Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, Steel, notfred

 
Duct Tape Dude
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 12:37 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:23 pm

notfred wrote:
<Mod hat on> OK, that's enough, can we please get back to being nice to each other and discussing network equipment. Stop feeding the trolls or there will be consequences. <Mod hat off>
O7 Roger roger. It was even more amazing than I envisioned.

Glorious wrote:
Then it turns out that you don't really have any idea how fast the things actually were at all.
Glorious wrote:
THEN DON'T FALSELY QUANTIFY IT.
Layer 2 or 3 reporting available here: https://www.tp-link.com/us/download/TL- ... ml#Utility
It reads 600-900+ when the microwave is off one direction and 300-500 in the other.
Two 40MB/s transfers = 640mbps at Layer 7, which seems in line with that.

Glorious wrote:
I am not against powerline networking--- I use it!
I like powerline. Let's be friends.
 
curtisb
Gerbil XP
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:27 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:48 pm

Glorious wrote:
curtisb wrote:
Errr...no it doesn't.


You can get more than 945mbps on gigabit ethernet with 1500 mtu?


You mean getting full gigabit speeds on gigabit ethernet with the default MTU? Yes, yes I do. Enabling jumbo frames isn't going to magically let you transfer faster than a gigabit NIC or switch is designed to transfer. Very few things require jumbo frames. In fact, the only thing I've come across is my Dell EqualLogic iSCSI-based SAN, and it operates on 10GigE. The Dell Compellent SAN I have doesn't require it, and it also operates on 10GigE.

For that matter, most consumer routers and switches won't even let you enable jumbo frames.
ASUS MAXIMUS VIII HERO | Intel Core i7-6700 | Zotac GTX 1080 8GB Mini | 2 x Corsair LPX 8GB | WD SN750 Black 500GB | 2 x Crucial MX200 500GB | 2 x WD RED Pro 4TB | Phanteks Eclipse | Seasonic X-850 | 2 x Samsung U28E590
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:04 pm

Duct Tape Dude wrote:
Layer 2 or 3 reporting available here: https://www.tp-link.com/us/download/TL- ... ml#Utility
It reads 600-900+ when the microwave is off one direction and 300-500 in the other.
Two 40MB/s transfers = 640mbps at Layer 7, which seems in line with that.


I have no idea what that manufacturer's utility is actually telling you, but here are what reviews of that product say:

https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/review/po ... w-3643494/

Ideal:

Review wrote:
In our first Room Test we check speeds when both adapters are in the same room – which is not how you use Powerline! We use this to test its top speed and The AV2000 did very well, scoring 432Mbps by transferring a 1GB file in 19 seconds.


Real:

Review wrote:
When we positioned the second adapter in a room two floors down and about 30 metres apart speeds naturally dropped. This time the AV2000 scored 117Mbps ­ way below the 2,000Mbps on the box but still the fastest we’ve seen from a Powerline.


https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/17/the ... rking-kit/

Review wrote:
The TP-Link offered the fastest performance in all the most important locations. In the two test locations farthest from the router, the TP-Link kit had average speeds between 80 and 90 Mbps.


These are much more realistic than a manufacturer's utility which is telling you who only knows what. That kind of thing should not be relied upon and should be independently verified by non-proprietary standard test.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:09 pm

curtisb wrote:
You mean getting full gigabit speeds on gigabit ethernet with the default MTU? Yes, yes I do.


"Full gigabit" with the default MTU is actually ~945mbps. That's my point.

curtisb wrote:
Enabling jumbo frames isn't going to magically let you transfer faster than a gigabit NIC or switch is designed to transfer.


I never said or implied it did.

It might let you -very- slightly beat ~945mbps though.

Like, for instance, achieve 950mbps.

curtisb wrote:
Very few things require jumbo frames. In fact, the only thing I've come across is my Dell EqualLogic iSCSI-based SAN, and it operates on 10GigE. The Dell Compellent SAN I have doesn't require it, and it also operates on 10GigE.

For that matter, most consumer routers and switches won't even let you enable jumbo frames.


Non sequitor to what I'm saying.
 
curtisb
Gerbil XP
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:27 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:05 pm

Glorious wrote:
curtisb wrote:
You mean getting full gigabit speeds on gigabit ethernet with the default MTU? Yes, yes I do.


"Full gigabit" with the default MTU is actually ~945mbps. That's my point.


