|
redeyes posted:Be careful picking up used i350 based NICs. They should never be shipped form china, those are knock off fakes. Have a look at this: Does this one look legit: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Cisco-Gi...w0wE:rk:10:pf:0 I may just hold on and get the US one you posted if it means getting the real deal. gently caress it, I'll get the US one tonight if you don't approve of that one in London. In my experience when buying from eBay UK ads that just say "London" they can sometimes be a front from a foreign shipper.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
apropos man posted:Does this one look legit: I really can't tell from the pictures. I haven't seen any 'cisco' branded fakes, they are all marketed as Intel i350s.. might be fine. The seller has 100% feedback which is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
redeyes posted:I really can't tell from the pictures. I haven't seen any 'cisco' branded fakes, they are all marketed as Intel i350s.. might be fine. The seller has 100% feedback which is good. This one from Germany looks better. That London one doesn't have a clear enough pic of the embossing, but you can see that these chips are embossed with Delta: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Cisco-A0...bgCNU:rk:1:pf:0
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
apropos man posted:This one from Germany looks better. That London one doesn't have a clear enough pic of the embossing, but you can see that these chips are embossed with Delta: That one is definitely real. I found one in the US for $39 for reference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
I might be really interested in that 10 gigabit Ubiquiti device for real. I dont have access to the beta store, what does the price look like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
$499 for 4x 10GbE multirate copper ports with 802.11bt, and 2x SFP+. Presumably it's designed to support their top-end APs.
Thanks Ants fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
redeyes posted:That one is definitely real. I found one in the US for $39 for reference. I got this one in the end, for £54 delivered: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DELL-INTEL-I350-T4-1GB-RJ-45-QUAD-PORT-FULL-HEIGHT-NETWORK-CARD-THGMP-/123109281879 The guy is selling all sorts of server gear and has his full name and address on his profile. It's coming on Tuesday 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
apropos man posted:I got this one in the end, for £54 delivered: Score. Looks real to me. Enjoy, that card should have all the features PFsense wants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out if I need to upgrade my router. I've got a [ur=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BR3ZYIW/]NETGEAR AC1600 Dual Band Wi-Fi Gigabit Router (R6250)[/url]. I have gigabit internet starting on Tuesday, so I'm going to wait on making any purchases until then so I can do some real-world experimenting. However, I did upgrade my modem to this today to prepare for the internet, and I'm wondering whether I ought to upgrade by router while I'm at it. I stream high-res video on a daily basis, and this router needs to be strong enough to send a video streaming signal to a Roku streaming stick through two walls and a bunch of other nearby electronics. I also don't want my router to be a limiting factor in reaching the highest possible speeds with this new internet plan. However, my current router is marketed as a gigabit router, so maybe it's fine as-is? I haven't had any significant reliability issues with it over the past four years. Here are the three routers I've been looking at as a potential replacement: TP-Link AC1900 - Archer C9 - $90 TP-Link AC2300 - Archer C2300 - $140 Netgear (R7000P-100NAS) Nighthawk AC2300 - $180 The OP makes me think that all three of these are very solid routers. I'm guessing all three of them would be an upgrade on my existing router, but I find the Archer C2300 the most tempting. It doesn't seem to be missing any features compared to the Netgear router, but it does seem to have some tech like the MU-MIMO that will be relevant in a few years. Thoughts on whether I should ditch my current router and, if so, what I should go for here? Thanks for any advice!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
apropos man posted:That is loving sweet! Thanks. I'm bookmarking the advert (and model number) and will purchase in a couple of days when my cash flow is ready. The official Plex container (as well as the LSIO container it was derived from) is configured to pull the latest Plex server every time it starts... for the time being. This is technically an abuse of Docker since the intent with Docker is for versioning to be handled exclusively through pulling an updated version of the container, instead of updating within the same container. But, I don't think anyone using it really cares that much - no idea if they plan on changing this behavior. With that said, the docker run command will always prefer the appropriate local copy of the container, instead of checking for a new copy. So if you want to update the container itself, you'd need to pull the latest one manually before you redeploy it. I should really sit down and set up docker-compose on my setup one of these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
