fikester Posted January 22, 2006 CID Share Posted January 22, 2006 does anybody know how sensitive the tree issue is ? ...myself thought tree branches with no leaves would not block the signal. Then after pointing remove limbs that would interfere with leaves on. Point is I don't want to mow down the forest just for the re-point. Would rather pay someone to trim the limbs up high vs lose the tree. My thinking is at a 43.3 elevation thats almost gaining 1ft off the ground per every 1ft of length away from the dish correct? I could move the dish just form past experience do not want a 300yd coax run etc..... The service these people provide is just unreal....unbelievable actually until one experiences it first hand. I did make a cover for the LNB (mylar) window the butt removed with a knife. Even it were true its fine with it off, still don't want spiders etc...building nest in there! If I had a spare transmitter....would leave the window off just for an experiment of the issue at point. As far as moving the dish...will argue the point with dway, will offer them to cancel me with no penalty! The guy took about 15pics of area and existing point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimPrice Posted January 22, 2006 CID Share Posted January 22, 2006 Have you identified a spot that would allow you to get clear line of site without running a mile of cable? If so, move the dish. Even if takes more cable, do it anyway. Hell, I've got a drawer full of the manufacturer recommended in-line amps for lengthy runs. You want one, give me a shout. I'll send it to you for free. You just buy the cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeOtto Posted January 22, 2006 CID Share Posted January 22, 2006 Are the trees and the dish on the same level, ground wise? If so, how far from the dish to the trees? I suspect that elevation would get you into the treetops and then maybe a small hole would do you fine. When I tweaked my dish, it reminded me how delicate the adjustments are. I moved my dish polarization less than a degree to gain 20 points in cross pol. Only a couple millimeters means all the difference in signal strenght. Wouldn't take much of a hole in the tree to get the signal through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Posted January 27, 2006 CID Share Posted January 27, 2006 fikester, why do you want to be moved to IA-8? Primetime speeds are awful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeOtto Posted January 27, 2006 CID Share Posted January 27, 2006 IA8 is a hell of a lot better than SatMex5 that I was on. I have only had two slow evenings since I moved and the slowdown time is shorter than before. It would be nice if there were none, but I don't see that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimPrice Posted January 28, 2006 CID Share Posted January 28, 2006 IA8 is surely the best of the worst. Typical for me in the evenings: :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1066 Kbps about 1.1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 130 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (server1) Test Time:: Fri Jan 27 22:44:22 CST 2006 Bottom Line:: 19X faster than 56K 1MB download in 7.88 sec Diagnosis: Looks Great : 17.53 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-RN7L2GXHQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decade Posted January 28, 2006 CID Share Posted January 28, 2006 No, dont come to IA-8....it sucks lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeOtto Posted January 28, 2006 CID Share Posted January 28, 2006 That is pretty close to peak... Last night was a slower night before your test time. I was in the 600's around 8:30 EST. Started coming back up after that. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1067 Kbps about 1.1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 130 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (server1) Test Time:: Sat Jan 28 09:41:25 EST 2006 Bottom Line:: 19X faster than 56K 1MB download in 7.88 sec Diagnosis: Looks Great : 17.64 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-TCJUO6BHX :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 201 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Upload Speed is:: 25 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (server1) Test Time:: Sat Jan 28 09:45:14 EST 2006 Bottom Line:: 4X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 40.96 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 164.47 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-D8J7YVS41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted January 28, 2006 CID Share Posted January 28, 2006 there is your swamped messages!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted January 29, 2006 Author CID Share Posted January 29, 2006 lol! yeah, really swamped. as you can see, I really don't have the time to be on here much Have ya'll seen this? http://kb.direcway.com/al/12/2/1036.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mtnfolk Posted January 29, 2006 CID Share Posted January 29, 2006 I had a good install 3 years ago and here is a speed test. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1826 Kbps about 1.8 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 223 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (server1) Test Time:: Sun Jan 29 04:04:18 CST 2006 Bottom Line:: 33X faster than 56K 1MB download in 4.59 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 101.32 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WebUser Posted January 29, 2006 CID Share Posted January 29, 2006 "he did not to be here just as installer one that done the original install." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Fan Posted January 29, 2006 CID Share Posted January 29, 2006 Have ya'll seen this? http://kb.direcway.com/al/12/2/1036.htm That's not going to help us much, pages load faster without it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodoboy Posted January 29, 2006 CID Share Posted January 29, 2006 I thought Direcway tells you to turn the proxy off with the 7000??? Do they even know what the hell they are doing??