Full gigabit is 1000 megabits per second. Period. What you achieve with TCP/IP after packet overhead is about 950 megabits per second or so. Transfer rates on my home network are 120 megabytes per second, or 960 megabits per second...without the use of jumbo frames. Jumbo frames can actually introduce performance problems if every device in the VLAN doesn't support or isn't configured for jumbo frames.

I also highly doubt that your ISP supports jumbo frames. That means that your switch/router would have to rebuild every packet before sending it out to the Internet, which unnecessarily introduces latency.



Glorious wrote:
curtisb wrote:
Enabling jumbo frames isn't going to magically let you transfer faster than a gigabit NIC or switch is designed to transfer.


I never said or implied it did.

Glorious wrote:
You can get more than 945mbps on gigabit ethernet with 1500 mtu?


I'm not sure what you were trying to imply with that question then.


Glorious wrote:
It might let you -very- slightly beat ~945mbps though.

Like, for instance, achieve 950mbps.


Five megabit is within a margin of overhead depending on the traffic. It's not worth adding the additional complexity to a network.




Glorious wrote:
curtisb wrote:
Very few things require jumbo frames. In fact, the only thing I've come across is my Dell EqualLogic iSCSI-based SAN, and it operates on 10GigE. The Dell Compellent SAN I have doesn't require it, and it also operates on 10GigE.

For that matter, most consumer routers and switches won't even let you enable jumbo frames.


Non sequitor to what I'm saying.


It's very relevant. Again, why introduce the additional complexity into your network when the gains are next to nothing, and often times can actually cause slow downs?



For what it's worth, I do this for a living. I don't think that's going to matter to you though. I've given my personal and professional experience input on the original question and other items that came up in the thread. I'm out.
ASUS MAXIMUS VIII HERO | Intel Core i7-6700 | Zotac GTX 1080 8GB Mini | 2 x Corsair LPX 8GB | WD SN750 Black 500GB | 2 x Crucial MX200 500GB | 2 x WD RED Pro 4TB | Phanteks Eclipse | Seasonic X-850 | 2 x Samsung U28E590
 
Convert
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:47 am

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:15 pm

tanker27 wrote:
Anyone Set up a home network using Ubiquiti APs? I have a question if you have, What switch are you using for the PoE? Did you stick with Ubiquiti ones or use something else? Also do you use a cloud key?

My goal is trying to save money and if I can go with another switch that provides PoE to the Ubiquiti APs that would be great.


I use 2x UniFi AP AC HD's, a Unifi 8-150W switch and a Cloud Key. I wouldn't recommend the setup only because it's overkill and your stated goal was to save money, and this setup is a great way to spend money. The included injectors work just fine.

The APs and switch were free as part of a way to get my company to switch away from Ruckus, but I went out of my way to buy the Cloud Key. I HATE dealing with their software in a Windows environment. It has gotten better, but back when I first got the controller software set up many years ago for a test environment it required goat blood and some of my hair to get it to reliably work. My home servers and systems change so frequently that I need the interface to live on dedicated hardware.
Tachyonic Karma: Future decisions traveling backwards in time to smite you now.
 
ludi
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8646
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:35 pm

Convert wrote:
It has gotten better, but back when I first got the controller software set up many years ago for a test environment it required goat blood and some of my hair to get it to reliably work. My home servers and systems change so frequently that I need the interface to live on dedicated hardware.

Totally fair for your usage case. But the horror stories from 5+ years ago of needing to run a dedicated Linux VM or some such are no longer an issue. The Windows interface is still a bit kludgy to navigate but it sets up and connects pretty cleanly IME.
Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration
 
Convert
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:47 am

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:53 pm

Hah, a dedicated Linux VM for it? Yeah, I can't complain. We have customers that we install the software on their Windows server and I can't remember the last time we had an issue with it so it's really not a problem anymore.
Tachyonic Karma: Future decisions traveling backwards in time to smite you now.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:57 pm

curtisb wrote:
Full gigabit is 1000 megabits per second. Period.


Would you prefer I go completely pedantic on people and use the unfamiliar term "goodput"?

Is that really necessary? Or are you going to argue that literally unusable "line bandwidth" has any relevancy to anyone, ever?

I'll say it simply: 950 is a very unusual number. It's not something you'd expect to see on a normal wired gigabit network.

That's all my parenthetical comment was trying to express, and nowhere in that singular comment was I advocating that people actually use jumbo frames.

