from smart local switch somewhere in basement). It was a little bit less reliable as it was prone to power outages, but for gaming this connection was way better than PON which is from my point of view a slight downgrade (more reliable but there is always a milisecond or two added in term of ping and jitter).

oh yeah, i see what you mean now. in Belgium this was never available to "normal" customers but i know that some hospitals, banks, airports, etc do have this technology available for them.

At work we called this (P2P - Point to Point) which is essentially a dedicated fiber directly between the provider's central office and your location. Are you sure that you used at some point this kind of technology? Is it extremely restricted to very specific uses here, nobody can access it here except if you are worth multi million dollars...

Btw i agree that PON is definitely not the best fiber optic system. And i wouldn’t call it more reliable either, there are tons of issues. But it is the one that can fill up ISP's pockets the fastest; you can literally split A SINGLE Pon link to 32 to 64 customers -- that is 2,5 Gbps down 1,25Gbps UP shared across 64 houses.... so no wonder why all the money hungry ISPs corporates moved to use it...

You've got the general concept right, but the issue is happening further down the line if at all, specifically after the junction point (where the all connections connects to olt).So in general PON or XGS-PON is really good at this time.

I wouldn’t call GPON or XGSPON "good" after working for years on the field. How can you call this fiber technology good when it is shared with 32 or 64 other customers? They moved from Docsis because it was said "this is a shared tech between customers; bad bad bad" then ISP chose to implement Fiber PON, which is what? You guessed it a shared fiber technology LMAO.

Let me give you an example why IMO shared PON is bad : there is a technology called called Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA). Essentially it is an algorithm in the OLT (ISP side) which grant upstream slots based on reported queue status.

Simply said: the more data you upload, the more the OLT grant your ONT based slots time.

It is like if a teacher will give more attention to the kid that talks a lot in class and less attention to the quiet one (the ONT that does not upload a lot).

So essentially the more you abuse the upload, the more the OLT gives you "priority" meaning upstream slots...

[xVenom]

Active powered fiber line, no PON.
I meant classic old style when people were connected trough SFP modules in smart switches directly to opposite SFP module at providers side again in some local smart multislot SFP switch (and very often combined with 1gbps local ethernet as a last mile and handover interface from smart local switch somewhere in basement). It was a little bit less reliable as it was prone to power outages, but for gaming this connection was way better than PON which is from my point of view a slight downgrade (more reliable but there is always a milisecond or two added in term of ping and jitter).

oh yeah, i see what you mean now. in Belgium this was never available to "normal" customers but i know that some hospitals, banks, airports, etc do have this technology available for them.

At work we called this (P2P - Point to Point) which is essentially a dedicated fiber directly between the provider's central office and your location. Are you sure that you used at some point this kind of technology? Is it extremely restricted to very specific uses here, nobody can access it here except if you are worth multi million dollars...

Btw i agree that PON is definitely not the best fiber optic system. And i wouldn’t call it more reliable either, there are tons of issues. But it is the one that can fill up ISP's pockets the fastest; you can literally split A SINGLE Pon link to 32 to 64 customers -- that is 2,5 Gbps down 1,25Gbps UP shared across 64 houses.... so no wonder why all the money hungry ISPs corporates moved to use it...

You've got the general concept right, but the issue is happening further down the line if at all, specifically after the junction point (where the all connections connects to olt).So in general PON or XGS-PON is really good at this time.

I wouldn’t call GPON or XGSPON "good" after working for years on the field. How can you call this fiber technology good when it is shared with 32 or 64 other customers? They moved from Docsis because it was said "this is a shared tech between customers; bad bad bad" then ISP chose to implement Fiber PON, which is what? You guessed it a shared fiber technology LMAO.

Let me give you an example why IMO shared PON is bad : there is a technology called called Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA). Essentially it is an algorithm in the OLT (ISP side) which grant upstream slots based on reported queue status.

Simply said: the more data you upload, the more the OLT grant your ONT based slots time.

It is like if a teacher will give more attention to the kid that talks a lot in class and less attention to the quiet one (the ONT that does not upload a lot).

