Search Results

Search found 338 results on 14 pages for 'netgear'.

Page 12/14 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

• linux keeps disconnecting from wireless network

  - by Matteo Ceccarello

  I'm running Arch Linux on an Acer laptop and my wirless connection doesn't stay up. After a while it disconnects, and when I try to reconnect I get stuck with a "Waiting for authorization" message. I have to retry several times before getting the connection stay up for few minutes. This happens with both networkmanager and wicd. The strange thing is that the iMac that sits next to the laptop connects fine, and when I use my laptop within the university wireless network it works normally. How can I solve this problem? EDIT: I've tried to connect manually following the steps iwlist wlan0 scan wpa_supplicant -i wlan0 -c /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf dhcpcd wlan0 and it works, I can ping google. However, looking to wpa supplicant output I see that it keeps connecting and disconnecting. I'm using WPA2, and this seems to be a problem in authentication. EDIT 2: as pointed out in the answers I forgot to mention my hardware/software specifications: kernel: Linux 3.0-ARCH wireless card: # lspci | grep -i net 07:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation WiFi Link 5100 module used # lsmod | grep -i 80211 mac80211 216021 1 iwlagn I use a Netgear DGN1000 modem/router My dmseg output is shown here http://pastebin.com/8Tf7iage

  Read the article

• Getting rid of your server in a small business environment

  - by andygeers

  In a small business environment, is it still necessary to have a central server? Speaking for my own company (a small charity with about 12 employees) we use our server (Windows Server 2003) for the following: Email via Microsoft Exchange Central storage Acting as a print server User authentication / Active Directory There are significant costs associated with running a server like this: Electricity, first for the server itself then for the air conditioning required (this thing pumps out a lot of heat) Noise (of which there is a lot) IT support bills (both Windows Server and Exchange are pretty complicated, and there are many ways they can go wrong) I've found ways to replace many of these functions with cheaper (better?) alternatives: Google Apps / GMail is a clear win for us: we have so many spam related problems it's not even funny, and Outlook is dog slow on our aging computers You can buy networked storage devices with built in print servers, such as the Netgear ReadyNAS™ RND4210 that would allow us to store/share all of our documents, and allow us to access printers over the network The only thing that I can't figure out how to do away with is the authentication side of things - it seems to me that if we got rid of our server, you'd essentially have a bunch of independent PCs that had no shared pool of user accounts / no central administrator. Is that right? Does that matter? Am I missing any other good reasons to keep a central server? Does anybody know of any good, cost-effective ways of achieving the same end but without the expensive central server?

  Read the article

• Can't access Port 80 from external

  - by dewacorp.alliances

  Hi there I have configuration like this: NETGEAR MODEM LINKSYS ROUTER SERVERS In the modem, I've setup as bridging and all the traffic is controlling by this ROUTER. Prior to this setup, I can access website from external (port 80) plus exchange servers (mail) and https. But now with this configuration, I can only send/receive using Exhcange servers and access OWA (Outlook web access using port 443) .... and no internal websites from outside. This is my config for LINKSYS ROUTER Application | Start | End | Protocol | IP Address Ms Exchange | 25 | 25 | Both (TCP/UDP) | 192.168.100.8 Internets | 80 | 80 | Both (TCP/UDP) | 192.168.100.11 SSL | 443 | 443 | Both (TCP/UDP) | 192.168.100.8 Exchange | 110 | 110 | Both (TCP/UDP) | 192.168.100.8 192.168.100.11 is a UBUNTU web server that running the apache which controlling the virtual name (extranet, cms, test) to redirect to the different servers. As you can see, the home internet is only allowing public IP address. Now I test this schenarion in internal network work nicely. For instance. If I type in extranet.XXX.local it goes to the right applicatios or if I try CMS.XXX.local again it goes to the right one. I also asked to ISP just in case if they are blocking the inbound port 80 for unknown reason. They said no. So I didn't understand why this happens. I suspect the configuration that I have between MODEM ROUTER but I counldn't work what it is. I don't have a documentation of previous settings and I don't know if there is a port that I need to open as well. I am appreciated your comment

