notmybest2day

I have a Linksys WRT54G ver.8 router with most recent firmware and every so often it acts up and does strange things. When I pull 10-50gb through it over a week or so, the signal strength goes from ~60% to disconnected in about 20 seconds and then comes back after 1-4 minutes. It will hold at ~60% for a few minutes and do it again. Eventually, it stops doing the cycle and just never comes back. Using Kismet in Backtrack 2, the AP shows up as a probed network, but it never shows up in the list. The AP still broadcasts beacons which contain the ESSID and MAC, but never a channel. The only fix is a quick power cycle. I thought maybe it just needed a reboot, so when it starts acting up with the signal drop, I can't access the web interface anymore. It just instantly says "done" and is a blank page, so there's no soft reset over the network, I have to physically go and pull the power and plug it back in. This made me think of something else that I have yet to find any information on (which leads me to believe it is not true..or at least hasn't been documented yet). Is it possible to fry the transmitter half of an AP via heavy load over a long period of time?

Follow up: I have a spare laptop HDD that has a load of XP Pro SP2 and I haven't installed any updates to it at all, and this is what I got: So I think that confirms it. One of the "recent" (meaning in the past six months) updates hosed everything up. So, it wasn't the router afterall.

Well I finally got around to hooking the modem directly up to my laptop since that's the only system I don't really care about if a malicious attack and loads of spyware comes in in the 15 minutes I had it booted up. The results are somewhat surprising, yet expected at the same time. Windows: Linux: So yes, Windows did speed up a little bit, but that's still nowhere near the 6.4 I got a few months ago. That must mean one of the hotfixes/critical updates hosed everything up, and I really don't feel like figuring out which one did it. I'll just use Linux for all my big downloads anyway. Even with a 10mbit WAN port on the router, I still get the speed in my sig.

This one kind of irked me that Microsoft didn't release a patch for anything less than XP SP2 even though 2000 is still actively supported. However, without searching the Internet, I found out how to "teach" Windows the new DST rules without that silly patch. It's just three registry entries. Start > run > regedit Navigate to HK_LOCAL_MACHINE > Software > Microsoft > Windows NT > TimeZoneInformation > Eastern Standard Time (or this can be whichever zone you're in) In there, double-click on the Binary entry named "TZI". In there, you'll notice that there's part that has this information: .. 0a 00 00 00 05 00 02 .. and .. 04 00 00 00 01 00 02 .. Those are the old rules: 10th month (that's an 'a' in hex), 5th sunday, at hour 2 (of 24) and 4th month, 1st sunday at hour 2. Just change those values to read 0b 00 00 00 01 00 02 and 03 00 00 00 02 00 02. All you need to do is change the 'a' to a 'b', and that is done by putting the cursor to the left of the 0a set and pressing the delete key once (this will get rid of both characters), and enter in '0b', then change the week from 05 to 01. Same goes for the second half. Not done yet though. Navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > System > CurrentControlSet > Control > TimeZoneInformation and there's two keys: "StandardStart" and "DaylightStart". Those need to be modified the same as above. Once you're done, reboot and you're updated. Hope this helps some people out there. I knew there had to be a way to do it. Since it's just a simple registry fix, I don't know why Microsoft didn't release some patch for it. It's not like half the OS needed to be rewritten or anything. They did, however, tell people using 2000 to go download a tool from them called TZEdit, which is supposed to do the same thing, but it didn't work for me. Modifying the registry without knowing what I was doing at first worked. *shrug* Go figure.

I'm pretty happy with my setup: Asus KFN5-D SLI (dual socket F, 8 DDR2 memory banks, 8 SATA 3.0 headers) AMD Opteron 2210 (Santa Rosa core, 1.8GHz, L1: (64k + 64k) x 2, L2: 1Mb x 2) 2 x Kingston DDR2-667 (PC2-5300) ECC Registered 1Gb (KVR667D2D8P5/1G) Gigabyte 6600GT 16x PCI-e (500/1000) 256mb GDDR3 Rosewill 600w PSU (RD600-2DB-SL) HDDs: All WD: 40,80,120,200,320,500 (all IDE except the 500, which is an RE2) Benq DW1640 DVD+RW When I get more money, I'm getting the second Opty and two GB more RAM. Board will go to 32gb. I don't know how high I'll go. I use Linux a lot, so that'll read it all, but there's a line in boot.ini that I need to add for 2000 Pro to basically limit it to 4gb when I have more than that. It was something I read somewhere, but come to think of it, I think that was just for hibernate, which I don't use. Yep. Rig is pretty fast. I love it. I don't really play any games, so it does what I need it to, hence the 6600GT.