So essentially the more you abuse the upload, the more the OLT gives you "priority" meaning upstream slots...

Let's get two things very clear. First, a 'behind the server' feeling or high buffering is almost always caused by downstream issues, not upstream. Hit registration depends on both: upstream sends your action, and downstream brings the server's confirmation back so your client can display the kill mark.

As for OLT time slots: I've been down that road. There were days I'd use hping3 to send over 3,000 pps to my ISP's first hop IP just to lower my standard deviation (sending it tagged as CS0 while keeping my game packets tagged as EF with a shaper at my WAN so game packets wouldn't get queued). The idea was to claim more OLT upstream time slots. But did it actually make a difference in-game? None, unless your upstream is already very jittery. Any jitter value below half the server's tick rate is considered very good.

Now regarding shared bandwidth: GPON speeds are 2.4 Gbps download and 1.25 Gbps upload. Assuming a max plan speed of 1 Gbps down and 500 Mbps up (depending on the provider), it takes only two and a half users maxing out their connections at the same time to fully saturate the node. Theoretically, it's possible, but practically, upload saturation is extremely rare. In an extreme case where two or three users download a 50GB game simultaneously, the saturation only lasts about 6 minutes (assuming their hardware can even write at those speeds). In a general case, a 4K Netflix stream takes 25 Mbps max, meaning it would take 50 simultaneous 4K streams to max out GPON download. So why do some connections feel worse during peak hours? It's almost always on the download side, but it's typically driven by routing and peering issues rather than local node congestion.

XGS-PON (10 Gbps) is a completely different story in practice, it's almost impossible to saturate. Almost no consumer devices except PCs or servers can even pull 2 Gbps, and even if they do, it's only for a minute or two. You can download 100GB in under 4 minutes, and nobody has the storage setup to download continuously at that rate indefinitely.

While I'm not ruling out GPON download saturation in extreme edge cases, upload saturation is exceptionally rare. The bottleneck is almost always after the OLT, in ISP routing and peering. I used to think GPON and XGS-PON were bad for gaming, but they really aren't for today's demands. GPON might show its age sooner, but XGS-PON will easily be great for at least the next 10 years.

You can take a look at this study on gpon saturation from a isp provider moderator. use translation, though it doesnt fit every variable but it gives your good clarity on this context.

https://lafibre.info/gpon/le-gpon-ne-sa ... -la-preuve

Also Remeber every player uses the same pon tech.

[vnb]

oh yeah, i see what you mean now. in Belgium this was never available to "normal" customers but i know that some hospitals, banks, airports, etc do have this technology available for them.

At work we called this (P2P - Point to Point) which is essentially a dedicated fiber directly between the provider's central office and your location. Are you sure that you used at some point this kind of technology? Is it extremely restricted to very specific uses here, nobody can access it here except if you are worth multi million dollars...

Btw i agree that PON is definitely not the best fiber optic system. And i wouldn’t call it more reliable either, there are tons of issues. But it is the one that can fill up ISP's pockets the fastest; you can literally split A SINGLE Pon link to 32 to 64 customers -- that is 2,5 Gbps down 1,25Gbps UP shared across 64 houses.... so no wonder why all the money hungry ISPs corporates moved to use it...

You've got the general concept right, but the issue is happening further down the line if at all, specifically after the junction point (where the all connections connects to olt).So in general PON or XGS-PON is really good at this time.

I wouldn’t call GPON or XGSPON "good" after working for years on the field. How can you call this fiber technology good when it is shared with 32 or 64 other customers? They moved from Docsis because it was said "this is a shared tech between customers; bad bad bad" then ISP chose to implement Fiber PON, which is what? You guessed it a shared fiber technology LMAO.

Let me give you an example why IMO shared PON is bad : there is a technology called called Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA). Essentially it is an algorithm in the OLT (ISP side) which grant upstream slots based on reported queue status.

Simply said: the more data you upload, the more the OLT grant your ONT based slots time.

It is like if a teacher will give more attention to the kid that talks a lot in class and less attention to the quiet one (the ONT that does not upload a lot).