I simply did not say that, and it requires very deep and extremely constructive reading of that single sentence for you to come to that conclusion. It's also not in line with I said afterwards, or the general thrust of my real argument.

curtisb wrote:
What you achieve with TCP/IP after packet overhead is about 950 megabits per second or so.


It's not quite 950, actually, and it's not just the packet overhead, it's the ethernet frame overhead too, you'll also just about never see it perfectly line up like that either.

I don't think you even really disagree with me about this, you seem to perfectly understand the kind of thing I'm talking about here.

It's just that less packets = less overhead, yes, bigger MTU can push you slightly over. Strictly descriptive, not remotely prescriptive.

That is all. It's that simple.

That's my entire point. I'm not actually advocating jumbo frames nor do I use them personally on my gigabit network.

curtisb wrote:
Transfer rates on my home network are 120 megabytes per second, or 960 megabits per second...without the use of jumbo frames.


Well, I think you might have lost some precision there, and since you just said 950, not 960, that precision is at the heart of the argument.

We can do the math together, but you overall you seem to understand what I'm saying and you don't seem to dispute it either, on the contrary, you are saying that people shouldn't use jumbo frames.

OK. I agree and I never disagreed.

curtisb wrote:
Jumbo frames can actually introduce performance problems if every device in the VLAN doesn't support or isn't configured for jumbo frames.

I also highly doubt that your ISP supports jumbo frames. That means that your switch/router would have to rebuild every packet before sending it out to the Internet, which unnecessarily introduces latency.


I am not advocating jumbo frames. At all. I agree with you, they are more trouble than they are worth. I'd only ever consider them with a point-to-point link between two computers or something like that. Any other circumstance they are immense pain/complication for essentially no real worth.

What I was saying, again, is that 950 mbps is a very suspicious number, as it's not something you'd normally see with wired gigabit in normal circumstances.

That is all.

curtisb wrote:
I'm not sure what you were trying to imply with that question then.


I'm not implying anything, I'm rhetorically saying that you're not going to see 950 at 1500 mtu, you're going to see ~945mbps. More realistically it's ~938-941mbps.

Something saying 950 like that is suspicious etc...

curtisb wrote:
Five megabit is within a margin of overhead depending on the traffic. It's not worth adding the additional complexity to a network.


Absolutely agree 100%.

It's just not relevant to the point I'm making.

curtisb wrote:
It's very relevant. Again, why introduce the additional complexity into your network when the gains are next to nothing, and often times can actually cause slow downs?


You shouldn't.

That's not remotely my point.

curtisb wrote:
For what it's worth, I do this for a living. I don't think that's going to matter to you though. I've given my personal and professional experience input on the original question and other items that came up in the thread. I'm out.


It does matter to me.

The problem is that you arguing with a position that I don't have.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:02 pm

convert wrote:
I HATE dealing with their software in a Windows environment. It has gotten better, but back when I first got the controller software set up many years ago for a test environment it required goat blood and some of my hair to get it to reliably work.


Yes, a few years ago, for example, the windows installer assumed 32-bit java.

So if you actually had 64-bit java, that was lot of unnecessary "fun"

I haven't used the controller software on windows for years and years, but I'd have to assume they've cleared that one up by now.
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:07 pm

I don’t believe you actually need to install the controller software to set them up. I never did. I have the AC Lite here at my house and setup the AC LR at my in-laws. Both using the provided injector. It is super-clean. The iOS app works fabulous and being able to do a 2-click firmware update is pretty snazzy. I’m sure there are features I might be missing out on by not using the controller, but *shrug*
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:09 pm

You definitely don't need the controller software after you configure them, but how did you configure them in the first place without it?
 
Welch
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:43 pm

I've REALLY had a hate relationship with the Ubiquiti PoE switches. The fact that this far down the road they don't support 802.3af sort of kills me. I have actually had some of their rocket units fried thanks to their switches having to be manually switched between 24v and 48v. Why the large disparity in voltage between two devices that are likely to be in the same place!? Pick a voltage and stick with it, OR just make their damn switches 802.3af compatible!

There is probably a really good reason/explanation for why they didn't, but it's just crazy to me.

