|
UndyingShadow posted:Complicated configuration. The wizard setup is super easy now. The only issue I had was using the wrong password in bridge mode... I'm pissed I bought to early otherwise I'd get the edge router X and the Unifi ac ap right now.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
Yeah.. Ubiquity stuff is stupid easy to setup for just basic home use. They just have the ability to do much, much more through command line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Prescription Combs posted:Yeah.. Ubiquity stuff is stupid easy to setup for just basic home use. They just have the ability to do much, much more through command line. The ubiquity gui interface is easier than most home routers. Least I think so. Mikrotik, nope.. still not anywhere close to hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Those Unifi AP's own. A customer had one and of course we use Sonicpoint so we deployed them and their wireless went to poo poo. Put back the Unifi AP and added two more and it's night and day. You also can't beat the price.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
I'll say it one more time, I've installed a bunch of Mikrotiks and they all have performed flawlessly since installation. No reboots, no odd wifi cut outs, no bandwidth problems. SO nice. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Popehoist posted:I use a streaming site to watch sports events and over the past couple months I've noticed within 45-60 minutes of tuning in the stream will start skipping, it slowly gets worse and worse and the audio begins to skip as well until eventually it becomes unwatchable. I've tried connecting to the site via the flash player, direct streaming to media player classic, and onto my phone/tablet but it doesn't change a thing, so I'm suspecting my ISP is throttling me. I'm fairly sure it's not the site because it works fine if I switch to 3G. Well as long as your vpn connection is fast enough and your isp doesn't throttle that traffic vpn should work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached peak antenna. I didn't know Brackmann and the cybrans worked for Asus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
MikroTik routers sound awesome from their Amazon reviews. It doesn't look like they offer ac wireless though; how would you set that up? Daisy chain it to a wireless router? Seems like adding layers on the router cake may make things too confusing to bother with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
DNK posted:MikroTik routers sound awesome from their Amazon reviews. It doesn't look like they offer ac wireless though; how would you set that up? Daisy chain it to a wireless router? They are coming out with some home/business AC units this year but yeah right now they have outdoor antenna's which are AC, one has a 23 deg antenna and the other has a 90.. the 90 would work for a house but again, these are not really the main uses. But to answer your question, adding an Ubiquity AC unit on a Mikrotik router would work great and gives you more flexibility in the future. So yeah just plug the AP into the router and done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Speaking of Ubiquity, how is their routing stuff? I'm kind of preplanning some home networking stuff, and noticed they put out a lot of decent stuff. Might get their cameras and NVR as well. Anyone have experience with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:Speaking of Ubiquity, how is their routing stuff? I'm kind of preplanning some home networking stuff, and noticed they put out a lot of decent stuff. Might get their cameras and NVR as well. Anyone have experience with it? Their routing stuff is excellent. I have heard bad things about the cameras but I don't know first hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:I didn't know Brackmann and the cybrans worked for Asus. What they don't tell you is that every Asus router is actually powered by a small brain floating in a jar instead of a normal CPU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
DNK posted:MikroTik routers sound awesome from their Amazon reviews. It doesn't look like they offer ac wireless though; how would you set that up? Daisy chain it to a wireless router? I would pair a MikroTik router with a Unifi AP of some sort. The UAP-AC-Lite and UAP-AC-Pro are both nice. Personally I like having my router and AP be separate devices as it lets me upgrade one or the other as needed. Its also nice to be able to place my APs for optimal coverage without needing to worry about where I can put the cable modem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I enabled jumbo frames on my ethernet connection because I could. Now I'm noticing that any torrent upload stays consistently at or very near the cap I set (500 kB/s) when it struggled to keep up a decent speed without jumbo frames. Are these things related or is it just coincidence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I enabled jumbo frames on my ethernet connection because I could. Now I'm noticing that any torrent upload stays consistently at or very near the cap I set (500 kB/s) when it struggled to keep up a decent speed without jumbo frames. Are these things related or is it just coincidence? What kind of filthy casual torrents from his personal pc Enabling jumbo frames should have nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
