|
string nonIdjitContentOnTheWeb = string.Empty;
Console.WriteLine(nonIdjitContentOnTheWeb); Done 
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to read your post but I have this new app installed that blocked it. What did I miss?
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
To answser your question ... please configure your app properly ... 
|
|
|
|
|
A rest at the end of the town, stranger! (5)
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Alien?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Are you asking me? 
Yes!
Your turn tomorrow...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Solution?
Dont matter, I got it....
a rest = a lie
end of "town" = n
|
|
|
|
|
At work, I leave router installation to the IT group; I just plug my PC into the socket.
At home, I bought a home router years ago, expecting to have several PCs online. That never came to, so it has essentially been sitting on my shelf until the Corona crisis, when online meetings required my "big" PC to share the fiber connection with the portable (that has a camera).
I discovered that my download speed when going through the router, even with the portable completely disconnected, was reduced from slightly above 100 Mbps to around 30 Mbps. For plain browsing, that is certainly "enough".
Yet I am curious: Is the maximum speed of 30 Mbps (as least on a single connection - maybe two PCs could have 30 Mbps each) due to an outdated router - a 3Com OfficeConnect 3CR858-91? Or are newer, "cheap" home routers similar? Modern routers handle at least 1 Gbps, but will they provide that speed on a single connection, or is the router a bottleneck for getting the max speed on a single connection, similar to what I experience?
I am obviousluy not talking about routers run by ISPs, but about cheap home routers. And I am certainly not going to replace my current one just get 100 Mbps speed on a single connection. (I did take the router out of the loop when I were making some really huge file transfers; that took me about ten seconds to switch the plugs.) So I am asking out of pure curiousity, what to you get in El Cheapo equipment today, in real, measured speed, as opposed to technical specs?
|
|
|
|
|
Check your WiFi setup and the router location - it may be your slow router is set to only the "slower" protocols. If it was only providing 802.11b then you'd be limited to 11Mbps max. For 2.4Ghz WiFi you want to be using 802.11g (54 Mbps) or better 802.11n (300 Mbps), but even the later is only 30MBps.
Check what channel neighbors are using - find the "emptiest) and grab that. The more "congested" a channel, then slower your transfers.
Location, location, location: for best performance, your router and device need to be in the same horizontal plane, or nearly - the WiFi field is a thick disk, not a sphere or half sphere, so the room above the routers will get a rubbish WiFi signal. Thick walls, big chunks of metal, all are bad ideas between you are the router, as are big chunks of metal near you! Moving from the lounge to the kitchen in this house drops the WiFi to near nothing, because the wall between then is 18 inches of solid granite!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
WiFi should not affect LAN, and I think he is complaining about the speed on cable. But I am not 100% sure as I get sometimes lost in his messages.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
It will most definitely affect throughput for all devices that use it. That's why all of my computers are hard-wired. Only my phones and ipads use wireless.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: That's why all of my computers are hard-wired. Only my phones and ipads use wireless.
Same here. Ocasionally a Lappie that leaves the docking station to do things in other room.
#realJSOP wrote: It will most definitely affect throughput for all devices that use it.
Yes, but it should actually be the same effects as connecting two or four pcs to the lan ports.
Connecting the WiFi per se, without devices using it should actually be as a free slot in the LAN port, meaning the full available bandwidth to the channel that is being used.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: I am not 100% sure as I get sometimes lost in his messages.
You are right - I am not that good at oneliners.
I like to make sure that people get the necessary background - e.g. mentioning the router model, referring to "switching the plugs" etc., to make sure that people relate to my "real" question, not to something else. But that doesn't seem to work nowadays; what you can't cram into a oneliner will get lost on a lot of people. Too bad.
I sometimes pick up textbooks from my college days and earlier: There may be pages in a row with nothing but textual descriptions and details. Even I have to concentrate to read them. Most modern "readers" would be completely lost, and couldn't learn anything from such books. If we experience a total Internet breakdown and have to return to fifty and hundred year old texts to learn about math, physics and other sciences, we would probably return to stone age life within a few years. The textbooks would not be able to help us avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong. I do like that you give the data and I am not against the length of your posts. (I myself get often blamed of being to verbose too).
It is just... Your vocabulary, it is sometimes more cultivated than I can understand (I am not native speaker). And something in the way you describe some topics what gets me lost.
I remember your posts about that topic of lockdown and how to plan a house to be autosuficient... they were pretty long, but I could follow them without problems. I even bookmarked them because there were points I hadn't thought about an I want to re-read your posts when I start my own plans (although I am starting to think better to do a copy paste in an offline doc, just in case)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: I just saw that my answer is not really what you were asking for, so you can ignore it. Sorry for the offtopic
I get exactly what I paid with a provider router connected to coaxial cable. Giving 4 LAN and 2x WiFi types (2.4 and 5 GHz).
First day I checked the WiFi settings, saw how many neighbours were using WiFi and which Channels. Selected another channel (being used less and a bit out of the typical standards).
Done.
No problems at all.
As the router is not bought but a rent-it model, I open a technical issue every time to time to get a replacement. I export my settings, change device, let first run to initialize with priveder defaults, import my settings again. In 1,5 to 2 hours, running as usual.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 15-Jul-20 5:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yay! The first time I can share something!
