That is like saying white hats have no use. Of course his studies have a use. I know TONS about the cmts on I'm because of his studies and have been able to trouble shoot my own network issues because of it instead of running through the crappy tech support, 'Did you pull out the power and put it back in?' Instead I could be like, 'so you know. Channel 3 is down in the area right now. Could be a bad wire out on the road. You guys might want to check for power outages or issues out here. Maybe the cmts is down? And BAM I've saved myself hours of a potentially annoying and stressful phone conversation.
That is a hardware issue on your end either from a router or the modem itself. It is based on how many connections have been opened in a given amount of time (usually an hour) to a point where it crashes from a lack of ram.
Do what I do, setup an old junk comp with a distro like pfsense to use as your router and then profit!:D
"It's all about the upper limit of safe speed in average cars during marginal weather. Slower speeds are ALWAYS better for all cars in terms of safety!" wrong and wrong.
1st) Speed limits are based on engineering surveys. The eng surveys are based on the average flow of traffic (usually 80th percentile). For example, if the average flow of traffic is 75 mph then the speed limit will be 65mph. This is why in so cal freeway speed limits are 70mph and in nor cal they are 65mph. People in so cal drive faster. Speed limits are meant not to slow down the faster drivers but to speed up the slower drivers. The more everyone drives the same relative speed the safer everyone is. Also, states get paid a good chunk of cash from the federal gov based on the states max speed limit. Every 5mph over 55mph the fed cuts out a chunk of cash for that state. This is why states have a max speed limit overall and not all roads are based on the average flow of traffic. If the average flow of traffic exceeds the max state speed then instead of enforcing that speed limit the state intentionally avoids enforcing to allow people to drive freely and safely. Political BS if you ask me.
2) Speed safety does not have to do with the speed the vehicle is moving but the difference in speed based in the impact. This is why the autobahn is safer than american freeways. If you're going 100mph and someone else is going 99mph and you guys bump then it is a 1mph bump. If one person is going 65 and another is going 64 then it is still 1mph and exactly as dangerous. This is why freeways have dividers and walls to keep vehicles from hitting anything that is at a complete stand still. This is also why freeways have minimum speed limits. It is quite safe to go 150mph in a car as long as conditions permit aka weather conditions, road conditions, and of course the average flow of traffic. It is safer to go with the flow of traffic than the speed limit especially when the flow of traffic exceeds the speed limit that much more.
Yes but what happens if your network speed is dynamic?
For example, if you've got a 10megabit/s upload coming to your home but the line is saturated so at times it might bounce down to 6megabit/s for a minute or even in heavy load could go below 5megabit/s. How do you limit your upload speed to not kill your net when your upload speed is variable? Try limiting it to 5megabit/s and you'll be find but only using half of your max connection when it is available. Try limiting it to 8megabit/s and you're fine 90% of the time but still not utilizing everything properly. Also, QoS doesn't work properly because the speed is being limited via the cable modem so that isn't an option either. And finally, the auto upload max features on most bt clients have a delay so if your upload spikes down to 5megabit/s from 10 for 5 seconds your ping will jump up regardless.
uTP only utilizes what is available and does an extremely good job so if your 10megabit/s connection spikes down to 2megabit/s for half a second your ping will not even jump up for that. Currently using uTP my upload rate is bouncing all over the place in a crazy fashion yet my net is not being hit at all. It is kinda like those stop lights on freeway on ramps to keep to many vehicles from entering the freeway at once. The effect works really well in my particular case.
I've been using uTP for a couple of months now and I have to say it is excellent and is working for me quite well.
However, since uTorrent is backwards compatible with the original TCP bit torrent protocol the second I start sending to a client that doesn't support uTP my ping jumps from 20 to 200 or i have to go back to manually limiting my upload rate. Regardless, uTP works.
Win2k has go to be my favorite MS OS of all time. It is stable, runs everything flawlessly for the most part, is low on system resources for the most part, and basically it just works. What is there to hate?
So why did the mass market go with XP then? My opinion matters very little it seems especially when the market does not agree with me.