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimPrice Posted January 29, 2006 CID Share Posted January 29, 2006 lol! yeah, really swamped. as you can see, I really don't have the time to be on here much Have ya'll seen this? http://kb.DirecWay.com/al/12/2/1036.htm What's the benefit in using the 7000 as a proxy host rather than as a gateway router? Proxies tend to introduce another layer of latency, and the only benefits are generally security and caching of frequently accessed objects. It would be worth a try if the proxy was a fast caching server located in the Dway NOC, but I don't see the point in proxying pages from a router sitting 5 feet from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeOtto Posted January 30, 2006 CID Share Posted January 30, 2006 What's the benefit in using the 7000 as a proxy host rather than as a gateway router? Proxies tend to introduce another layer of latency, and the only benefits are generally security and caching of frequently accessed objects. It would be worth a try if the proxy was a fast caching server located in the Dway NOC, but I don't see the point in proxying pages from a router sitting 5 feet from me. The DW7000 isn't actually acting as the proxy server. The proxy setting simply tells the browser to send HTTP traffic on port 87 once it gets to the gateway. This simply allows the computer to access cached information to give the impression of more speed. This is a common thing to use. My work uses one. HTTP traffic travels on port 80 if you don't have it enabled, and you get the pages directly, and if you have it enabled, the traffic comes on the specified port (in this case 87) from the caching proxy server, wherever that is. On our network at work, the proxy is on port 8080. Comes in VERY handy, particularly for downloads. If, for example, I download Firefox, the file is cached on the proxy server, then when the next person downloads it, the file simply comes from the proxy server on our network and saves the T. I actually believe if you run a speed test with and without the proxy enabled, you will see the same speed both times on Direcway. (within a reasonable amount) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimPrice Posted January 30, 2006 CID Share Posted January 30, 2006 Joe: Read the article. The instructions are to set the user's browser to send HTTP requests to a destination of 192.168.0.1:87. That's the local address of the 7000 router, which means it's behaving as a proxy server under those conditions. Not much gray area there. It will then listen on local TCP port 87 for incoming requests, then request and return results from the internet, supplying anything relevant that it has cached, back to the user's browser. Given the amount of onboard storage, the 7000 would never be able to effectively serve cached requests beyond small images or simple web pages. I heartily agree that your server at work, on the other hand, is probably well equipped to store large amounts of frequently accessed data, which makes your network run more efficiently, and provides users with a false, yet robust sense of speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeOtto Posted January 30, 2006 CID Share Posted January 30, 2006 Joe: Read the article. The instructions are to set the user's browser to send HTTP requests to a destination of 192.168.0.1:87. That's the local address of the 7000 router, which means it's behaving as a proxy server under those conditions. Not much gray area there. It will then listen on local TCP port 87 for incoming requests, then request and return results from the internet, supplying anything relevant that it has cached, back to the user's browser. Given the amount of onboard storage, the 7000 would never be able to effectively serve cached requests beyond small images or simple web pages. I heartily agree that your server at work, on the other hand, is probably well equipped to store large amounts of frequently accessed data, which makes your network run more efficiently, and provides users with a false, yet robust sense of speed. While you are correct that those are the settings, the cached data is not on the modem, it is on a proxy server at the NOC or somewhere. It simply splits the traffic onto the other TCP port at the gateway, which is the modem. To the best of my knowledge, the only thing that is cached on the modem is DNS lookups. (which would, in fact, give the appearance of increased browsing speed too, because of the latency involved with the system) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimPrice Posted January 30, 2006 CID Share Posted January 30, 2006 Your right about the cached DNS entries. I've had the displeasure of outdated returns on more than one occasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted January 31, 2006 CID Share Posted January 31, 2006 hey everyone, no offence to direcpc, but i had it one time... the speeds were OK but the pings...sucked.. search google for a wireless internet provider where you are... *like anntenna* My friend lives 6 miles outta town, and he had direcpc and i told him to find a wireless isp..so he did... its way better for him now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Fan Posted January 31, 2006 CID Share Posted January 31, 2006 hey everyone, no offence to direcpc, but i had it one time... the speeds were OK but the pings...sucked.. search google for a wireless internet provider where you are... *like anntenna* My friend lives 6 miles outta town, and he had direcpc and i told him to find a wireless isp..so he did... its way better for him now... There are none in my area, so it looks like I'm stuck with Direcway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPawlak Posted January 31, 2006 CID Share Posted January 31, 2006 eh, sorry to hear that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.