I had to adjust that command last night. It was getting late as I got my Plex server working and then I realised that having it automatically starting on boot somehow stopped my other VM's from getting a network properly. I've got a bridge set up (called br0), as per this page: https://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Networking#Public_Bridge It's always worked well for letting the host and guest VM's share the same subnet but last night when I had my 'docker_net' macvtap starting on boot, it was causing my other VM's to startup with no network. It was almost midnight and too late to do any in-depth troubleshooting but I worked out that if I stopped the container from running on-boot and running it manually after br0 was up I could get docker_net working and have all my VM's using br0. I don't mind logging in and running the Plex container manually, since the server only gets a reboot maybe once a week/fortnight. I've put the startup command into a BASH one-liner script. I'm used "--name dockerplex" because it's always gone against the grain for me when playing with docker why it starts each container with a randomly generated name, like terrified_turtle or greasy_gherkin. Then when you do "docker ps -a" you see loads of past versions of your container. Do these not gradually use disk space over a long period of time, or should I stop specifying a name and just let docker do it's "bereaved_bolshevik" thing every time my container is started? It seems like a messy solution over time. surf rock posted:I'm trying to figure out if I need to upgrade my router. I've got a [ur=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BR3ZYIW/]NETGEAR AC1600 Dual Band Wi-Fi Gigabit Router (R6250)[/url]. We bought the UK version of one of those for a guy who works in our company a few months ago. The specs looked good and he needed a permanent IPSEC VPN into work. The UK version of that Archer C2300 fitted the bill. We set it up and mailed it to him and it seems to be working well for him, so it seems like quite a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Whenever I update a container, I do: pull, stop, rm, create, start. As far as I know this is pretty much what docker-compose was built to eliminate the handwork for. Definitely odd that it would interfere with br0, though, since I just switched my server over to that (I only get one uplink but someone was in the cabinet, accidentally disconnected mine, and then plugged it into the then-unconfigured eth1 interface instead of eth0  ) and I haven't had any issues at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
It may have been that it was just getting late and I was being sloppy starting/stopping services out of tiredness. I'll try automating my dockerplex again when I'm home and see if it was human error. I'll look more into cleaner ways of pulling the latest image, as you suggest, too. I'm appreciating the space savings of running Plex in docker, too. Better than running a 20+ GB qcow2 image with Plex installed. So there's a win-win thing with space and transcoding performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
I figured out SSH from my LAN, but if I want to access my network devices from anywhere, what would I need?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:I figured out SSH from my LAN, but if I want to access my network devices from anywhere, what would I need? VPN. Don't expose ssh to the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:VPN. Don't expose ssh to the world. That’s what I figured. What’s everyone use now, OpenVPN?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:VPN. Don't expose ssh to the world. Or, do expose it on a non-standard port and using key pair authentication only. Possible use cases: a work computer that can’t/won’t install a VPN client for one reason or another
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Plus fail2ban and disable root login.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Or, do expose it on a non-standard port and using key pair authentication only. +1 for non-standard port I know everyone says "obscurity isn't security" but it saves a hell of a load of logging from lazy port-scanners. And always using key-auth only. My i350 network card arrived. Quick delivery and extremely well boxed. Anyone in the UK wanting server gear should check the guys' eBay store out. I've bookmarked him for future reference. He's called "serversetc". Link is further up thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
bobfather posted:expose it on a non-standard port and using key pair authentication only. Pablo Bluth posted:Plus fail2ban and disable root login. That and that. Bonus points if you have a firewall only responding to whitelisted subnets, MFA PAM module installed, port knocking etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Also make sure it's not LibSSH....