I've used a lot of the TP-Link PoE switches with great success. They are also a lot cheaper, I haven't seen a perceived quality of power delivery difference on some decent 200-250ft long runs up an 80ft tower that was put in about 2 1/2 years ago compared to Ubiquiti "Tough Switches". I have on the other hand seen those same "Tough Switches" die multiple times. Sad really because I want to FULLY love the Ubiquiti stuff, but some of it is far from rock solid equipment it is claimed and should be.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

1600x | Strix B350-F | CM 240 Lite | 16GB 3200 | RX 580 8GB | 970 EVO | Corsair 400R | Seasonic X 850 | Corsair M95 / K90 | Sennheiser PC37x
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:36 pm

Glorious wrote:
You definitely don't need the controller software after you configure them, but how did you configure them in the first place without it?

It’s been a couple years, but I’m reasonably sure I used the App. I psysically plugged it into functional network and it discovered and let me do the configuring. I remember the controller requiring the JRE get installed and so was adamant not to do that on my home computer, so I’m 95% sure I didn’t.
 
ludi
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8646
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:16 pm

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
It’s been a couple years, but I’m reasonably sure I used the App. I psysically plugged it into functional network and it discovered and let me do the configuring. I remember the controller requiring the JRE get installed and so was adamant not to do that on my home computer, so I’m 95% sure I didn’t.

Just checked, my version was a couple point releases out of date but I updated it and it's the same other than some layout cleanup. First you launch the UniFi Controller which starts itself and JRE, and then it gives you a "launch browser" button so it can feed out the controls as a browser-based applet.

Meanwhile the EdgeRouterX has an internal webpage that you set up and log into like any other router, except with a lot more "What is this and what does it break" buttons compared to consumer-targeted firmware UIs. And that little "Uptime" statistic at the top is the one that I enjoy checking on now and then:

Image
Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration
 
Welch
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Home Network Questions

Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:06 am

Are you planning on or going to use one of their cloudkey units or are you using the installer instead?

I actually just moved my office network over to an EdgeRouter X as well. If you are planning to use it with a faster WAN connection, make sure you enable hardware offloading. Without offloading my connection was capping out at around 250-300ish, with it enabled it was hitting around 800ish on a gigabit connection.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

1600x | Strix B350-F | CM 240 Lite | 16GB 3200 | RX 580 8GB | 970 EVO | Corsair 400R | Seasonic X 850 | Corsair M95 / K90 | Sennheiser PC37x
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:06 am

curtisb,

We got off on the wrong foot here. My initial responses to your contribution were in complete and enthusiastic agreement! Heck, I wholeheartedly endorse everything you've said about jumbo frames subsequently, it's just orthogonal to my very limited point.

I honestly never thought my parenthetical aside which was intended to obliquely throw some shade over someone else's claims would ever become such a source of contention. I didn't think it was even mildly controversial, and I said it the way I did to avoid a direct confrontation. Basically, instead of shouting that 950 was BS, I was trying to say that you can't actually achieve that with normally wired internet, but since someone with jumbo frames theoretically could, I didn't want to dispute the claim with a false absolute. Hence I modified it to include that possibility and off to the races we went!

Again, totally not my intention and I did not and do not suggest that anyone actually use jumbo frames in their regular gigabit ethernet. That's a very bad idea for the numerous and entirely correct reasons that you have very appropriately elaborated upon!

---

Here's what I am actually saying, thoroughly written out:

1) Empirically, anyone with normal wired gigabit ethernet, inter-mediated by a switch or not, shouldn't expect to see bandwidth better than 940mbps +/- ~3mbps. This my recurrent finding with iperf in numerous scenarios as well as what is generally discussed on the internet whenever someone asks why they don't actually get 1000 mbps with their gigabit.

Anyone can verify this themselves.

Now, can you do (very, very slightly) better with jumbo frames? OK, I admit it: I don't actually know that empirically as I don't think I've ever done that. As you have said, there isn't any point! I mean, I agree totally, we are talking of a theoretical "improvement" by scant mbps an abstract, entirely artificial and very unrealistic benchmark at the cost of unrelentingly brutal practical problems starting with the extremely high probability that your equipment isn't even compatible (i.e. you can't even do it in the first place!). As I have said repeatedly, I 100% absolutely and totally agree completely!

2) Theoretically, as I said before, we can math it out: add up packet overhead + frame overhead per mtu, and get a percentage, rigtht?

Out of a 1500 MTU size, you have the 20 bytes of the IP header, 20 bytes of the TCP header for the packet overhead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4#Header
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmiss ... _structure

That's 40 bytes.