So essentially the more you abuse the upload, the more the OLT gives you "priority" meaning upstream slots...

Let's get two things very clear. First, a 'behind the server' feeling or high buffering is almost always caused by downstream issues, not upstream. Hit registration depends on both: upstream sends your action, and downstream brings the server's confirmation back so your client can display the kill mark.

As for OLT time slots: I've been down that road. There were days I'd use hping3 to send over 3,000 pps to my ISP's first hop IP just to lower my standard deviation (sending it tagged as CS0 while keeping my game packets tagged as EF with a shaper at my WAN so game packets wouldn't get queued). The idea was to claim more OLT upstream time slots. But did it actually make a difference in-game? None, unless your upstream is already very jittery. Any jitter value below half the server's tick rate is considered very good.

Now regarding shared bandwidth: GPON speeds are 2.4 Gbps download and 1.25 Gbps upload. Assuming a max plan speed of 1 Gbps down and 500 Mbps up (depending on the provider), it takes only two and a half users maxing out their connections at the same time to fully saturate the node. Theoretically, it's possible, but practically, upload saturation is extremely rare. In an extreme case where two or three users download a 50GB game simultaneously, the saturation only lasts about 6 minutes (assuming their hardware can even write at those speeds). In a general case, a 4K Netflix stream takes 25 Mbps max, meaning it would take 50 simultaneous 4K streams to max out GPON download. So why do some connections feel worse during peak hours? It's almost always on the download side, but it's typically driven by routing and peering issues rather than local node congestion.

XGS-PON (10 Gbps) is a completely different story in practice, it's almost impossible to saturate. Almost no consumer devices except PCs or servers can even pull 2 Gbps, and even if they do, it's only for a minute or two. You can download 100GB in under 4 minutes, and nobody has the storage setup to download continuously at that rate indefinitely.

While I'm not ruling out GPON download saturation in extreme edge cases, upload saturation is exceptionally rare. The bottleneck is almost always after the OLT, in ISP routing and peering. I used to think GPON and XGS-PON were bad for gaming, but they really aren't for today's demands. GPON might show its age sooner, but XGS-PON will easily be great for at least the next 10 years.

You can take a look at this study on gpon saturation from a isp provider moderator. use translation, though it doesnt fit every variable but it gives your good clarity on this context.

https://lafibre.info/gpon/le-gpon-ne-sa ... -la-preuve

Also Remeber every player uses the same pon tech.

you wrote all that to contradict yourself right at the end with the link?

I have translated most of it and in one of the first post they literally say :

"Data rates aren't throttled; they're all at full speed. (As a reminder, GPON supports up to 2.5 Gbps, so there's still PLENTY of capacity left.) On the other hand... the uplink really highlights congestion issues if the ISP daisy-chains multiple OLTs from different municipalities one after another (which we don't do here). On this one alone, there’s a peak of 1.4 Gbps (well, it is the first OLT, so it’s practically full). And at that point, it has nothing to do with GPON, 10G-EPON, DOCSIS/cable, etc. If the upstream can’t keep up… "

you say the issue is downstream, not upstream while this person highlights that every consumer still has full speed in downstream however this is not the case with the upstream which is already saturated...

[xVenom]

You've got the general concept right, but the issue is happening further down the line if at all, specifically after the junction point (where the all connections connects to olt).So in general PON or XGS-PON is really good at this time.

I wouldn’t call GPON or XGSPON "good" after working for years on the field. How can you call this fiber technology good when it is shared with 32 or 64 other customers? They moved from Docsis because it was said "this is a shared tech between customers; bad bad bad" then ISP chose to implement Fiber PON, which is what? You guessed it a shared fiber technology LMAO.

Let me give you an example why IMO shared PON is bad : there is a technology called called Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA). Essentially it is an algorithm in the OLT (ISP side) which grant upstream slots based on reported queue status.

Simply said: the more data you upload, the more the OLT grant your ONT based slots time.

It is like if a teacher will give more attention to the kid that talks a lot in class and less attention to the quiet one (the ONT that does not upload a lot).