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Or just run OpenVPN
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Client to site VPNs are garbage and I hope they die someday soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Or, do expose it on a non-standard port and using key pair authentication only. My ACL doesn’t allow anything on the LAN that doesn’t fall under the wildcard mask. No regrets so far!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Not technically a home question, but home grade. Does anyone have experience/recommendations for inexpensive DD-WRT based routers? I've got two not mission critical 'smart' devices that I need to get online, one in a commercial kitchen and the other in a pool pump room. Neither location is wired for data, but they get wifi so bridge-mode seems like the obvious solution. Of course I fully expect that my gear will get hosed down or worse, and our budget is limited, so I'm leaning towards inexpensive travel routers so I can afford to buy a couple of spares. How bad of an idea is this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:20
|
|
Boys who love boys
|
Can you not just chuck a router of your choice into an enclosure to prevent water from being an issue?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:Not technically a home question, but home grade. Does anyone have experience/recommendations for inexpensive DD-WRT based routers? Get proper outdoor wireless gear. It's not that expensive anymore and it'll withstand the occasional wet incident. Do you know if the IoT devices support 5ghz WiFi? or are they 2.4ghz only? Get a couple of these things, which sound like they're designed to do exactly what you're trying to do, and they're weatherproof: Ubiquiti UAP-AC-M-US Unifi Mesh Access Point by Ubiquiti Networks Link: http://a.co/d/9dRnTXK CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Oct 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Get proper outdoor wireless gear. It's not that expensive anymore and it'll withstand the occasional wet incident. Do you know if the IoT devices support 5ghz WiFi? or are they 2.4ghz only? Devices are Ethernet based. We have (marginal) wifi, no wires, hence using the router as a bridge. Thanks Ants posted:Can you not just chuck a router of your choice into an enclosure to prevent water from being an issue? That's an option in the pump room, for sure. The kitchen is a cluster and the equipment location is TBD (and probably going to suck).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
If 5GHz is ok: https://mikrotik.com/product/rbomnitikg_5hacd
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:Devices are Ethernet based. We have (marginal) wifi, no wires, hence using the router as a bridge. The unifi Mesh devices I linked above will operate in a wifi mesh (that's client + AP radios) and have ethernet ports for you to plug additional client devices into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:The unifi Mesh devices I linked above will operate in a wifi mesh (that's client + AP radios) and have ethernet ports for you to plug additional client devices into. Mesh mode would be a no-go. That can be disabled, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
My router is a nearly four year old TP-Link Archer C7 V2 with the latest stock firmware. It is not asked to do much. Lately, however, on the rare occasions that my cable modem drops and reconnects from the WAN, my router's wired and wireless speed slow to a crawl. For example, using Speedtest, after a loss of connection last night my download is reduced to 2 mbps from 25 mbps. The problem is isolated to the router: directly connecting to my modem there are no issues at all. Power cycling the router seems to be the only fix. This has only become an issue in the last month and I am at a loss to explain it. Being broke, I would prefer not to buy a new router, but having to remember to reset it is also far from ideal considering it worked perfectly for years. Any ideas as to what is going on would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:Mesh mode would be a no-go. That can be disabled, right? What are you objecting to about APs forming their own wireless mesh for backhaul? What's your reasons for saying "no?" Or rather, if you're not using a WiFi mesh (wifi bridging/repeating is also a mesh), how do you expect to get data to your remote locations without running cable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Sorry, one last question for this thread. I think I've decided on the Netgear (R7000P-100NAS) Nighthawk AC2300 router. So, along with my new Docsis 3.1 modem, I should have the the external equipment to actually get most of my new gigabit internet connection. However, I'm concerned that my laptop itself is going to be the final weak link preventing me from getting at least half (500+ Mbps) of the speed I'm paying for. I've heard that both my processor and my wi-fi card could both be inhibitors, so here they are: Processor: Intel core i5-3230m @ 2.60ghz Wi-fi card: Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 I had honestly thought that if I just plugged in the ethernet cable directly, that I would be able to get