Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results

About ThereIsNoBo

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Thanks for the responses, folks. I toyed around with ICS, bridging, and a handful of other ideas before I finally had to go pick up a hub from a co-worker two hours away. I ran this question by one of the more networking-savvy support guys the next day. Seems that the extra hop in question would have caused all sorts of problems, even if it might have acted like it was working for the first little while. Eh, well, it was definitely worth a shot. I appreciate the ideas, folks.
  2. Top of the whatever time of day it is to all. I'm in a wee bit of a bind and am hoping there's a fairly quick response time to this bit. I'm looking to this particular forum instead of my own company's support because, well, the boys in the think tank are great and all, but when it comes to "trick-*expletive*ing" equipment to get it to work, they get confused. One major thing to keep in mind on this one is that I am dealing with proprietary software that allows little room for network configuration. I'm seeking a hardware solution with the limited parts I have at my disposal. Okay, here goes. . . I'm currently on a drilling rig somewhere south of Shreveport, Louisiana. I service instrumentation equipment and the computers used to monitor said equipment. The databox we have has a hub inside with four ports, one for the box's connection, one for a connection to the rig floor, one to tie in a cross-location run to the master PC in a trailer, and one spare. All are taken and cannot be removed from use. The spare is tied into a slave system in a nearby mudlogging trailer. The mudlogger needs data from our software transferred to his equipment. We normally can do this without much problem through a protocol called "WITS" . . . when there's an available LAN port to tie the device extender in. The fairly generic HP PCs we use have two available NICs, one onboard and one added into a PCI slot. My idea on what to do may be absolutely dumb, but it's worth a shot at this point. The onboard NIC is not in use. The PCI card is assigned to The device extender I need to hook up has an assigned address of .17. Would it be at all possible to make a crossover cable, plug the device extender into that unused NIC, and have the whole mess actually function. My main worry is configuration of that NIC and whether or not the rest of the network will be able to see that .17 address. Any help, whether constructive or shooting holes into theory, would be greatly appreciated, especially if a consensus manages to arrive within the next half-hour. Please pardon any oilfield terminology that may make this sound odd. Thanks much in advance.
  3. Aye, if memory is serving properly, I have CableNut set to the suggested settings that j79zlr.com recommended. My wife's computer is spouting similar results, also. Eh, well, who knows?
  4. Something's gotta be up, then. Speakeasy told me the following: Download Speed: 4766 kbps (595.8 KB/sec transfer rate) Upload Speed: 359 kbps (44.9 KB/sec transfer rate) I cleared out caches and such and ran it again. Same applied within about 100kbps. Weird, eh?
  5. Oops. . . Forgive me for being an idiot. I should have realized something was abnormal about that. Lack of sleep, I suppose. Out on a rig right now. Got this one going at fair to middling. Of course, it's horribly overcast and fairly steady on precipitation at the moment. DW7700 on a MotoSAT F3 dish/D3 box with drilling data streaming into a corporate site. Not shabby, if I do say. Before I CableNutted it, it was. . . .Well, Jesus realized that a page wasn't loaded yet out here and decided to put off Armageddon until these guys got their reports sent in. :::.. testmy.net test results ..::: Download Connection is:: 1901 Kbps about 1.9 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 232 kB/s Upload Connection is:: 427 Kbps about 0.4 Mbps (tested with 748 kB) Upload Speed is:: 52 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1) Test Time:: 2006/12/20 - 5:37pm D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-I7X8D6S0G U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-CTOA51GUN User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) [!] I'll run my own when I get home and see if something a bit more logical comes up. In the meantime, since the Jackson/Monroe RoadRunner folks aren't ever very specific or knowledgable to questions about bandwidth, isn't the standard residential package 5mb down? On top of that, what's the up?
  6. Came around these parts to dig for information about DirecWay/HughesNet stuff for work (technician in oilfield that suffers constant heartache from the abominable MotoSAT). Figured I'd try my hand at home. Download = wunderbar! Upload. . . meh. Frickin Time-Warner getting taken over by Comcast has caused me a bit of grief, but hey, if downloads are chugging like this. . . I'll suffer provided they get their act together here in northeastern Louisiana. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 35614 Kbps about 35.6 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB) Download Speed is:: 4347 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2006/12/18 - 10:10pm Bottom Line:: 621X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.24 sec Tested from a 12160 kB file and took 2.797 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 641.19 % faster than the average for host (rr.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-O7VB82XSY User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0. Gecko/20061025 Firefox/ [!] :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 363 Kbps about 0.4 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 44 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2006/12/18 - 10:11pm Bottom Line:: 6X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 23.27 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 13.062 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 87.89 % of your hosts average (rr.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-GQEDAKL5U User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0. Gecko/20061025 Firefox/ [!]
  • Create New...