Networking challenge:

This forum is for help with and discussion about your video hardware.

Postby klinky » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:01 am

Right but you guys have to count in if there is a cap on the line. The cable line could handle way more than 1.5Mbit/256Kbit. So if you have a cap on your cable line this could help, but if you don't then it is useless...
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Postby Corran » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:13 am

klinky wrote:Right but you guys have to count in if there is a cap on the line. The cable line could handle way more than 1.5Mbit/256Kbit. So if you have a cap on your cable line this could help, but if you don't then it is useless...


-_- except they would be on the same cable which means the same port at the cable provider's end. The port itself is probally capped at a DS-1 rate...
User avatar
Corran
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2002

Postby mckeed » Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:15 am

Well, that might not be exactly true since most cable companies cap their modems at a certain speed. It is is any less than the full bandwitdth then she will get some benifit. It all depends on how anal her cable provider is.
"People can not gain anything without putting forth any effort. That is the absolute Truth" - Dante, Full Metal Alchemist
Image
User avatar
mckeed
 
Joined: 15 May 2001
Location: Troy, NY

Postby DJ_Izumi » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:10 pm

jbone wrote:Izumi, you've missed a major point:


No, you're missing a major point you gnat.

Most every ISP in North America dosn't allow their systems to operate at full speed, they're call capped. Ever notice how many ISPs will let you pay for faster internet but you use the same modem? Each modem is just assigned a limit. Now, should both modems be operating at their maximum capacity, you'd be right... Of course, if both modems were operating at maximum capacity... *checks* Which is 40mbit down and 10mbit up. Now, if I had a 40/10mbit connection, I wouldn't be complaining... In fact I'd be able to blast HOLES into the internet with my computer.

I have SEEN three cable modems operating from same cable line from my ISP on three seperate computers, all getting the same maximum speed (Which was 250KBps up and 45KBps down)

While my ISP may be inept enough to give me 18 months of free cable internet and a free cable modem when I asked for disconnection, they are not corrupt enough to un-cap me for a fee. So this was hoped to be plan B, two cable modems bith using their cap to the max to get a higher speed.

But thanks for standing up to be proven wrong jBone. :)
Image
User avatar
DJ_Izumi
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2001
Location: Canada

Postby NicholasDWolfwood » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:35 pm

Izumi, you're missing a major point.

What you planned will not work.

Once you put the modems on the lines, it WON'T REACH MAXIMUM CAP.

The signal get's weaker when you put more than one cable modem on the line. Unless there's some different cable modem lining system in Canada *snicker*

AFAIK, all cable modems use a Coax cable to connect...these cables can only be pushed so far. Splitting the signal makes both modems weaker by ~50%. 50% + 50% = 100%

Therefore, the cap will STILL be 250KBps up and 45KBps down.
Image
User avatar
NicholasDWolfwood
 
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Location: New Jersey, US

Postby DJ_Izumi » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:38 pm

NicholasDWolfwood wrote:Izumi, you're missing a major point.

What you planned will not work.

Once you put the modems on the lines, it WON'T REACH MAXIMUM CAP.


DJ_Izumi wrote:I have SEEN three cable modems operating from same cable line from my ISP on three seperate computers, all getting the same maximum speed (Which was 250KBps up and 45KBps down


Is there a literacy problem here? I said it WORKS, all three PCs were getting 250 down and 45 up indivually, meaning we simultaniously had 750KBps comming in and 135KBps going out. It's NOT an issue there. The issue is trying to find a way to get a single PC to load balance the connections, and the only thing I know that'll do it is a bulky server OS. :/
Image
User avatar
DJ_Izumi
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2001
Location: Canada

Postby NicholasDWolfwood » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:43 pm

Are you sure?

My download is a 160KiloBYTE download. I get 300+ kb/s on downloads. 300+ KILOBYTES PER SECOND. When the cap is 160kbytes.

Let me reiterate:

Are you absolutely SURE it's a 250bkytes/second download * 3 for 750 kilobytes?
Image
User avatar
NicholasDWolfwood
 
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Location: New Jersey, US

Postby DJ_Izumi » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:47 pm

It was 250KBps comming down for each, not Kbps, Two Hundred And Fifty Kilobytes Per Second.

Okay, it actually bounced between 235 and 255, but the mean average was about 248KBps... But YES, it worked.

The only issue with a weak signal is that if the signal is to weak it can't establish a service connection. That's at about 5db it starts going to hell here.
Image
User avatar
DJ_Izumi
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2001
Location: Canada

Postby mckeed » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:20 pm

The server OS isn't going to solve your problem either. Cause even that machine won't be able to use the two connections like you want due to the IP protocol itself. It can load balance, but not for the computer that the loadbalancing is happening on. The way the IP header is structured won't allow a computer to have the same session spit over multiple IP's. Multicasting is different as you send the same information to all users who are part of that multicasting session. Which is why you need an intermediary in the form of a server or router. In the end the IP protcol is set up to be sent to only one IP address as its destination. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do what you want just by changing the OS on the one machine which is conncted to both connections cause you still have two IP's assigned to that server. The other machines that would be connected to that machine can however, which is why i keep suggesting the router in my earlier post as then the machine that needs the performance has one IP address and the router will just have more options as to which link to send the packets and you won't break the IP protocol this way. Trust me on this. It is the only solution that will guarentee maximum compatibility with the rest of the world.
"People can not gain anything without putting forth any effort. That is the absolute Truth" - Dante, Full Metal Alchemist
Image
User avatar
mckeed
 
Joined: 15 May 2001
Location: Troy, NY

Postby Corran » Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:47 pm

Forgive my post earlier. -_-;; I work with cisco routers and switches. Broadband is a totally different story. I just found out that the bandwidth cap is based on a config file that is downloaded from the service provider everytime the router starts up.


Id would go with Mckeed's link on this on.

Here is a more expensive one but I doubt you need something with this many ports and configuration capabilties. http://pcmag.pricegrabber.com/search_ge ... 2b162f8446
User avatar
Corran
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2002

Postby klinky » Tue Jan 06, 2004 10:52 pm

*shines his comcast/attbi CU badge around* ^_^ I worked for them once and became suicidal... ^_^


nar..

I am no expert on it, but as Corran said there is a config file downloaded to the modem to cap the line.

The cable lines can hit pretty damn high rates, something around 30mbits down /10mbits up. If Izumi was having problems acheiving his capped rate, this would not help. But if the current rate is being maxed, then adding another modem would not actually weaken the signal terriably. There are alot of roomate setups out there with two/three people using the same cable line for internet service and all receiving max speed. So two modems does not effectively cut the signal strength in half. It's just like if you split the cable going to your TV, your channels don't suddenly come in looking half as good. They may look a bit worse, but usually line checks/filters can resolve the problem.

>_> <_<... Anyways, yes it could work, but I don't think it's worthwhile...

-Klinky
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Previous

Return to Video Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest