Game downloads on PS4 have a reputation of being very slow, with many people reporting downloads being an order of magnitude faster on Steam or Xbox. This had long been on my list of things to look into, but at a pretty low priority. After all, the PS4 operating system is based on a reasonably modern FreeBSD (9.0), so there should not be any crippling issues in the TCP stack. The implication is that the problem is something boring, like an inadequately dimensioned CDN.

But then I heard that people were successfully using local HTTP proxies as a workaround. It should be pretty rare for that to actually help with download speeds, which made this sound like a much more interesting problem.

This is going to be a long-winded technical post. If you're not interested in the details of the investigation but just want a recommendation on speeding up PS4 downloads, skip straight to the conclusions.

Background

Before running any experiments, it's good to have a mental model of how the thing we're testing works, and where the problems might be. If nothing else, it will guide the initial experiment design.

The speed of a steady-state TCP connection is basically defined by three numbers. The amount of data the client is will to receive on a single round-trip (TCP receive window), the amount of data the server is willing to send on a single round-trip (TCP congestion window), and the round trip latency between the client and the server (RTT). To a first approximation, the connection speed will be:

speed = min(rwin, cwin) / RTT

With this model, how could a proxy speed up the connection? Well, with a proxy the original connection will be split into two mostly independent parts; one connection between the client and the proxy, and another between the proxy and the server. The speed of the end-to-end connection will be determined by the slower of those two independent connections:

speed_proxy_client = min(client rwin, proxy cwin) / client-proxy RTT speed_server_proxy = min(proxy rwin, server cwin) / proxy-server RTT speed = min(speed_proxy_client, speed_server_proxy)

With a local proxy the client-proxy RTT will be very low; that connection is almost guaranteed to be the faster one. The improvement will have to be from the server-proxy connection being somehow better than the direct client-server one. The RTT will not change, so there are just two options: either the client has a much smaller receive window than the proxy, or the client is somehow causing the server's congestion window to decrease. (E.g. the client is randomly dropping received packets, while the proxy isn't).

Out of these two theories, the receive window one should be much more likely, so we should concentrate on it first. But that just replaces our original question with a new one: why would the client's receive window be so low that it becomes a noticeable bottleneck? There's a fairly limited number of causes for low receive windows that I've seen in the wild, and they don't really seem to fit here.

Maybe the client doesn't support the TCP window scaling option, while the proxy does. Without window scaling, the receive window will be limited to 64kB. But since we know Sony started with a TCP stack that supports window scaling, they would have had to go out of their way to disable it. Slow downloads, for no benefit.

Maybe the actual downloader application is very slow. The operating system is supposed to have a certain amount of buffer space available for each connection. If the network is delivering data to the OS faster than the application is reading it, the buffer will start to fill up, and the OS will reduce the receive window as a form of back-pressure. But this can't be the reason; if the application is the bottleneck, it'll be a bottleneck with or without the proxy.

The operating system is trying to dynamically scale the receive window to match the actual network conditions, but something is going wrong. This would be interesting, so it's what we're hoping to find.

The initial theories are in place, let's get digging.

Experiment #1

For our first experiment, we'll start a PSN download on a baseline non-Slim PS4, firmware 4.73. The network connection of the PS4 is bridged through a Linux machine, where we can add latency to the network using tc netem . By varying the added latency, we should be able to find out two things: whether the receive window really is the bottleneck, and whether the receive window is being automatically scaled by the operating system.

This is what the client-server RTTs (measured from a packet capture using TCP timestamps) look like for the experimental period. Each dot represents 10 seconds of time for a single connection, with the Y axis showing the minimum RTT seen for that connection in those 10 seconds.

The next graph shows the amount of data sent by the server in one round trip in red, and the receive windows advertised by the client in blue.

First, since the blue dots are staying constantly at about 128kB, the operating system doesn't appear to be doing any kind of receive window scaling based on the RTT. (So much for that theory). Though at the very right end of the graph the receive window shoots out to 650kB, so it isn't totally fixed either.

Second, is the receive window the bottleneck here? If so, the blue dots would be close to the red dots. This is the case until about 10:50. And then mysteriously the bottleneck moves to the server.

So we didn't find quite what we were looking for, but there are a couple of very interesting things that are correlated with events on the PS4.

The download was in the foreground for the whole duration of the test. But that doesn't mean it was the only thing running on the machine. The Netflix app was still running in the background, completely idle [1]. When the background app was closed at 11:00, the receive window increased dramatically. This suggests a second experiment, where different applications are opened / closed / left running in the background.