I'm sure everyone reading this knows that for the most part XP is nothing but a gui overhal from win2k. There is little to no difference except XP consumes much more ram than 2k because of the gui.
So here I am conflicted again for the exact same reason when it comes to Vista and 7. 7 is like the 2k and Vista is like the XP. If your system matches spec then both will benchmark nearly identical in every way.
So why are people so hyped up about 7? Do all consumers seem to care about is the GUI? It drives me nuts! I can understand that if you have 2gigs of ram or less 7 will perform better but other than that is there really that much of a difference? How can the mass market hate one thing while loving another yet they are both one in the same just wearing a different skin.
This whole situation makes me want to yell hypocrite for anyone who hates vista but loves 7. The catch is I love 7 and hate vista myself...
They do not want to fork out the extra cash for something that is arguably better. They just want to pay as little as they can for what they need. This is why MS has such a large fan base.
Unless a distro like ubuntu becomes as user friendly as Windows nothing is going to change. The mass consumer market doesn't care about the kernel of their OS or if it saves them a second on a load time. They just want that cheap instant gratification that is so American. If they took the time to learn how to use another OS then it might be different but that isn't the culture we have today.
I hate to break it to you but MS is not on its way out any time soon.
I admit, I haven't followed the news closely enough under the subject but I believe the text-to-speech feature in the kindle was removed because the MPAA wanted royalties for the feature? Arguably, this is the same situation legally as a teacher reading a book to their class.
After reading the story all I can find is speculation. Is there any facts present that this actually reduces radio frequencies? And if so what is the frequency range?
I want to know the range because currently inside of my vehicle I pick up a lot of 34.7 ghz and the last thing I want is to have my windows reduce those signals. Buying a good external antenna costs a lot.
So, does anyone know the freq range? Does this news story have any facts present at all to it?
It is a little over $450k total. Scroll up on this page to the thread 'Write your congresscritters!' and then look down it. All of the info you're looking for has already been added.
The lawmakers are not recognizing this. They are being paid off mainly be AT&T to argue in big business' favor. If a politician in my current district of residence tried that shit they would not get reelected.
This is much more about greed and politics than it is about net neutrality.
Think of it like this: You want to thread your code if possible to make it productive. You also want your code to be designed for the future. Today most computers might have 2 to 4 cores but 5 years from now it might be 32 cores. Because of this you make your program have tons of threads. Now your know your code is ready for multi core and for the future!
The problem is threads have a very large overhead. As I see it (and I'm not an expert) it isn't much processing overhead but more memory overhead. This is why in the last couple of years cpus have had giant caches. That way it can hold all of that thread data. If your cpu needs to swap data around because it is cluttered with thread overhead then it looses efficiency and can easily turn into a slug compared to what it can be. Look at Vuze (Azureus) for example. It has approx 220 to 260 threads at any given time. I'm on a core 2 duo. Why doesn't it have 2 threads? 260 threads just overwhelms any current cpu to the point where people bitch about it and move to an alternative like torrent(utorrent). If those 260 threads where queues then on my core 2 duo it would probably be 2 threads total for every program running on the system using GCD. No extra bloated overhead. If I was on a 32 core system then it would most likely be 32 threads. GCD manages tons of queues into a thread.
It is not only far more productive to do this but the developer does not have to worry about restricting his or herself when it comes to splitting the tasks up.
I personally haven't used openMP before so my level of ignorance is high but is openMP dead? Not because of grand central but because of openCL. Doesn't openCL take everything in openMP and allow the dev to work with more than just CPUs?
I know I'm being a bit offtopic here but seriously: Is there any reason to use openMP any more now that openCL exists?
with mlppp you have one external IP address. This is not multi wans going out but more 2 pipes going out of your house to the same ISP which then goes out from your ISP as one IP like having a fatter pipeline.
I use pfSense too for my multi wan needs and it really is a wonderful distro imho.
