Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...