The time where the receive window stops being the bottleneck is very close to the PS4 entering rest mode. That looks like another thing worth investigating. Unfortunately, that's not true, and rest mode is a red herring here. [2]

Experiment #2

Below is a graph of the receive windows for a second download, annotated with the timing of various noteworthy events.

The differences in receive windows at different times are striking. And more important, the changes in the receive windows correspond very well to specific things I did on the PS4.

When the download was started, the game Styx: Shards of Darkness was running in the background (just idling in the title screen). The download was limited by a receive window of under 7kB. This is an incredibly low value; it's basically going to cause the downloads to take 100 times longer than they should . And this was not a coincidence, whenever that game was running, the receive window would be that low.

. And this was not a coincidence, whenever that game was running, the receive window would be that low. Having an app running (e.g. Netflix, Spotify) limited the receive window to 128kB, for about a 5x reduction in potential download speed.

Moving apps, games, or the download window to the foreground or background didn't have any effect on the receive window.

Launching some other games (Horizon: Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, Dreadnought) seemed to have the same effect as running an app.

Playing an online match in a networked game (Dreadnought) caused the receive window to be artificially limited to 7kB.

Playing around in a non-networked game (Horizon: Zero Dawn) had a very inconsistent effect on the receive window, with the effect seemingly depending on the intensity of gameplay. This looks like a genuine resource restriction (download process getting variable amounts of CPU), rather than an artificial limit.

I ran a speedtest at a time when downloads were limited to 7kB receive window. It got a decent receive window of over 400kB; the conclusion is that the artificial receive window limit appears to only apply to PSN downloads.

Putting the PS4 into rest mode had no effect.

Built-in features of the PS4 UI, like the web browser, do not count as apps.

When a game was started (causing the previously running game to be stopped automatically), the receive window could increase to 650kB for a very brief period of time. Basically it appears that the receive window gets unclamped when the old game stops, and then clamped again a few seconds later when the new game actually starts up.

I did a few more test runs, and all of them seemed to support the above findings. The only additional information from that testing is that the rest mode behavior was dependent on the PS4 settings. Originally I had it set up to suspend apps when in rest mode. If that setting was disabled, the apps would be closed when entering in rest mode, and the downloads would proceed at full speed.

A 7kB receive window will be absolutely crippling for any user. A 128kB window might be ok for users who have CDN servers very close by, or who don't have a particularly fast internet. For example at my location, a 128kB receive window would cap the downloads at about 35Mbp to 75Mbps depending on which CDN the DNS RNG happens to give me. The lowest two speed tiers for my ISP are 50Mbps and 200Mbps. So either the 128kB would not be a noticeable problem (50Mbps) or it'd mean that downloads are artificially limited to to 25% speed (200Mbps).

Conclusions

If any applications are running, the PS4 appears to change the settings for PSN store downloads, artificially restricting their speed. Closing the other applications will remove the limit. There are a few important details:

Just leaving the other applications running in the background will not help . The exact same limit is applied whether the download progress bar is in the foreground or not.

. The exact same limit is applied whether the download progress bar is in the foreground or not. Putting the PS4 into rest mode might or might not help, depending on your system settings.

The artificial limit applies only to the PSN store downloads. It does not affect e.g. the built-in speedtest. This is why the speedtest might report much higher speeds than the actual downloads, even though both are delivered from the same CDN servers.

affect e.g. the built-in speedtest. This is why the speedtest might report much higher speeds than the actual downloads, even though both are delivered from the same CDN servers. Not all applications are equal; most of them will cause the connections to slow down by up to a factor of 5. Some games will cause a difference of about a factor of 100. Some games will start off with the factor of 5, and then migrate to the factor of 100 once you leave the start menu and start playing.

The above limits are artificial. In addition to that, actively playing a game can cause game downloads to slow down. This appears to be due to a genuine lack of CPU resources (with the game understandably having top priority).

So if you're seeing slow downloads, just closing all the running applications might be worth a shot. (But it's obviously not guaranteed to help. There are other causes for slow downloads as well, this will just remove one potential bottleneck). To close the running applications, you'll need to long-press the PS button on the controller, and then select "Close applications" from the menu.

The PS4 doesn't make it very obvious exactly what programs are running. For games, the interaction model is that opening a new game closes the previously running one. This is not how other apps work; they remain in the background indefinitely until you explicitly close them.

And it's gets worse than that. If your PS4 is configured to suspend any running apps when put to rest mode, you can seemingly power on the machine into a clean state, and still have a hidden background app that's causing the OS to limit your PSN download speeds.

