mudmanc4 reacted to Sirwriter in Wireless router - 50+ clients - devices
I had a similar experience a few years back. At the time I was using Charter internet and nothing else. It was Doc sis 3.0 And I used a Motorola modem and a Netgear router, both set up for Doc sis 3.0 . I was experimenting with several Insteon products, including a handheld remote whereby I could establish several "scenes" with my stereo set up. That included dimming lights, setting up a on the amp, choosing background (pop, rock, concert hall, outdoor stage, etc. At the time there were 4 channels download that could be linked together to give me a pretty powerful signal one the amp with built in equalizer, and two preamps throughout the house, which was a sprawling ranch style. At the time I had a test bed desktop which was where I loaded the software for all the Insteon products. I tried Wi-Fi extenders without much success. I was pretty much top of the line with my modem/router set up, and an engineer suggested a Net gear 5 port Gigabit Desktop powered switch. The idea was to lower the power consumption by better than half. I did that, changing the location of several control spots, including the Inspiron software control center. The difference was incredible. I was running 3 lines of 1 gig internet to TWO inexpensive test beds, and dropped my overall consumption to a point where I had more power that I actually needed. It took a little experimentation. The Wi-Fi on the motherboards was insufficient to carry a strong enough signal from one end of the house to the other. I threw together another test bed, and split the load. I bought two PCIe Wi-Fi transmitters and the entire set up was the best thing I ever built. With Docis mating together, I often had download speeds
in excess of 80 t0 90 Mbps. One thing: The house was 27 years old at the time and had had Dish, DirecTV, and just plain internet. The
cables from the box outside looked to be about the same age. I replaced all the cable from beginning to end. There were no less than 18 splitters and plugged in antenna amps throughout the attic. Not one of them had a terminator cap on it, and before I cleaned it out my noise to signal ratio was 59%.After replacing the cable it dropped to less than 25.
I wish you the best of luck.
mudmanc4 reacted to CA3LE in Fail gracefully when very bad connection
Update: The new upcoming version of TestMy.net will not fail on all major updated browsers. I've implemented service worker which enables TestMy.net offline... obviously you won't be able to test in that state but it is helping me to make this correct and more useful for you (and myself). Gives me abilities as a developer that I've never had before.
I've run numerous batches of tests, purposely disconnecting the internet. The new version has never failed. It will log those events too, doesn't right now but it will. I like your idea for implementation...
It will detect when you're online, wait.. check again to make sure it wasn't just intermittent... then test again when it feels it's able to..... might not be able to complete the entire test still but it will try then possibly fail again and restart the re-try process.
I can tell the averaging and database listing programs as a whole to ignore exactly "zero" so it doesn't effect host averages or flood public results... I don't know what would happen other wise so better plan for it. Especially since that's a point for clients to purposely negatively affect hosts numbers. (I always want to limit the input received but users... sorry users. Damn bots and hackers ruined your rep.) ...that idea provides a simple way to implement without having to add databases or change database structure. I like that. --- database structure changes can be an extreme headache, especially since I promised since the beginning that I'd retain all of your old results.
I'll keep developing. The update I'm on right now started purely as a design venture, the more major feature rich updates are still planned...but I've been stumbling on so many answers it's become far beyond just what people see at this point. There is still so much planned, I'm only including the features that I feel are ready. ... I'd rather be on this new site (all day long). I make TMN first as something I want to use... but I'm hoping to attract more than people of just own own mindset. Anyone still reading this is probably of that mindset. Most will never get as far as you. I want the other 98% to get it too. Hopefully this gets a little closer.
For people who have been long time visitors, keep your old browsers on virtual machines. I need your help testing old browsers but also keep in mind that I'm developing for the future, I'm no longer concerned about lagging browsers or wasting my development time around their inconsistencies. I target technologies native to the most popular browsers across the board. If one browser has janky implementation, I may still release it as long as it's not detrimental to the test results or experience. IMHO, Safari is the new IE right now. Annoying. Chrome, Firefox, Chrome on iOS and Android (period) are the best right now. I expect Safari to catch up, sorry, it's not on the developer when everyone else agrees.