So essentially the more you abuse the upload, the more the OLT gives you "priority" meaning upstream slots...

Let's get two things very clear. First, a 'behind the server' feeling or high buffering is almost always caused by downstream issues, not upstream. Hit registration depends on both: upstream sends your action, and downstream brings the server's confirmation back so your client can display the kill mark.

As for OLT time slots: I've been down that road. There were days I'd use hping3 to send over 3,000 pps to my ISP's first hop IP just to lower my standard deviation (sending it tagged as CS0 while keeping my game packets tagged as EF with a shaper at my WAN so game packets wouldn't get queued). The idea was to claim more OLT upstream time slots. But did it actually make a difference in-game? None, unless your upstream is already very jittery. Any jitter value below half the server's tick rate is considered very good.

Now regarding shared bandwidth: GPON speeds are 2.4 Gbps download and 1.25 Gbps upload. Assuming a max plan speed of 1 Gbps down and 500 Mbps up (depending on the provider), it takes only two and a half users maxing out their connections at the same time to fully saturate the node. Theoretically, it's possible, but practically, upload saturation is extremely rare. In an extreme case where two or three users download a 50GB game simultaneously, the saturation only lasts about 6 minutes (assuming their hardware can even write at those speeds). In a general case, a 4K Netflix stream takes 25 Mbps max, meaning it would take 50 simultaneous 4K streams to max out GPON download. So why do some connections feel worse during peak hours? It's almost always on the download side, but it's typically driven by routing and peering issues rather than local node congestion.

XGS-PON (10 Gbps) is a completely different story in practice, it's almost impossible to saturate. Almost no consumer devices except PCs or servers can even pull 2 Gbps, and even if they do, it's only for a minute or two. You can download 100GB in under 4 minutes, and nobody has the storage setup to download continuously at that rate indefinitely.

While I'm not ruling out GPON download saturation in extreme edge cases, upload saturation is exceptionally rare. The bottleneck is almost always after the OLT, in ISP routing and peering. I used to think GPON and XGS-PON were bad for gaming, but they really aren't for today's demands. GPON might show its age sooner, but XGS-PON will easily be great for at least the next 10 years.

You can take a look at this study on gpon saturation from a isp provider moderator. use translation, though it doesnt fit every variable but it gives your good clarity on this context.

https://lafibre.info/gpon/le-gpon-ne-sa ... -la-preuve

Also Remeber every player uses the same pon tech.

you wrote all that to contradict yourself right at the end with the link?

I have translated most of it and in one of the first post they literally say :

"Data rates aren't throttled; they're all at full speed. (As a reminder, GPON supports up to 2.5 Gbps, so there's still PLENTY of capacity left.) On the other hand... the uplink really highlights congestion issues if the ISP daisy-chains multiple OLTs from different municipalities one after another (which we don't do here). On this one alone, there’s a peak of 1.4 Gbps (well, it is the first OLT, so it’s practically full). And at that point, it has nothing to do with GPON, 10G-EPON, DOCSIS/cable, etc. If the upstream can’t keep up… "

you say the issue is downstream, not upstream while this person highlights that every consumer still has full speed in downstream however this is not the case with the upstream which is already saturated...

I think you didn't really read it fully, If you read through page 2 you will see that op said the graph is from olt which means Inbound ( Internet traffic to the OLT, therefore downstream ). anything from surface level will be misleading so you have to dig deeper to really understand it

[vnb]

I wouldn’t call GPON or XGSPON "good" after working for years on the field. How can you call this fiber technology good when it is shared with 32 or 64 other customers? They moved from Docsis because it was said "this is a shared tech between customers; bad bad bad" then ISP chose to implement Fiber PON, which is what? You guessed it a shared fiber technology LMAO.

Let me give you an example why IMO shared PON is bad : there is a technology called called Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA). Essentially it is an algorithm in the OLT (ISP side) which grant upstream slots based on reported queue status.

Simply said: the more data you upload, the more the OLT grant your ONT based slots time.

It is like if a teacher will give more attention to the kid that talks a lot in class and less attention to the quiet one (the ONT that does not upload a lot).