For the wired side, routers have a WAN-to-LAN throughput rating that I ran across years ago using the old WRT54G routers. Some of the earlier ones had terrible throughput, but later revisions were the way to go.
Back then, I found SmallNetBuilder had a nice chart of their test results. I looked for my example WRT54Gs and I didn't see any. I also didn't see anything about your 3Com.
If you do end up shopping for a new router, check out your prospective replacement on that chart.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: So I am asking out of pure curiousity, what to you get in El Cheapo equipment today, in real, measured speed, as opposed to technical specs?
In general, I can get close to spec on modern equipment. Certainly fast enough to handle anything I need.
I have a wired desktop I use for most things. On wireless I have 3 laptops (mine, wife, work), 2 phones, 2 Roku, and 1 Kindle. The ISP is Spectrum via cable and I'm paying for the average service. My router is about 2/3 of the way on the scale of worst to best for a home router (above average), and we have no throughput problems.
However, the caveat is that a connection is only as fast as the slowest segment between the end points. So for mainstream sites, I get very good throughput. For sites in the hinterlands? Not so much.
I looked up your router -- it was first released in July 2004. Given how router technology has changed since then, I'm not surprised at your results.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote:
Yet I am curious: Is the maximum speed of 30 Mbps (as least on a single connection - maybe two PCs could have 30 Mbps each) due to an outdated router
Yes, it can be. That router is old and probably only has a single core, single thread CPU and may not be able to handle the load. Keep in mind that the router must simultaneously handle your transfers, firewall (if it has one), scheduling tasks (like updating DNS and routing tables), etc.
But are a lot more variables at play. As an example, it makes some difference if the four LAN ports are internally built as a switch, a hub, or have independent connections with independent physical layer chips. If they are using a hub, bandwidth and speed take a hit since each port will have to be checked from time to time only to see if there is a cable connected.
Also, the OSI layer at which your transfer is occurring has an impact. The higher the layer, more headers the router must unpack to find the destination and other information about each packet.
Worst case scenario, your router could also be under attack when you tested and was busy defending itself.
However, most likely, being a very cheap router, is that the manufacturer tricked you with claims that it is a 100Mbps router when, in fact, that is the burst speed it is capable of. The sustained connection speed is much smaller and, in your case, seems to be 30Mbps for a single connection.
If your transfer is to/from the internet just be patient and use the router, it will be at least marginally safer to your computer if something goes bad.
If your transfer is between two devices inside your network, just take the router out of the equation. Transfers will go faster as you found out.
Best regards
|
|
|
|
|
THAT is an old router. Many of those older routers had a max throughput of 30Mbps (on the bus!) and I suspect you are going to find it will never get past that max speed.
To utilize your 100Mbps, I would suggest a new router ( gigabit speeds) which will serve you far better.
|
|
|
|
|
I see others have replied that it could be an older router. I wanted to add that I've seen this issue on newer routers too, due to bad QOS settings.
Many routers have QOS settings these days, and some automatically determine your max bandwidth, and others you have to put in manually. I've seen this when you put in a manual bandwidth number that is lower than your actual bandwidth.
I found this out when I enrolled in a higher teir with more bandwidth, but my speed tests weren't showing the increase. Had to fix it to the the new tier and presto. Or turning off QOS all together will fix the problem too.
|
|
|
|
|
I had something similar happen a couple of years ago, except I had a slightly different setup - Netgear router and 3Com OfficeConnect gigabit switch. Three PC's, two servers & printer plugged into the 3Com switch.
One day the wife starts complaining about lousy internet speeds. My PC and servers OK. A few days later I started seeing the same problem. Reboot things, seems OK, then over a couple of days goes west again, to the point that it's unusable. Replugged things into the router and presto! All good. Replugged back to the 3Com switch and once again speeds are woeful.
Replugged back to the router and gently retired the 3Com switch to the recycle bin. I wouldn't mind betting your OfficeConnect thing is sick.
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I've read several times in the Internet that carrier companies routers are terrible and that having a proper router improves a lot of things.
Lately I've got a problem due to my carrier restoring factory defaults at my router remotely (without noticing me of course) and I've lost access to several remote options that I had configured.
All up and running again, but it made me think on those reads in the past.
I could get a router and install it in my office, but my question is the following one: my carrier installed a router that connects to a coaxial cable and most of the routers out there connect only through an ethernet cable...
Said that I've seen some tutorials were the new router is connected to the old one... 
If I have to connect the new router to the old one... how all the port routes and other configurations work? Is there a proper way to set all that up? I mean, I would like to avoid my carrier to leave me out of my server again.
Thank you all for your comments!
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
In your case, your problem would be very probably happening again if your provider screw your setting again.
No matter if router in the middle or not.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to free yourself from your ISP, you need to get a cable model that is JUST a modem, and get your own router.
This has three benefits:
0) Your ISP can't change your router's settings any more (you have to properly configure the router of course).
1) You can buy a MUCH better router than the piece of crap that your ISP rented to you.
2) You can use different DNS servers - your ISP tracks your activity because your current cable modem/router is configured to use the ISPs DNS servers (and most of the time, you can't change this setting).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Check if your carrier supplied router supports "Modem Mode", this makes it behave as just a modem, without any routing etc, and just one RJ45 connection will work on it.
Then you connect your own router to that one RJ45.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