A filthy casual who doesn't torrent enough to pay for a seedbox 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I enabled jumbo frames on my ethernet connection because I could. Now I'm noticing that any torrent upload stays consistently at or very near the cap I set (500 kB/s) when it struggled to keep up a decent speed without jumbo frames. Are these things related or is it just coincidence? 99% coincidence. The internet doesn't transfer jumbo frames. I've tested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Ah well. It doesn't seem to hurt anything so I'll leave it alone. Probably won't hurt Plex performance or the odd local file transfer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
jumbo frames actually fucks up plex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Been OK so far, but I've only been streaming music recently. You'd think jumbo frames would be good for big files but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Been OK so far, but I've only been streaming music recently. You'd think jumbo frames would be good for big files but here we are. It's great for large files ... across your LAN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:99% coincidence. The internet doesn't transfer jumbo frames. I've tested. Sure it does! With just a little reassembly at the end you can transfer whatever size* frame you want! *1500 bytes at a time.**  **Actual payload size may vary based on weather conditions, time of day, VPN tags, MPLS tags, and TAG tags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Well maybe some weak link in his network has an abysmal cpu and fastpath can better handle jumbo sized frames which of course get clamped and fragmented later up the stream
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
http://www.ubeeinteractive.com/products/cable/wireless-gateways/ddw36c-advanced-wireless-gateway I'm using of these sacks of poo poo so maybe
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:Well maybe some weak link in his network has an abysmal cpu and fastpath can better handle jumbo sized frames which of course get clamped and fragmented later up the stream Real routing hardware is terrible at dealing with anything larger than 1500 byte frames. When power, space, and cooling need to be used as efficiently as possible to push as many packets as possible as fast as possible the answer is hardware ASICs that do literally all of the packet forwarding without any packet ever touching the CPU. As a result real routers have rather low power CPUs that are terrible for doing anything other than BGP updates and maintaining the running config of the device in memory so the ASICs can be updated with new rules as needed. The moment frames get larger than 1500 bytes the ASICs can't be used due to hardware constraints and you have to fall back to the main CPU which causes throughput to plummet. As a result most internet routers just drop frames that are larger than 1500 bytes. So if you want to talk to the internet, stick to 1500 byte frames. Save the jumbos for the LAN where you don't need a multi gigahertz CPU to fragment and reassemble them at a reasonable speed while hoping that none of the fragments got dropped in transit triggering a TCP re-transmit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Are there routers/network adapters that intelligently detect jumbo frames and only use them on LAN? Or ethernet adapters that won't use them (even when enabled) for WAN traffic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Generally you can set the MTU on a per interface basis so you could have g0/0 and g0/1 set to an MTU of 9000 while g0/2 could bet set to an MTU of 1500. (Using Cisco interface naming conventions here.) This would allow jumbo frames to pass between g0/0 and g0/1 but force the router to either do fragmentation of or drop any jumbo frames that tried to exit g0/2 depending on how you configured things and whether or not you want to allow the router to send ICMP MTU exceeded messages. That is enterprise gear though. Consumer grade stuff doesn't let you get so granular with the settings. Client NICs either have jumbo frames enabled or they don't. Jumbo frames are a layer 2 thing so they are inherently unaware of layer 3 things like IP addresses and subnet ranges. You can't really convert between jumbo frames and normal frames without a large CPU usage hit so once a jumbo frame is made you just have to hope that everything between the source and the destination supports jumbo frames. The only place you could switch between jumbo and normal frames would be on the client PCs that initially generate the frames. But I have never heard of any NIC driver that was able to look at the destination IP of a packet being assembled and then dynamically alter the frame size based on that. Its much easier to just do hardware offloading of the TCP header and checksum generation and just send 1500 byte frames at silly rates. Any PC made in the past 10 years can easily saturate a gigabit link with 1500 byte frames and any PC from the past 5 years can do the same with a 10 gigabit link assuming it can generate or read the data that it wants to send fast enough. Jumbo frames are an artifact from a time when CPUs weren't powerful enough to generate TCP headers and checksums fast enough to allow a PC to push enough 1500 byte frames down the wire per second to saturate a gigabit link. These days the only real advantage they offer is lower TCP protocol