So essentially the more you abuse the upload, the more the OLT gives you "priority" meaning upstream slots...

Let's get two things very clear. First, a 'behind the server' feeling or high buffering is almost always caused by downstream issues, not upstream. Hit registration depends on both: upstream sends your action, and downstream brings the server's confirmation back so your client can display the kill mark.

As for OLT time slots: I've been down that road. There were days I'd use hping3 to send over 3,000 pps to my ISP's first hop IP just to lower my standard deviation (sending it tagged as CS0 while keeping my game packets tagged as EF with a shaper at my WAN so game packets wouldn't get queued). The idea was to claim more OLT upstream time slots. But did it actually make a difference in-game? None, unless your upstream is already very jittery. Any jitter value below half the server's tick rate is considered very good.

Now regarding shared bandwidth: GPON speeds are 2.4 Gbps download and 1.25 Gbps upload. Assuming a max plan speed of 1 Gbps down and 500 Mbps up (depending on the provider), it takes only two and a half users maxing out their connections at the same time to fully saturate the node. Theoretically, it's possible, but practically, upload saturation is extremely rare. In an extreme case where two or three users download a 50GB game simultaneously, the saturation only lasts about 6 minutes (assuming their hardware can even write at those speeds). In a general case, a 4K Netflix stream takes 25 Mbps max, meaning it would take 50 simultaneous 4K streams to max out GPON download. So why do some connections feel worse during peak hours? It's almost always on the download side, but it's typically driven by routing and peering issues rather than local node congestion.

XGS-PON (10 Gbps) is a completely different story in practice, it's almost impossible to saturate. Almost no consumer devices except PCs or servers can even pull 2 Gbps, and even if they do, it's only for a minute or two. You can download 100GB in under 4 minutes, and nobody has the storage setup to download continuously at that rate indefinitely.

While I'm not ruling out GPON download saturation in extreme edge cases, upload saturation is exceptionally rare. The bottleneck is almost always after the OLT, in ISP routing and peering. I used to think GPON and XGS-PON were bad for gaming, but they really aren't for today's demands. GPON might show its age sooner, but XGS-PON will easily be great for at least the next 10 years.

You can take a look at this study on gpon saturation from a isp provider moderator. use translation, though it doesnt fit every variable but it gives your good clarity on this context.

https://lafibre.info/gpon/le-gpon-ne-sa ... -la-preuve

Also Remeber every player uses the same pon tech.

you wrote all that to contradict yourself right at the end with the link?

I have translated most of it and in one of the first post they literally say :

"Data rates aren't throttled; they're all at full speed. (As a reminder, GPON supports up to 2.5 Gbps, so there's still PLENTY of capacity left.) On the other hand... the uplink really highlights congestion issues if the ISP daisy-chains multiple OLTs from different municipalities one after another (which we don't do here). On this one alone, there’s a peak of 1.4 Gbps (well, it is the first OLT, so it’s practically full). And at that point, it has nothing to do with GPON, 10G-EPON, DOCSIS/cable, etc. If the upstream can’t keep up… "

you say the issue is downstream, not upstream while this person highlights that every consumer still has full speed in downstream however this is not the case with the upstream which is already saturated...

I think you didn't really read it fully, If you read through page 2 you will see that op said the graph is from olt which means Inbound ( Internet traffic to the OLT, therefore downstream ). anything from surface level will be misleading so you have to dig deeper to really understand it

can't take any of this seriously after looking closer those graphs are reporting 145.63Mbps of Maximum Outbound traffic over 24h for 64 fiber clients, that is like what?

2mb/s per client? SERIOUSLY? Also those graphs have no value, if you are an insider, you would know that ISP have extremely advanced monitoring softwares. All the advanced softwares i am talking about are always under NDA and if someone shared any data about those publicly, you can be sure that you would be fired asap.
So yeah those valueless graph are just being shared on a forum to brag while misrepresenting reality.

[xVenom]

Let's get two things very clear. First, a 'behind the server' feeling or high buffering is almost always caused by downstream issues, not upstream. Hit registration depends on both: upstream sends your action, and downstream brings the server's confirmation back so your client can display the kill mark.