A lot of people using older computers shouldn't even be using XP at all, but since that's the market standard and more and more software applications are requiring at least SP1 (I'm thinking about my Creative Zen Vision:M again..), a lot of people are almost forced to get it. There was a guy in my Cisco CCNA class that worked for the IT department of some company, and they were all still on SP1 because when they went SP2, 90% of their software didn't work anymore. SP2 isn't just a roll-up of security patches and updates, it's almost a complete overhaul of XP, and they really tightened down the security of it. That's why when you download a file, you have to click OK or Run several times, whereas before, it just took one click. Along with the added security, functionality on a lot of older applications has gone away, and you guessed it: older computers are pretty much devistated when it comes to running SP2. [rant] This is something that I learned last week when browsing the Creative Labs forum: the Zen Vision:M requires the use of MTP (Multimedia Transfer Protocol), which is Microsoft's version of PlaysForSure. Now, MTP is only available in WMP10/11, which is only available in SP1 or above. Creative says they just do what the market wants. The Zen Vision:M is supposed to be direct competition to iPod Video, but here's the kicker: iTunes can be installed on any version of Windows, and the iPod can thusly be used on any version. So if the Zen is supposed to be so superior to iPod Video, how come XP SP1 is an absolute requirement? As I learned with all the good games being DirectX instead of OpenGL, there's only one logical solution: Microsoft pays companies to practically force the market to use Windows. That's the only thing I can come up with. I get 2300%--yes, 23 times--the framerate with OpenGL than I do with DirectX. And OGL is open-source, so it can be tweaked and improved by anybody..instead of waiting however long it takes for M$ to release a band-aid to put on all the other band-aids. [/rant]

My interpretation of suspenders are for holding up pants/slacks. Of course, every part of the world, and even in the same country (ie: US) have different interpretations, but that's mine.

I got my first copy of 2000 Pro from my father's work. He called up I.T. and told them that he needed to reload his laptop, and they were really busy, so they just gave him a flip folder of all the CDs they had and all the keys were written on them, so naturally, I copied the entire flip folder. Then at my job I got at college (I'm a student first, and employee second), I was digging through my office and the storage closet in the A+ lab and found original copies of 2000 Pro and Server, and they were the base releases--no Service Packs. Downloaded the network distributable SP4 thing, and slipstreamed it into the Pro/Server disks and now I have legit ISOs for both, with SP4. Installed Pro and then went to Windows Update and wrote down the list of KB#'s for the updates, then went to the download catalogue and got the offline-installers for everything. Turns out about 95% of those will slipstream into the CD as well. So now I have "SP5" copies. Fun times. As far as helping you find legitimate CDs...eBay - Search results (windows 2000 professional) might be a good place to start.

I guess I'll chime in with my two cents. I've hated XP since the day it was released. It's a resource hog compared to 2000. When I do a fresh install with 2k, after deleting the files the installation left behind (driver cache and dllcache), I have 12 processes, 43,000K memory usage, and 320mb of disk used. XP can't even dream to get that close. I know you can go in and fine-tune everything and get it...well, kind of close, but you lose almost all functionality that is standard. 2000 doesn't need fine-tuning and tweaking because it was built lean and mean to begin with. XP is just too bloated, methinks. The only reason I have/use XP is because my Creative Zen Vision:M requires WMP10/11, which is only offered in post-SP1, so I put that on a spare laptop harddrive and made a Symantec Ghost image of it. I run 2000 Pro and Server, as well as SLES/SLED10 here. I must say, I love a nice, pure 2000 network. Since I do a lot with networking, I've noticed that XP doesn't do networking very well. It claims it does, but 2000, when you browse a workgroup, the listing shows up almost instantly. XP, you wait 45-60 seconds only to have it tell you "unable to locate..blah blah blah." I've even tried turning the Computer Browser service off (that's the one that keeps an updated list of computers/shares on the network) and that doesn't make any difference. where it does help a little bit is when you're in Office and click the drop-down list for where to save the document, Computer Browser turned off makes it faster for the list to drop down. With it on, it searches the entire network, just so you can choose C:. 2k/Linux is the best choice I've ever made.