However, there is a difference between grabbing a bunch of wans and throwing them together vs linking them together like one giant pipe. I'm not completely sure what the author is trying to do but if this person wants the multi lane freeway approach instead of multiple separate parallel roads than pfSense does not currently support protocols such as mlppp and may not be what they are looking for.
However, if the person wants to hack it a bit then theoretically it could be done since pfSense is built on freebsd (i believe) which does support mlppp. However, one might ask why do that when you could install freebsd on the box instead of pfSense and do the same thing with the same amount of work?
Looking around on the net all I can find is 6 users complaining about this. Since the issue is so rare it can not be reproduced easily and therefor will be hard to fix, if it is a real issue at all.
Isn't it amazing when 1 or 2 people complain about something today it is immediately news?
Don't get me wrong. If it is an issue it does need to be fixed. It is important for that alone but regardless I'm sure there will be more news articles about this issue than actual people effected in the end.
I'd mod you up if I could. This is an extremely informative post and is the reason I am currently using a full computer (using pfSense atm) for my routing needs.
Are you sure broadcom is still less than gigabit throughput? I mean, broadcom is a company not a product and it sounds like you're mentioning one individual chip not an entire line up. For example. the BCM4718.. you think it can handle full gigabit duplex?
When N is final spec retail and I can find a router that will run tomato gigabit + N with the hardware and usb to support squid proxy caching as well as anything else I want to do then I will buy but honestly I haven't found a router that matches that criteria successfully yet. Maybe I should splurge and build an x86 board and be done with it. I like pfSense as much as I like tomato.
Slashdot Mirror
The equipment you modify is bought by you for you not from an ISP.
That is like saying white hats have no use. Of course his studies have a use. I know TONS about the cmts on I'm because of his studies and have been able to trouble shoot my own network issues because of it instead of running through the crappy tech support, 'Did you pull out the power and put it back in?' Instead I could be like, 'so you know. Channel 3 is down in the area right now. Could be a bad wire out on the road. You guys might want to check for power outages or issues out here. Maybe the cmts is down? And BAM I've saved myself hours of a potentially annoying and stressful phone conversation.
That is a hardware issue on your end either from a router or the modem itself. It is based on how many connections have been opened in a given amount of time (usually an hour) to a point where it crashes from a lack of ram.
Do what I do, setup an old junk comp with a distro like pfsense to use as your router and then profit! :D
"It's all about the upper limit of safe speed in average cars during marginal weather. Slower speeds are ALWAYS better for all cars in terms of safety!"
wrong and wrong.
1st) Speed limits are based on engineering surveys. The eng surveys are based on the average flow of traffic (usually 80th percentile). For example, if the average flow of traffic is 75 mph then the speed limit will be 65mph. This is why in so cal freeway speed limits are 70mph and in nor cal they are 65mph. People in so cal drive faster. Speed limits are meant not to slow down the faster drivers but to speed up the slower drivers. The more everyone drives the same relative speed the safer everyone is. Also, states get paid a good chunk of cash from the federal gov based on the states max speed limit. Every 5mph over 55mph the fed cuts out a chunk of cash for that state. This is why states have a max speed limit overall and not all roads are based on the average flow of traffic. If the average flow of traffic exceeds the max state speed then instead of enforcing that speed limit the state intentionally avoids enforcing to allow people to drive freely and safely. Political BS if you ask me.
2) Speed safety does not have to do with the speed the vehicle is moving but the difference in speed based in the impact. This is why the autobahn is safer than american freeways. If you're going 100mph and someone else is going 99mph and you guys bump then it is a 1mph bump. If one person is going 65 and another is going 64 then it is still 1mph and exactly as dangerous. This is why freeways have dividers and walls to keep vehicles from hitting anything that is at a complete stand still. This is also why freeways have minimum speed limits. It is quite safe to go 150mph in a car as long as conditions permit aka weather conditions, road conditions, and of course the average flow of traffic. It is safer to go with the flow of traffic than the speed limit especially when the flow of traffic exceeds the speed limit that much more.
Yes but what happens if your network speed is dynamic?