overhead and unless you are doing high speed stock trading, running a massive Oracle database, or collecting data from a particle accelerator the small amount of extra performance jumbo frames offer just isn't something you are going to notice. Partly because 1500 byte frames can be sent at silly rates on modern hardware and partly because modern OS's do a very good job of dynamic TCP window sizing, which provides almost as much reduction in TCP protocol overhead as jumbo frames do. UDP traffic doesn't benefit from jumbo frames at all on modern hardware as UDP just doesn't have the protocol overhead that TCP does. Games, VoIP, Skype, and many other time sensitive things use UDP. Antillie fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:Sure it does! With just a little reassembly at the end you can transfer whatever size* frame you want! I am triggered Antillie posted:Jumbo frames are an artifact from a time when CPUs weren't powerful enough to generate TCP headers and checksums fast enough to allow a PC to push enough 1500 byte frames down the wire per second to saturate a gigabit link. *etc* True. Very good information, though there's something to be said about throughput lost to inter-packet latency... which is easily overcome by using multiple streams. And of course none of this really matters until you get internet connections speeds above 100mbps at which point I have to question who you're expecting to allow you to transfer that fast to/from. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Interesting. Explains why they were disabled by default...
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Recommendations for a small cheap 4 or 8 port gigabit switch that is VLAN aware? I doubt VLAN and CHEAP go in the same sentence but I guess I'll check in case you have any diamonds in the rough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Recommendations for a small cheap 4 or 8 port gigabit switch that is VLAN aware? I doubt VLAN and CHEAP go in the same sentence but I guess I'll check in case you have any diamonds in the rough. http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG108E-8-Port-Gigabit-Tag-Based/dp/B00K4DS5KU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443030188&sr=8-1&keywords=8port+vlan $23?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:**Actual payload size may vary based on weather conditions, time of day, VPN tags, MPLS tags, and TAG tags. CrazyLittle posted:I am triggered
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG108E-8-Port-Gigabit-Tag-Based/dp/B00K4DS5KU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443030188&sr=8-1&keywords=8port+vlan Welp, that was easy. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Are there any end-user network/traffic monitoring tools out there? I've been getting absolutely absurd levels of latency at intermittent periods all week, and I'm trying to narrow down possible causes. Google suggested Wireshark, but to call that program intimidating would be an understatement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:Are there any end-user network/traffic monitoring tools out there? I've been getting absolutely absurd levels of latency at intermittent periods all week, and I'm trying to narrow down possible causes. Google suggested Wireshark, but to call that program intimidating would be an understatement. I came into this thread to ask the same question. I've been having the same problem, but with only a 1.5mB [strike]pipe[/strike] straw, I want to make sure it's not some program updating in the background. plus, the wifi connected other PC>
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:Are there any end-user network/traffic monitoring tools out there? I've been getting absolutely absurd levels of latency at intermittent periods all week, and I'm trying to narrow down possible causes. Google suggested Wireshark, but to call that program intimidating would be an understatement. Johnny Aztec posted:I came into this thread to ask the same question. I have a program like this on my work laptop, I will double check the name when I'm in the office tomorrow. If I don't post, one of you PM me about it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Networx on windows is pretty useful https://www.softperfect.com/products/networx/ If you're on windows 10, task manager can show per application usage under the Users tab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
phosdex posted:If you're on windows 10, task manager can show per application usage under the Users tab. Windows 7 displays the same information in resource monitor under the network tab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
NetBalancer is the app I used. The site seems different and kind of hinky now though https://seriousbit.com/netbalancer/
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
I've used cFosSpeed in the past and noticed an immediate, huge improvement in ping times. It works best if you have one huge throughput machine rather than many equal throughput devices. You can install the software on multiple Windows computers on the same network and it will coordinate data transfer (I.e. You have a torrent box and a gaming box but want higher network priority for gaming traffic than torrent traffic). It allows for you to keep your bandwidth near capped and still hit those sub 30ms pings. Pretty cool software.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:04
|
|