close to max speeds because it would bypass the wi-fi card. However, when I connect it to the modem, I only get about 200 Mbps. That really surprised me, because Intel said that the wi-fi card could go up to 450 Mbps, so I thought that with a wired connection I would at least be getting close to that even if the wi-fi card is still somehow involved in the process. When I go into control panel > Network and internet > Network connections, it refers to the Local Area Connection (which I think is the ethernet port) as Intel(R) 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection. I don't know if that's the name of the kind of port it is, or whether that's the internal network adapter for a wired ethernet connection. If it's that, though, it seems like I should be in good shape for a gigabit wired connection with that name, right? Maybe my drivers are out-of-date? I have a Thinkpad T530; is there any workaround here other than just waiting until the next time I replace my computer? Would using this little USB ethernet adapter bypass my laptop's internals, or is that just adding an ethernet port (which it already has)? I might not even end up replacing my router if my computer is going to keep at or below 200 Mbps no matter what... Thank you all for any advice you can provide. I'm obviously a little confused about how all of this works. surf rock fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Offhand I'd say the router can't max out the connection. Also you need a minimum of a SSD to be able to sustain anything close to gigabit downloads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Offhand I'd say the router can't max out the connection. Also you need a minimum of a SSD to be able to sustain anything close to gigabit downloads. I've got a good SSD, so I think I should be set there. Also, fascinating update: I decided to poke around on Intel's site after posting the above, and I found that they did have more recent drivers for the Intel(R) 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection than what I had. So, I downloaded those (I'm not sure I did so 100% successfully, since the driver date I have is still 2016, but hey, that's better than the 2013 it was before). I also ran Windows Update and restarted the computer. After doing that, I went over and connected the laptop to the modem directly again. This time, hallelujah, I got this:  So, I'm guessing that's my top speed in terms of what my laptop can handle. I'm still kind of curious whether that $25 USB dongle thing would make it even better, but if not, this is still loving awesome. When I tried directly connecting my ethernet to the router, I got barely more than the wireless speed from it. So, I agree that my router seems to be the weak point here. If anyone's curious, I've been checking my speeds at each step of this process. Here's what I've experienced: BASELINE (wireless) 20 ping 108 Mbps download 12 Mbps upload NEW MODEM, SAME INTERNET (wired) 18 ping 160 MBps download 42 Mbps upload NEW MODEM, SAME INTERNET (wireless) 18 ping 135 Mbps download 42 Mbps upload AFTER GIGABIT ENABLED (wired) 18 ping 653 Mbps download 43 Mbps upload AFTER GIGABIT ENABLED (wireless) 19 ping 176 Mbps download 40 Mbps upload
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:What are you objecting to about APs forming their own wireless mesh for backhaul? What's your reasons for saying "no?" My dude, this isn't my home setup. The wifi is owned by wizards with longer, grayer beards than my own. The sites are already covered with APs. If I submitted a request to add a mesh router with the justification, "I'm doing YOU a favor," they would say no. Thanks for your time tho. surf rock posted:
What happens if you plug your modem directly into the Ethernet port? If your router is doing stuff (SPI firewall, media sharing, QOS) that could be the weakest link while you're pulling down gigabit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:My dude, this isn't my home setup. The wifi is owned by wizards with longer, grayer beards than my own. The sites are already covered with APs. If I submitted a request to add a mesh router with the justification, "I'm doing YOU a favor," they would say no. lol dude you began here by asking about $30 shitbox routers that can run aftermarket tweaker firmware. I'm sure your greybeards would OK that over the actual good solutions people have suggested Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:but they get wifi so bridge-mode seems like the obvious solution. Of course I fully expect that my gear will get hosed down or worse, and our budget is limited, so I'm leaning towards inexpensive travel routers... I did that with the GLi.Net AR300M I mentioned earlier to eliminate a deadspot in my parents place when we travelled there. But waterproofing it.. well it's small, does that make it easier?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
I replaced the WiFi on my FiOS router and a secondary tp-link ac1350 that was acting as an extender with a full unifi setup and weirdly, wifi connectivity and throughput is worse than it was before. Any suggestions for some tuning I could do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 13:35
|
|