This might explain some of the superstitions about this on the Internet. There are people who swear that putting the machine to rest mode helps with speeds, others who say it does nothing. Or how after every firmware update people will report increased download speeds. Odds are that nothing actually changed in the firmware; it's just that those people had done their first full reboot in a while, and finally had a system without a background app running.

Speculation

Those were the facts as I see them. Unfortunately this raises some new questions, which can't be answered experimentally. With no facts, there's no option except to speculate wildly!

Q: Is this an intentional feature? If so, what its purpose?

Yes, it must be intentional. The receive window changes very rapidly when applications or games are opened/closed, but not for any other reason. It's not any kind of subtle operating system level behavior; it's most likely the PS4 UI explicitly manipulating the socket receive buffers.

But why? I think the idea here must be to not allow the network traffic of background downloads to take resources away from the foreground use of the PS4. For example if I'm playing an online shooter, it makes sense to harshly limit the background download speeds to make sure the game is getting ping times that are both low and predictable. So there's at least some point in that 7kB receive window limit in some circumstances.

It's harder to see what the point of the 128kB receive window limit for running any app is. A single game download from some random CDN isn't going to muscle out Netflix or Youtube... The only thing I can think of is that they're afraid that multiple simultaneous downloads, e.g. due to automatic updates, might cause problems for playing video. But even that seems like a stretch.

There's an alternate theory that this is due to some non-network resource constraints (e.g. CPU, memory, disk). I don't think that works. If the CPU or disk were the constraint, just having the appropriate priorities in place would automatically take care of this. If the download process gets starved of CPU or disk bandwidth due to a low priority, the receive buffer would fill up and the receive window would scale down dynamically, exactly when needed. And the amounts of RAM we're talking about here are miniscule on a machine with 8GB of RAM; less than a megabyte.

Q: Is this feature implemented well?

Oh dear God, no. It's hard to believe just how sloppy this implementation is.

The biggest problem is that the limits get applied based just on what games/applications are currently running. That's just insane; what matters should be which games/applications someone is currently using. Especially in a console UI, it's a totally reasonable expectation that the foreground application gets priority. If I've got the download progress bar in the foreground, the system had damn well give that download priority. Not some application that was started a month ago, and hasn't been used since. Applying these limits in rest mode with suspended apps is beyond insane.

Second, these limits get applied per-connection. So if you've got a single download going, it'll get limited to 128kB of receive window. If you've got five downloads, they'll all get 128kB, for a total of 640kB. That means the efficiency of the "make sure downloads don't clog the network" policy depends purely on how many downloads are active. That's rubbish. This is all controlled on the application level, and the application knows how many downloads are active. If there really were an optimal static receive window X, it should just be split evenly across all the downloads.

Third, the core idea of applying a static receive window as a means of fighting bufferbloat is just fundamentally broken. Using the receive window as the rate limiting mechanism just means that the actual transfer rate will depend on the RTT (this is why a local proxy helps). For this kind of thing to work well, you can't have the rate limit depend on the RTT. You also can't just have somebody come up with a number once, and apply that limit to everyone. The limit needs to depend on the actual network conditions.

There are ways to detect how congested the downlink is in the client-side TCP stack. The proper fix would be to implement them, and adjust the receive window of low-priority background downloads if and only if congestion becomes an issue. That would actually be a pretty valuable feature for this kind of appliance. But I can kind of forgive this one; it's not an off the shelf feature, and maybe Sony doesn't employ any TCP kernel hackers.

Fourth, whatever method is being used to decide on whether a game is network-latency sensitive is broken. It's absurd that a demo of a single-player game idling in the initial title screen would cause the download speeds to be totally crippled. This really should be limited to actual multiplayer titles, and ideally just to periods where someone is actually playing the game online. Just having the game running should not be enough.

Q: How can this still be a problem, 4 years after launch?

I have no idea. Sony must know that the PSN download speeds have been a butt of jokes for years. It's probably the biggest complaint people have with the system. So it's hard to believe that nobody was ever given the task of figuring out why it's slow. And this is not rocket science; anyone bothering to look into it would find these problems in a day.

But it seems equally impossible that they know of the cause, but decided not to apply any of the the trivial fixes to it. (Hell, it wouldn't even need to be a proper technical fix. It could just be a piece of text saying that downloads will work faster with all other apps closed).

So while it's possible to speculate in an informed manner about other things, this particular question will remain as an open mystery. Big companies don't always get things done very efficiently, eh?

Footnotes