  Read the article

• Remote connection to a Windows 2008 Server Web edition

  - by Lorenzo

  Hello I have just installed Windows 2008 web server to have a development/test site on my office. In the test network I only have 2 machines: Windows server 2008 Web Edition Vista x64 client machine with Visual Studio The client and the server are networked using a NETGEAR router. I have enabled Remote desktop on the server and when I try to connect to it within the Vista client I get the credential window as in the following screenshot. But even if I write the correct credentials I am not able to remote login on the server. Where am I doing wrong? Update 1 I have even tried to create a folder share on the server. But I am not able to access it for the same reason. User or password invalid it says. But this is impossible as I am logging in the server with the same credentials. Update 2 If I try to browse the network from the RDP client I receive a message saying that there are no server running Terminal Services in my network.... :O

  Read the article

• Isolating a computer in the network

  - by Karma Soone

  I've got a small network and want to isolate one of the computers from the whole network. My Network: <----> Trusted PC 1 ADSL Router --> Netgear dg834g <----> Trusted PC 2 <----> Untrusted PC I want to isolate this untrusted PC in the network. That means the network should be secure against : * ARP Poisoning * Sniffing * Untrusted PC should not see / reach any other computers within the network but can go out the internet. Static DHCP and switch usage solves the problem of sniffing/ARP poisoning. I can enable IPSec between computers but the real problem is sniffing the traffic between the router and one of the trusted computers. Against getting a new IP address (second IP address from the same computer) I need a firewall with port security (I think) or I don't think my ADSL router supports that. To summarise I'm looking for a hardware firewall/router which can isolate one port from the rest of the network. Could you recommend such a hardware or can I easily accomplish that with my current network?

  Read the article

• Can I share my cable internet connection through my ADSL wireless router?

  - by Roaders

  Hi All Over the xmas period I am at my in-laws. They have Virgin Broadband (cable) and have a basic modem / router that is plugged directly into their computer using an ethernet cable. My wife and I arrived with 5 PCs! (ok, one is a gift and won't be used) 4 of which are laptops so I would like to be able to use their internet connection. At the moment I am working so have plugged the ethernet cable into my work laptop. Rebooting the router meant that my work laptop now has internet. I have my ADSL Netgear router which is wireless. I tried plugging it in between the router and the PC but I didn't seem to be able to share the internet connection wirelessly. The original PC still had internet despite ony being connected to my router but my wireless laptop didn't have a connection. My old cable router had an internet ethernet port on the back that the modem plugged into. My ADSL router doesn't, it has a phone connection socket. Is there a way of doing what I want with the equipment I have? Thanks

  Read the article

• unable to access Internet by wireless but can by cable

  - by Jeff King

  i'M GOING MAD! UNtil last friday I had been successfully using wifi with the supplier as VIRGIN through their Motorola SB 4200 cable Modem and the wireless router being the Linksys WRT 54G router. Supported were three lap tops and an EPSON 510W printer and this had been running with no issue for about 3 years. Back to last friday, we started suffering significant delays and then the network collapsed with no wireless access. I was able to connect a single laptop direct to the cable modem and internet access was restored to just that one device. I thought that the problem was the router so I tried a backup D-Link device with no success. I have subsequently bought another cable modem AND a netgear router plus addidtional ethernet cables but with no success. The best that happens is that the signal appears good but I cannot get access to the internet. A yellow question mark appears on the 'gradient' icon. Each laptop and router works elsewhere so I'm stumped. Mind you I am a real novice so I'm not surprised. Please can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Looking for a small, portable, port-mirroring ethernet switch.

  - by user37244

  I recently had a mac go haywire, taking half a minute or more to get www.google.com loaded. Getting its owner to give up the machine for repair was like pulling teeth - they were insisting that it must be something to do with the network, since so much had changed with the local configuration at about the same time their box went haywire. I eventually set up a port mirror to a box that I could remote to so I could show that the mac was only irregularly getting packets onto the network. Demonstrating this faced an additional challenge: the latency of the remote desktop software I was using meant that I had to point to timestamps instead of just the moment the packet flashed up on the screen as my evidence. This particular user was the reason this was so challenging this time around, but I would like to have a box that I can cart from desk to desk to use wireshark on my laptop at any station where I need it. 3com, cisco, netgear, etc. (ad nauseum), all make switches that can be configured for port mirroring, but in my case, the smaller, the better. For the sake of my sanity, I'll probably end up running it off a battery anyway. If my laptop had two ethernet ports, this would be easy. So, whaddya recommand for a device that requires 0 configuration at each powerup (though I'm fine with poking at it for a while to set it up initially.) Small, light, and cheap enough to get it past purchasing? Thanks,