I'm completely confused on the Windows issue. As I said, on a fresh install that's never contacted the Internet until trying the test, it does the same thing. I figured if it truly was the router, I wouldn't get more than the 2.7 going to the Internet period, regardless of the OS. And actually, that test I just ran in Linux, that was with a 20k/sec DL going on one of the other computers, so it's actually 20k/sec more than the test shows. I used to get 6.4 on Windows, on all the computers here up until a few months ago. That's what's so strange.

Well I had a few short service outages over the weekend, and it appears they installed PowerBoost to my area during that time. This is what I get under Linux now with only 10mbit WAN port on the router:<blockquote>:::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 8470 Kbps about 8.5 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB) Download Speed is:: 1034 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/22 - 10:58pm Bottom Line:: 148X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.99 sec Tested from a 12160 kB file and took 11.76 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 52.23 % faster than the average for host (comcast.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-ARPC01MUD User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060527 SUSE/1.5.0.4-1.9 Firefox/1.5.0.4</blockquote>Windows still gets 2.7mbit.

Did that once before. Didn't even give me 50kbit more. I've got a lot of registry tweaks though, and it's not a program that does it, I just know all the keys and values off the top of my head to go add or modify. Just in case it was something with my Ghost image, I sat through the two hours of a full installation with the 70-something offline installers for all the hotfixes and security updates and then gave it a try, and same result. It's so weird. It doesn't really matter anyway. I'll just get the Cisco router in a few weeks and be done with this trusty ol'e Linksys.

I have six or seven dual-boot boxes. I have Ghost 8 and I made that image on a fresh install without contacting the Internet before making the image. They're all clean, and I don't use software protection--hardware all the way. Router is a firewall, and I don't go to sketchy sites, so I'm clean. I have been challenged on this claim once before and I installed software to scan, and it found was my cookies for the five trusted sites I go to. Tried several different ones to make sure and all came back clean. It's not just one computer, it's all of them: Windows = 2.7mbit, Linux = 6.4.

I got the latest one a month after it came out. 1.42.02, Aug 03 2004. When I do plug the modem into the computer, it gets in the 7's somewhere under Windows. Linux gets the same speed directly or through the router--6.5. I figured if the router really was going bad, everything would be limited to the 2.7 I get with Windows, not just one or the other. I'm quite vexed.

Alright, well up until about three months ago, I was pulling 6.4mbit down on a 6/384 line. Not bad at all, I was fine with that. Then cable went out for about an hour and when it came back on, I couldn't get more than 2.7. Reset the router and modem, no change. I booted Linux up on the laptop and ran the test and got 6.5. <blockquote>:::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 6499 Kbps about 6.5 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB) Download Speed is:: 793 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/20 - 4:06pm Bottom Line:: 113X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.29 sec Tested from a 12160 kB file and took 15.328 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 16.93 % faster than the average for host (comcast.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-TLA7SQ5FH User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060527 SUSE/1.5.0.4-1.9 Firefox/1.5.0.4 :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 2645 Kbps about 2.6 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 323 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/20 - 4:27pm Bottom Line:: 46X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 3.17 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 9.266 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 47.59 % of your hosts average (comcast.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-P26XB90Y1 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)</blockquote>For some reason, Windows just won't seem to do more than 2.7down through the Internet, but Linux will go to max. Here's where it makes me think it's the router. Through the troubleshooting whilst on the phone with Comcast, we hooked the modem directly up to the laptop booted into Windows (since they were going to make me install the BS software, and Linux isn't supported on their system), and I had to DL the 27mb file and it came in at almost 900k/sec, which is ~7.4mbit. A friend of mine suggested it's a bad NIC or the drivers I'm using, but that makes absolutely no sense, and it is very much unlikely considering I have Intel PRO/100, Linksys LNE100TXv5 (2 of them), Broadcom BCM5754 Gbit (dual), 3Com, and a D-link mixed in somewhere. I would find it very unlikely that they all start having the same issue simultaneously, but are fine under Linux. Speeds on the LAN seem to be running normal (Windows-to-Windows pulls about 90mbit, Linux-to-Windows goes about 35, other way around is about 50, and Linux-to-Linux is about 85. I have a Linksys BEFSR41v3 (last one before they got rid of 3 LEDs per port) that is coming up on about four years of 24/7 use. I thought it was just getting tired a few months ago, but it seemed to have straightened out since then, until this weird problem of Windows only going half-speed on the Internet. One of my next paychecks, I'm getting a Cisco 2621 router to use instead. Since I just finished the CCNA program, I think it'll be quite fun to have and use one at home. I'm mostly getting it because of the 100mbit ports on it since the BEFSR41v3 only has a 10mbit WAN port. The v4 is when they implemented 10/100, but they also dropped down to 1 LED per port. Sorry if this is kind of rambling, but at least it's full of valid information and I think it's easy enough to read.

