Networking challenge:

[DJ_Izumi]

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.

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. :/

[NicholasDWolfwood]

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?

[DJ_Izumi]

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.

[mckeed]

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.

[Corran]

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

[klinky]

*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