For example, if you've got a 10megabit/s upload coming to your home but the line is saturated so at times it might bounce down to 6megabit/s for a minute or even in heavy load could go below 5megabit/s. How do you limit your upload speed to not kill your net when your upload speed is variable? Try limiting it to 5megabit/s and you'll be find but only using half of your max connection when it is available. Try limiting it to 8megabit/s and you're fine 90% of the time but still not utilizing everything properly. Also, QoS doesn't work properly because the speed is being limited via the cable modem so that isn't an option either. And finally, the auto upload max features on most bt clients have a delay so if your upload spikes down to 5megabit/s from 10 for 5 seconds your ping will jump up regardless.
uTP only utilizes what is available and does an extremely good job so if your 10megabit/s connection spikes down to 2megabit/s for half a second your ping will not even jump up for that. Currently using uTP my upload rate is bouncing all over the place in a crazy fashion yet my net is not being hit at all. It is kinda like those stop lights on freeway on ramps to keep to many vehicles from entering the freeway at once. The effect works really well in my particular case.
I've been using uTP for a couple of months now and I have to say it is excellent and is working for me quite well.
However, since uTorrent is backwards compatible with the original TCP bit torrent protocol the second I start sending to a client that doesn't support uTP my ping jumps from 20 to 200 or i have to go back to manually limiting my upload rate. Regardless, uTP works.
Personally, I'm biased towards Debian so I'd recommend DSL. It even has a gui, if you want one! ^_^
The only issue I see is you have to make the floppy disks version from an ISO since it is not distributed standard as a floppy disk set.
Here is a tutorial to get DSL installed with floppy disks: http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/install_from_floppy.html
Win2k has go to be my favorite MS OS of all time. It is stable, runs everything flawlessly for the most part, is low on system resources for the most part, and basically it just works. What is there to hate?
So why did the mass market go with XP then? My opinion matters very little it seems especially when the market does not agree with me.
I'm sure everyone reading this knows that for the most part XP is nothing but a gui overhal from win2k. There is little to no difference except XP consumes much more ram than 2k because of the gui.
So here I am conflicted again for the exact same reason when it comes to Vista and 7. 7 is like the 2k and Vista is like the XP. If your system matches spec then both will benchmark nearly identical in every way.
So why are people so hyped up about 7? Do all consumers seem to care about is the GUI? It drives me nuts! I can understand that if you have 2gigs of ram or less 7 will perform better but other than that is there really that much of a difference? How can the mass market hate one thing while loving another yet they are both one in the same just wearing a different skin.
This whole situation makes me want to yell hypocrite for anyone who hates vista but loves 7. The catch is I love 7 and hate vista myself...
People are cheap basterds. (There I said it!)
They do not want to fork out the extra cash for something that is arguably better. They just want to pay as little as they can for what they need. This is why MS has such a large fan base.
Unless a distro like ubuntu becomes as user friendly as Windows nothing is going to change. The mass consumer market doesn't care about the kernel of their OS or if it saves them a second on a load time. They just want that cheap instant gratification that is so American. If they took the time to learn how to use another OS then it might be different but that isn't the culture we have today.
I hate to break it to you but MS is not on its way out any time soon.
Profit!!
You can do the same with a computer. Why haven't the RIAA gone after text-to-speech elsewhere for the same reason then?
woops! I hadn't slept for over 24 hours when I wrote that comment so yah..
Hasn't this already happened with the Kindle?
I admit, I haven't followed the news closely enough under the subject but I believe the text-to-speech feature in the kindle was removed because the MPAA wanted royalties for the feature? Arguably, this is the same situation legally as a teacher reading a book to their class.
After reading the story all I can find is speculation. Is there any facts present that this actually reduces radio frequencies? And if so what is the frequency range?
I want to know the range because currently inside of my vehicle I pick up a lot of 34.7 ghz and the last thing I want is to have my windows reduce those signals. Buying a good external antenna costs a lot.
So, does anyone know the freq range? Does this news story have any facts present at all to it?
It is a little over $450k total. Scroll up on this page to the thread 'Write your congresscritters!' and then look down it. All of the info you're looking for has already been added.
The lawmakers are not recognizing this. They are being paid off mainly be AT&T to argue in big business' favor. If a politician in my current district of residence tried that shit they would not get reelected.
This is much more about greed and politics than it is about net neutrality.
Think of it like this: You want to thread your code if possible to make it productive. You also want your code to be designed for the future. Today most computers might have 2 to 4 cores but 5 years from now it might be 32 cores. Because of this you make your program have tons of threads. Now your know your code is ready for multi core and for the future!
The problem is threads have a very large overhead. As I see it (and I'm not an expert) it isn't much processing overhead but more memory overhead. This is why in the last couple of years cpus have had giant caches. That way it can hold all of that thread data. If your cpu needs to swap data around because it is cluttered with thread overhead then it looses efficiency and can easily turn into a slug compared to what it can be. Look at Vuze (Azureus) for example. It has approx 220 to 260 threads at any given time. I'm on a core 2 duo. Why doesn't it have 2 threads? 260 threads just overwhelms any current cpu to the point where people bitch about it and move to an alternative like torrent(utorrent). If those 260 threads where queues then on my core 2 duo it would probably be 2 threads total for every program running on the system using GCD. No extra bloated overhead. If I was on a 32 core system then it would most likely be 32 threads. GCD manages tons of queues into a thread.
It is not only far more productive to do this but the developer does not have to worry about restricting his or herself when it comes to splitting the tasks up.
I personally haven't used openMP before so my level of ignorance is high but is openMP dead? Not because of grand central but because of openCL. Doesn't openCL take everything in openMP and allow the dev to work with more than just CPUs?
I know I'm being a bit offtopic here but seriously: Is there any reason to use openMP any more now that openCL exists?
with mlppp you have one external IP address. This is not multi wans going out but more 2 pipes going out of your house to the same ISP which then goes out from your ISP as one IP like having a fatter pipeline.
Does it really matter why?
Seriously, why can't people mind their own business for once?
Questioning something because there is no reason people should have it there or because it isn't 'normal' for people to have it is absurd.
I use pfSense too for my multi wan needs and it really is a wonderful distro imho.
However, there is a difference between grabbing a bunch of wans and throwing them together vs linking them together like one giant pipe. I'm not completely sure what the author is trying to do but if this person wants the multi lane freeway approach instead of multiple separate parallel roads than pfSense does not currently support protocols such as mlppp and may not be what they are looking for.
However, if the person wants to hack it a bit then theoretically it could be done since pfSense is built on freebsd (i believe) which does support mlppp. However, one might ask why do that when you could install freebsd on the box instead of pfSense and do the same thing with the same amount of work?
The cheapest way to do this is use the mlppp version of tomato on a wrt type router. You can check it out here: http://fixppp.org/
TI isn't trying to stop the hack. They're trying to stop the publishing of the instructions of how to do the hack. Different discussion.
Is it just me or does the first amendment come to mind for this particular situation?
Looking around on the net all I can find is 6 users complaining about this. Since the issue is so rare it can not be reproduced easily and therefor will be hard to fix, if it is a real issue at all.
Isn't it amazing when 1 or 2 people complain about something today it is immediately news?
Don't get me wrong. If it is an issue it does need to be fixed. It is important for that alone but regardless I'm sure there will be more news articles about this issue than actual people effected in the end.
I'd mod you up if I could. This is an extremely informative post and is the reason I am currently using a full computer (using pfSense atm) for my routing needs.
Are you sure broadcom is still less than gigabit throughput? I mean, broadcom is a company not a product and it sounds like you're mentioning one individual chip not an entire line up. For example. the BCM4718.. you think it can handle full gigabit duplex?
When N is final spec retail and I can find a router that will run tomato gigabit + N with the hardware and usb to support squid proxy caching as well as anything else I want to do then I will buy but honestly I haven't found a router that matches that criteria successfully yet. Maybe I should splurge and build an x86 board and be done with it. I like pfSense as much as I like tomato.