For the ethernet frame, you have 7 bytes of preamble, 1 byte of frame delimiter, 6 byes of MAC destination, 6 bytes of MAC source, 2 bytes of the type, then we have our 1500 packet payload, then another 4 bytes of CRC, and then 12 bytes of frame spacing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_frame#Structure

That's another 38 bytes.

So we have 78 bytes.

1500 - 78 = 1422

1422/1500 = .948 = 94.8%

Thus, theoretically speaking, the maximum you could -ever- reach over gigabit internet (with TCP and 1500 MTU) would be 948mbps.

Realistically, you're not going to quite hit that on the nose, hence the empirical observation of like ~940mbps.

And, with jumbo frames of 9000, it's 8922 / 9000 = .991 = 99.1%

The above is the only thing I was ever trying to say: that with jumbo frames, yes, theoretically you can beat 950 mbps.

Again, I just didn't want to say something that was a false absolute, so I qualified it.

----

Hence, my suspicion of that number. 950mbps is nice and round, but it isn't real. And if you are seeing it across a powerline network, how come I can't see it when I have host-to-host 1 meter CAT 6 connection?

It just doesn't make any sense, especially since you are using regular ethernet to get to that powerline networking link on both sides in the first place.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Home Network Questions

Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:13 am

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
It’s been a couple years, but I’m reasonably sure I used the App. I psysically plugged it into functional network and it discovered and let me do the configuring. I remember the controller requiring the JRE get installed and so was adamant not to do that on my home computer, so I’m 95% sure I didn’t.


Ah, I didn't realize they had an app.

Thanks!
 
notfred
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4610
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Home Network Questions

Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:41 am

The app will either take a picture of the QR code on the back of the AP or just scan for unmanaged APs and then let you control them directly without the need for a separate controller.
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue May 29, 2018 6:26 am

I forgot to post but I got the home network up and running. So I did settle for Ubiquiti, what I have is 2 Ac-Lite's, one upstairs and one downstairs; Unifi Cloud Key, and a switch 8-60W. With that I have 100% coverage in the house and the property, just shy of an acre.

I may have overkilled it a bit with the cloud key but meh.

The range, even with the lite APs is redunkulous.......I can pull essentially every wifi connected device in pretty much my entire neighborhood. (its a new neighborhood that's still under construction with about 30 houses already built) I found a few unsecured printers. I even pull wifi stuff that has their SSID turned off, it just pulls them as a blank in the console.

There's quite a few wifi puns out there, the normal.... pretty fly for a wifi, nachointernet, drop it like its hot...spot, I Believe I can Wi Fi, The LAN before Time, And my favorite.....It HURTS when IP. :p At least I know the neighbors have a sense of humor.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue May 29, 2018 7:31 am

tanker27 wrote:
There's quite a few wifi puns out there, the normal.... pretty fly for a wifi, nachointernet, drop it like its hot...spot, I Believe I can Wi Fi, The LAN before Time, And my favorite.....It HURTS when IP. :p At least I know the neighbors have a sense of humor.

Those are fabulous. We have a nachowifi in our neighborhood.
 
notfred
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4610
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue May 29, 2018 9:15 am

I have: Interwebs, Burgerhouse, ELVIS_is_the_king, plus because I'm in Canada someone has named theirs CSIS - spoilt slightly with an accompanying CSIS-guest SSID.

Ours is a developed neighbourhood of mainly single family homes and I've got 52 neighbouring APs in range of my Unifi AC AP LR, next door neighbour is at -52dBm (i.e. 94% signal strength)! 2.4GHz is pretty much unusable.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue May 29, 2018 9:20 am

My phone's hotspot is "Russian Hacker Collective". One of my co-workers uses "FBI Surveillance Van".
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue May 29, 2018 9:25 am

Looks like I need to change mine. NCC-1701 seems somewhat passé these days. My spectrum is pretty quiet given where I live; the morons in the apartment house next to me are "Fort Kickass". Guess I know how they spend their days (since none of them seem to have jobs).
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
G8torbyte
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:09 pm
Location: NJ, near Philly
Contact:

Re: Home Network Questions

Tue May 29, 2018 10:12 am

Mine is SkyNet-Terminals and neighbors near me have "Stop Stealing My Internet" and "VIRUS.exe" :)
Later, -G8tor
Building PCs & gaming since"Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" 1991, Lurkin' around TR since 2004.
Current setups: Z390 Platform and DIY mini-ITX NAS Build

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On