  Read the article

• XP/Intel wirelss only showing 'hpsetup' ad-hoc network that isn't there

  - by ewall

  Trying to help my friend with her work XP laptop, which recently stopped seeing any wireless SSIDs except the SSID 'hpsetup' (presumably from a wireless-enabled HP printer). Relevant information: The laptop is a Lenovo T500 (Centrino 2 chipset) with XP SP3. The network adapter is Intel WiFi Link 5300 AGN (built-in). The latest version (13.5) of the Intel drivers only are installed, not the Intel config software, so XP is using the Wireless Zero-Config manager. The wireless router is a NetGear WGR614 v7 with 802.11b/g. The SSID is broadcasting, and all the other laptops in the house can see and connect to it. On the laptop, I have tried repairing the network connection, disabling power management, turning off 802.11a & n radio, and more... but it didn't help. Some of the wireless settings are managed by Group Policy from her office (I get the "At least one of your changes was not applied successfully to your wireless configuration" message). It is enforced to connect to "Access point (infrastructure) networks only". The real kicker is that my laptop does not an SSID named 'hpsetup' here, but it can see several broadcasted SSIDs including the one we want, while my friend's laptop doesn't see any SSID except 'hpsetup'. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Two hosts on same subnet can't see each other

  - by Joey Hewitt

  I've got two routers with two separate public IP addresses on the same subnet, but I can't get them to talk to each other. Both are connected to the internet (ISP-provided gateway) via Ethernet ports provided by the landlord, but I don't have access to or knowledge of how those are physically connected or the protocols used to get back to the ISP. I can ping either from the outside, but they can't ping each other. Traceroutes in and out look the same, and they receive the same gateway over DHCP. I can ping other IPs on the subnet, so I assume this is not any sort of intentional isolation for security/privacy. Since I'm in a setup where my landlord provides internet and we don't have contact with the ISP, I can't really ask the ISP for help (doubt the landlord would know much either.) The situation is similar to the diagram at this question, but instead of the two servers, there's another router coming off the (presumed) switch, and I don't have access to the switch. I've tried giving them static routes to each other with the ISP internet gateway as the gateway, but that's not working. One is a Linksys WRT54GL running DD-WRT, the other is a Netgear WGR614v7, although I could get something more capable if necessary. I'd like to keep them each connected directly to the ISP on their WAN ports, but I can have an ethernet cable between them if necessary - I'm wondering if there's a way without that, and if there isn't, I'd appreciate advice on how to get that working. Sorry this is so nitpicky; there are reasons for all the constraints, but they don't apply to the real question, so I left them out. ;) Thank you!

  Read the article

• Route return traffic to correct gateway depending on service

  - by Marnix van Valen

  On my office network I have two internet connections and one CentOS server running a website (HTTPS on port 443). The website should be publicly accessible through the public IP of the first internet connection (ISP-1). The other internet connection, ISP-2, id the default gateway on the network. Both internet connections have routers (the household-kind) with NAT, SPI firewalls etc. The router on ISP-2 is a Netgear WNDR3700 (aka N600) with original firmware. The problem is that the website is unreachable. Looks like incoming traffic on ISP-1 will reach the server but the returning traffic is routed through ISP-2, effectively making the site unreachable. As far as I can tell I can't do port based routing on the WNDR3700. What are my options to make this work? I've been looking at implementing an iptables / routing based solution on the server itself but haven't been able to make that work. Update: Note that the server has one network interface connecting it to both routers.

  Read the article

• All network devices freezing when Airport Extreme Base Station is connected. Any ideas?

  - by Jon

  I've been troubleshooting this issue for a while, and through a series of events have it narrowed down to my airport extreme base station. I like this router, since I'm able to connect to IPV6 sites without any insane configuration (my alternate router is too old and doesn't support v6). My question is: Has anyone else had this issue, if so how is it resolved? If not, can you recommend a good IPv6 router? Here is how I came to the conclusion that it is the router: Devices: XBOX 360, HTC Incredible, Home-Built machine running FreeBSD, Home-Built machine running Ubuntu 10.04. 1.) Noticed freezing on Ubuntu Box. 2.) Noticed freezing on XBOX360 3.) Noticed freezing on HTC Incredible (only when connected to my network wirelessly). The above all happened at random times throughout the past few weeks. Over the last few days, I was playing XBOX and noticed that the XBOX and Ubuntu machines both froze. I picked up my phone, and it was also frozen. I reset all devices, power-cycled my router, and all was fine again. About two hours later, it happened again (I was playing Forza III, the XBOX froze; I went to the Ubuntu box and it was frozen; unfortunately, the HTC phone was not connected wirelessly, and the FreeBSD box was turned off). I can't even begin to imaging what a router could be doing to freeze devices with such differing hardware/software/OS, and I feel absurd for coming to this conclusion, but I have nothing else. I hooked up my archaic Netgear router, and have had no problems since. :(

  Read the article

• How to prevent eMule from jamming up the router?