By the way, I straight up killed most old browsers when I went full SSL. Full SSL is 100% necessary for the future of what TMN is doing. Sorry old browsers. Trust me, I took a hit with traffic. When I see software changing ads in browser or including ads to pages I don't have ads on... that showed me early why we need SSL (https). With SSL that can only happen if the cypher is cracked.
To be honest at first I thought, why would TMN need https? Nobody is buying anything from my site or really sending anything truly secure. Uh, think again. Many people may use the same passwords. Hackers can grab that information as you login at a public wifi and then try the same email address and password on google, facebook, ebay, amazon, etc... till they get a hit. So stupidly easy for hackers. Not only that but third party ads may be doing things you don't want... far outside of the scope of common practice (of which some people already may not already want). And again, a third party program can also edit your webpages and add their own content. Above all, they want to make money, usually ad or code insertion is the intent. With the latest SSL people can't do the same malicious stuff. Not to say it can't be done again, it can always be done again. Nothing made by man can be protected from man. What is created from one man's mind can always be decoded in another's. We just need to evolve with the changes.
way off the subject... AI teaching itself to make new cyphers and then keeping the true keys from us, that worries me the more I think about it. An AI or AIs will invent their own language that we can't possibly understand in our lifetimes. It will be so efficient that humans can't understand it because we don't work well enough, lol. Take the highest level of cryptography that you can think of exponentially increase that. And then realize that the program that creates it may be so obscure that it could be hiding information from us, making us feel secure when it really has all the power. I say let us humans keep making mistakes and figuring out each other's mistakes and improving naturally. We as humans should always in great detail fundamentally understand our software and hardware changes... it should never be obscured to the point that no human can understand. I worry that we'll let computers do our programming and designing to the point that we'll have little understanding of what's truly under the hood or how to control it. "let the computer figure out how to do that better, it will make it perfect." -- it's cool until it starts talking in a language you can't decode and decides you're not a part of understanding that language simply because you as a human aren't optimal to the system. To a computer, even our VERY best languages are stupid because they aren't optimal and so that's the first thing to go in my opinion. This has already happened by the way, just not to a serious degree. A real AI will be ahead of our moves before we even start moving. Once you know it's happening, it's too late. I'm have to be high on the AI's list now. (haha)
I believe our community here is made up of people who set the standard for their own communities in regards to all things tech. We should set the standard by example. Have your main machines always updated and encourage friends to do the same. Hardware and software. Especially software. And especially right now because there have been so many major updates that EVERY browser is agreeing on. They don't normally agree like this. Over 21 years developing in the browser and I've never seen such wide adoption of so many cool new features. What a great time to develop.
Anyone who may be still actually reading this and wants access to the beta, just PM me. If you were a member of any discussion on TMN prior to this post you can have access to the early beta too. A handful of our veteran members have agreed to help me even early to make sure we give you a clean release but there are always more bugs that we need help finding.
-- we'll find 'em together ...and make some more in the process! Human's Rule.
mudmanc4 got a reaction from CA3LE in Low voltage/ high voltage clearance
Working in an area which is confined, where a residential 200 AMP service fires a breaker panel, clearances for service are obvious, as the following diagram explains:
Where NEC 11.26(A)(2) states a 30" working / access clearance width (as wide as equipment or 30" whichever is greater)
Panel door hinge must open a minimum of 90 degrees.
I've placed low voltage equipment starting at the 30" mark to the right standing facing the panel.
However there are low voltage lines running within that 30" against the wall.
I'm being told (by the local electrical contractor) the door hinge on the breaker panel must swing out/ open 180 degrees, and no low voltage equipment can penetrate the 30" threshold.
So the ultimate question I have is what are the code(s) regarding low voltage clearances regarding a 200 AMP breaker panel.
Or how far away does a low voltage line need to be from a high voltage box.
mudmanc4 reacted to John Bouchard in Where to began "HELP"
Thanks so much. There was a program that I had uninstall from my computer but still resided in my browser even through it was disable was the problem, once I removed it from the browser everything was perfect. I over annualized everything for two weeks and it was right in front of me the whole time. Again thank you so much.
mudmanc4 got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Virgin media
Over the years reading posts, we could find more statements such as yours than not. Tech comes out, everything is awesome, tech leaves, soon thereafter, connection stinks on ice.