A classmate in my Cisco CCNA1-4 classes had one set up to begin with, and his wife started working at this new company and they required her to bring a company laptop home and use VoIP, so the company bought a wireless router and a cable modem, and got it set up in addition to the already-existent one. The second one never gets used, so he put Server 2003 on a basically useless rig with three NICs in it, the first two were connected to the two routers, bridged those together to make 16/1.5 effectively, and the third went to a switch that fed the rest of the house. He said it's pretty sweet.

Yeah, you can do same drive or separate drives. You just want to make sure you install Windows first, because it tends to make things easier when using GRUB Boot Loader and having it set things up correctly. Also, if during the installation you come across a page where you can perhaps do some expert settings and modify the boot loader settings before they're actually installed/applied, you'll want to have GRUB be installed on the boot sector of /dev/hda (primary master HDD), or /dev/sda (for first SATA/SCSI disk). You can put the boot loader on /hdb or /sdb, but you'll have to tell BIOS which disk to boot first to make it work correctly. I've got dual-boot set up on my dual Athlon MP server, the server that sits next to it, and all three of my laptops. All the laptops, of course, are a single HDD, but the two servers are multiple drives.

Yeah, I've heard from quite a few UK friends that you guys get ripped off over there, unless you're within like 2km of the Exchange. Slow speed and you get charged for using too much unless you pay extra for unlimited. I feel pretty sorry for you guys. I get 8/8 when I'm at school.

:::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 6324 Kbps about 6.32 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB) Download Speed is:: 772 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1) Test Time:: 2006/04/09 - 7:50am Bottom Line:: 110X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.33 sec Tested from a 5983 kB file and took 7.751 seconds to complete Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060221 SUSE/1.5.0.1-11 Firefox/1.5.0.1 Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 28.22 % faster than the average for host (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-I1E5OVZKP :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 369 Kbps about 0.37 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 45 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1) Test Time:: 2006/04/09 - 7:51am Bottom Line:: 6X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 22.76 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 22.48608 seconds to complete Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060221 SUSE/1.5.0.1-11 Firefox/1.5.0.1 Diagnosis: 90% + Okay : running at 99.19 % of your hosts average (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-VLOB6KSQG That's about average for me in the past week. They did some maintenence up the street from me last weekend and I went from 5475 to 6200+ on the Windows machine, and 3300 to 6200+ on Linux. It shouldn't make a difference, but it did, oddly enough.

I have an older RCA (DCM-226) and it gets the same speeds as the new one DCM-315) they temporarily leased to me to try to solve some issues. I've been complaining for seven months about service drops and connectivity issues and they always blame it on the modem, but this time, it's their problem, not mine. Bottom line is that they have too much noise on the line I'm on. I was told that my Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) was 22.7 and I was told anything under 25 gets fixed. The connection keeps dropping with the 226, and the 315 lags occasionally, and dropped once so far in the past three days. They're coming out Monday to diagnose the situation again and actually fix it. I don't think RCAs are bad at all. I actually prefer and trust them more than the others that are out there. On either modem, I still pull 6200/360. Plenty fine for me. The system around here just can't handle much more than that anyways. I know people that have the 8/768 package and are getting about the same DL as I am, but their UL is pretty typical around 690.