  - by the searcher

  Usually, when eMule is started, after some time, I find that the router is jammed, so the internet connection on that computer stopped working, or it seemed to be waiting for some port to be freed up before it can connect to a website. This sometimes affect even other PCs or Macs using the same router. Is there a way to prevent eMule from hogging too much resource or ports? I see that there is under Options -> Connection "Max Sources/File" and a "Connection Limits - Maximum Connections". Right now I set them to really low numbers: the first to 120 and the second to 200, but what are good numbers to fill in there so that it can work well without jamming up the router or use up the network resource of the PC or Mac? Or could it be that the number of files that are "Waiting" is too high, and used up too much resource? (If so, can emule automatically limit the number to 10 or 20 to prevent using too much resource?) (This happened before on Linksys router, Netgear router, and the AT&T U-verse router.)

  Read the article

• Wake on Lan Remote not waking PC while the PC does receive the packet.

  - by Nycrea

  Over the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to set up WOL from a remote location. When I use my laptop to wake the machine locally, it works just fine. (for some reason, when I try to wake from my phone with an app called "WOL wake on lan" it does not work locally either, but I'll get to that later) Anyway, when the machine is turned on, and I let it 'listen' for incoming magic packets (with a program called "WOL magic packet sender") on my specified port, it does receive them, though when turned off, the machine does not wake. When sending from phone, either locally or via 3G remotely, it does receive but does not wake as well. Because the machine does receive them when turned on and listening, but does not wake when turned off, I am convinced the cause of the problem is my receiving PC, rather than the router or the sender. Some extra info: The receiving machine is a PC running Windows 7 64bit. My router is the Netgear JWNR2000v2. I have the port I use forwarded to my PC's static IP in the router. If anyone could help, or just share your own story with the same problem, maybe we can work this out. Thanks a lot in advance.

  Read the article

• Choosing gateway router/firewall for small datacenter network [closed]

  - by rvs

  I'm choosing a gateway router/firewall for small internal network for medium-sized web service. Currently there are 5 servers in internal network, up to 50 http(s) requests/second, up to 1000 simultaneous connections, uplink is 100 Mbit. So, network is relatively small and not very busy and we don't like to buy some pricey monster like cisco or jupiper for this site. Instead we'd like to buy two affordable devices (one for spare), which can handle our workload now and some time in future (it might be up to 2x more in 1 year). I had some experience with Sonicwall NSA, but it seems to be too complex for this site (we don't need most of its features) and even too pricey when buying two of them. So, after some research I've come up with following options: Netgear Prosecure UTM Series (probably UTM25) Zyxel ZyWall Series (USG100 or USG200) Sonicwall TZ 210 Is this a good idea? All of the above seems to be more office products, not datacenter ones. Or we should stick with Sonicwall NSA? Does anyone have any hands-on experience with this models? Maybe some other advices? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2003 IPSec Tunnel Connected, But Not Working (Possibly NAT/RRAS Related)

  - by Kevinoid

  Configuration I have setup a "raw" IPSec tunnel between a Windows Server 2003 (SBS) machine and a Netgear FVG318 according to the instructions in Microsoft KB816514. The configuration is as follows (using the same conventions as the article): NetA | SBS2003 | FVG318 | NetB 10.0.0.0/24 | 216.x.x.x | 69.y.y.y | 10.0.254.0/24 Both the Main Mode and Quick Mode Security Associations are successfully completed and appear in the IP Security Monitor. I am also able to ping the SBS2003 server on its private address from any computer on NetB. The Problem Any traffic sent from a computer on NetA to NetB, or from SBS2003 to NetB (excluding ICMP Ping responses), is sent out on the public network interface outside the IPSec tunnel (no encryption or header authentication, as if the tunnel were not there). Pings sent from a computer on NetB to a computer on NetA successfully reach computers on NetA, but the responses are silently discarded by SBS2003 (they do not go out in the clear and do not generate any encrypted traffic). Possible Solutions Incorrect Configuration I could have mistyped something, somewhere, or KB816514 could be incorrect in some way. I have tried very hard to eliminate the first option. Have re-created the configuration several times, tried tweaking and adjusting all the settings I could without success (most prevent the SA from being established). NAT/RRAS I have seen multiple posts elsewhere suggesting that this could be due to interaction between NAT and the IPSec filters. Possibly the NetA private addresses get rewritten to 216.x.x.x before being compared with the Quick Mode IPSec filters and don't get tunneled because of the mismatch. In fact, The Cable Guy article from June 2005 "TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths" suggests that this is the case, (see step 2 and 4 of the Transit Traffic path). If this is the case, is there a way to exclude NetA-NetB traffic from NAT? Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, and/or comments are appreciated.