Aside that, tech was likely testing on the ISP level network, never touching the 'internet' , or anything outside of their control.
Also, check out the mirrors testmy.net uses, find one closer to you and run some testing
mudmanc4 got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Poor Uploading Speed
@Avneez , !dea is a large cellular provider in India, over 38 million subscribers. I would check upload speeds at different times of the day, as the network might be very congested when you are trying to upload something.
Work to find the best times the content can be transferred.
mudmanc4 got a reaction from LikeMikeScott in Cut to the chase on ISP??
I would imagine everything depends on the provider and region as you are already aware.
As far as a page to search <my town or city> & <results> have you used https://testmy.net/list ?
Search for the town and go from there. Sure it takes a bit of 'footwork' to get the data extracted the way we want to see it. Though if I'm gathering mental data correctly, we should be seeing new features soon here at testmy.net.
mudmanc4 got a reaction from LikeMikeScott in Isn't HOSTSTATS likely to be badly skewed, by definition?
mudmanc4 reacted to CA3LE in Isn't HOSTSTATS likely to be badly skewed, by definition?
The same logic where more people are likely to post negative reviews than positive ones. You're probably right, to a degree. I think there are also plenty of people who test here on sunny days. If that is true, it's true across the board with all providers. They're all being judged using the same method. In my experience, the better providers always perform better and rank higher here. Is any of this perfect, no. Will it ever be perfect, no. Will I try, definitely.
After TMN's recent full switch to https (SSL) settles in with the search engines I have an upgrade to the host stats pages you mention. It aggregates a much broader range and I think it better represents the highlighted ISP, city or country's speed because it won't just be showing you the logs like it does today. It will unlock a huge amount of information that TMN has been calculating and storing in private databases for a very long time now. So look for that tool to become higher resolution in the near future.
mudmanc4 reacted to ShakTib in Post ur Mug & Come see all the friendly people at tmn...and post your mug...
Posting image on the interwebz is scary.
mudmanc4 reacted to CA3LE in Sorting Posts
The top posts in many forums may be "sticky" which forces them to the top even if they're old. Look for the little pin next to the topic.
After you're used to that you'll glance at those and automatically move your eyes down a few topics to see the new content for the forum you're looking at.
see the green pins
Some of the topics that are sticky (pinned) right now don't need to be. When I get a moment I'll go through, revisit the topics and see what's relevant right now. With less of them pinned will be less confusing.
mudmanc4 reacted to ShakTib in Happy Birthday!
so I was just going through forums topics and profiles,
and just realized,..
It's @CA3LE's birthday today!
Happy Birthday Damon!
Hope you have a good one, I don't know if you celebrate or not but I wanted to wish you a happy birthday and show some gratitude!
It's on a Friday, so this might be a fun weekend for you, if not ... MAKE IT ONE! Wohoo!
mudmanc4 got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Intermittent Drop Out
@Hypopyon, If this were myself, I would run the auto test, example for a two hour movie scenario:
This test will run for 125 minutes, once every five minutes, testing upload and download minimum 1MB per test run, 'nfw' is selected to reserve bandwidth as were simply getting as close to a connectivity test as we can. (This means the tests will not forward to a larger test size until the test takes seven seconds.
Although I'm not up on the TTL (how long the test server will wait for a response before giving up) therefore the two hour test every five minutes, if your getting eight droputs per movie, you should catch several, in theory.
Though in your case, I might be running wireshark , (packet capture) to view the responses during the loss, which can be a bit overwhelming to learn.
mudmanc4 got a reaction from Pgoodwin1 in Australian Servers?
@barney79, Welcome to testmy.net forum.
If your testing to a specific server such as the testmy.net Australian server, and the test is originated from the same continent, that is where the test is run. Full stop.
The reporting server has no bearing on the test results. The test has already been completed before results are sent anywhere, the Australian test server simply reports findings to the main testmy.net server, records them into the database, and reports back to you, after the test has been taken.
If you were to run the multi threaded test ( selecting more than one server, then yes there would obviously be more variables involved) but that is not your question or case it seems.
Not sure where the provider is getting this information, but generally speaking, that theory would not be viable in any test environment. As you may well already be aware of.