As for OLT time slots: I've been down that road. There were days I'd use hping3 to send over 3,000 pps to my ISP's first hop IP just to lower my standard deviation (sending it tagged as CS0 while keeping my game packets tagged as EF with a shaper at my WAN so game packets wouldn't get queued). The idea was to claim more OLT upstream time slots. But did it actually make a difference in-game? None, unless your upstream is already very jittery. Any jitter value below half the server's tick rate is considered very good.

Now regarding shared bandwidth: GPON speeds are 2.4 Gbps download and 1.25 Gbps upload. Assuming a max plan speed of 1 Gbps down and 500 Mbps up (depending on the provider), it takes only two and a half users maxing out their connections at the same time to fully saturate the node. Theoretically, it's possible, but practically, upload saturation is extremely rare. In an extreme case where two or three users download a 50GB game simultaneously, the saturation only lasts about 6 minutes (assuming their hardware can even write at those speeds). In a general case, a 4K Netflix stream takes 25 Mbps max, meaning it would take 50 simultaneous 4K streams to max out GPON download. So why do some connections feel worse during peak hours? It's almost always on the download side, but it's typically driven by routing and peering issues rather than local node congestion.

XGS-PON (10 Gbps) is a completely different story in practice, it's almost impossible to saturate. Almost no consumer devices except PCs or servers can even pull 2 Gbps, and even if they do, it's only for a minute or two. You can download 100GB in under 4 minutes, and nobody has the storage setup to download continuously at that rate indefinitely.

While I'm not ruling out GPON download saturation in extreme edge cases, upload saturation is exceptionally rare. The bottleneck is almost always after the OLT, in ISP routing and peering. I used to think GPON and XGS-PON were bad for gaming, but they really aren't for today's demands. GPON might show its age sooner, but XGS-PON will easily be great for at least the next 10 years.

You can take a look at this study on gpon saturation from a isp provider moderator. use translation, though it doesnt fit every variable but it gives your good clarity on this context.

https://lafibre.info/gpon/le-gpon-ne-sa ... -la-preuve

Also Remeber every player uses the same pon tech.

you wrote all that to contradict yourself right at the end with the link?

I have translated most of it and in one of the first post they literally say :

"Data rates aren't throttled; they're all at full speed. (As a reminder, GPON supports up to 2.5 Gbps, so there's still PLENTY of capacity left.) On the other hand... the uplink really highlights congestion issues if the ISP daisy-chains multiple OLTs from different municipalities one after another (which we don't do here). On this one alone, there’s a peak of 1.4 Gbps (well, it is the first OLT, so it’s practically full). And at that point, it has nothing to do with GPON, 10G-EPON, DOCSIS/cable, etc. If the upstream can’t keep up… "

you say the issue is downstream, not upstream while this person highlights that every consumer still has full speed in downstream however this is not the case with the upstream which is already saturated...

I think you didn't really read it fully, If you read through page 2 you will see that op said the graph is from olt which means Inbound ( Internet traffic to the OLT, therefore downstream ). anything from surface level will be misleading so you have to dig deeper to really understand it

can't take any of this seriously after looking closer those graphs are reporting 145.63Mbps of Maximum Outbound traffic over 24h for 64 fiber clients, that is like what?

2mb/s per client? SERIOUSLY? Also those graphs have no value, if you are an insider, you would know that ISP have extremely advanced monitoring softwares. All the advanced softwares i am talking about are always under NDA and if someone shared any data about those publicly, you can be sure that you would be fired asap.
So yeah those valueless graph are just being shared on a forum to brag while misrepresenting reality.

First of all your way of seeing it as 2mb/s per client is wrong. Your logic is everyone uploading 2mb/s at sametime. it is never gonna happen. We are talking about upload. can you share your 24h upload monitoring? lets see even if you hit peek of 100mb for a whole min. Even if you are uploading a 5gb file it would take 50sec at 100mb speed. if you still disagree feel free to prove your point with any evidence from olt side.