  Read the article

• Offloading backups to secondary network

  - by user1467163

  I'm trying to solve a problem- Currently, we are constantly backing up and have no budget for additional servers. Our production network is still a 10/100 and handles voip, SQL plus our backup traffic, and I'd like to offload the backup traffic onto a secondary network- all of our servers have secondary NIC's that are not in use, and all support gigabit (Our switching hardware does not- a topic for another day). I'd like to move my backups off the production network, but I am having a hard time getting the computers to communicate. I am using a Netgear GS724T switch for the backup network- Chosen for cost and because I have used them extensively on networks saturated with ghosting traffic, so I know it's up to the task. I have defined a VLAN, with ports that are not members of any other VLAN. All traffic is untagged on the VLAN. I have set the servers with 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.11 addresses, 255.255.255.0 netmask and I have tried a blank GW, using the local IP of the server 192.168.1.whatever address, and I have tried using the switch's production-side IP as the GW. The machines cannot find each other. DNS addresses are blank because I am going purely by IP for now... Any ideas how to get these machines to talk? they are Windows machines, running Server 2008R2 and 2003R2. Thanks!

  Read the article

• W2003StdR2 server: DNS dysfunctional!

  - by Tor

  I hate to have to do this, but i feel up that creek with no... well, some of you might know. At the moment my one and only DNS server refuses to do Forwarding. The story is as goes: This site had 2 servers, one W2003SBS and an W2003StdR2. The SBS degraded over a short periode of time, and to not go down with it i decided to move all data over to the other server. This was of course an AD integrated site. Move went ok, the Std server removed from the domain, and the SBS put to rest. For the time being we decided to run the Std as a server only, and no AD. We renamed the internal domain to xxx.local, and set the server up with DNS, DHCP and installed WINS (not activated). Forwarding of DNS is to our ISP through a Netgear Firewall. The same address setup used as before. So - DNS server started and all went ok, clients reconfigured and hooked up and then - after a day's time - internet name resolution stopped working on the server! Nothing had changed, been altered, modified, nothing! What i now get when doing NSLOOKUP is just a 2 sec timeout response! And i have checked and looked, but to no avail. Anybody seen this behaviour before? And yes - ALL servicepacks have been updated on the server. I would be much obliged if anyone in here could lend an ear... and give advice! Thanks.... from Tor in Norway Today is the 14th, and i still have no resolution to this nagging problem. Anybody else got any advice in the matter? Please?

  Read the article

• Random "not accessible" "you might not have permission to use this network resource"

  - by Jim Fred

  A couple of computers, both Win7-64 can connect to shares on a NAS server, at least most of the time. At random intervals, these Win7-64 computers cannot access some shares but can access others on the same NAS. When access is denied, a dialog box appears saying "\\myServer\MyShare02 not accessible...you might not have permission to use this network resource..." Other shares, say \\myServer\MyShare01, ARE accessible from the affected computers and yet other computers CAN access the affected shares. Reboots of the affected computers seem to allow the affected computer to connect to the affected shares - but then, getting a cup of coffee seems to help too. When the problem appears, the network seems to be ok e.g. the affected computers can access other shares on the affected server and can ping etc. Also Other computers can access the affected shares. The NAS server is a NetGear ReadyNas Pro. The problem might be on the NAS side such as a resource limitation but since only 2 Win7-64 PCs seem to be affected the most, the problem could be on the PC side - I'm not sure yet. I of course searched for solutions and found several tips addressing initial connection problems (use correct workgroup name, use IP address instead of server name, remove security restrictions etc) but none of those remedies address the random nature of this problem.

  Read the article

• Router that allows custom Dynamic DNS server [closed]

  - by Thuy

  I've made my own DDNS service and it works fine using an application running on clients to update the IP. But if for some reason I don't have the choice of using my software and instead I need to use a router to update the IP, it becomes troublesome. For example, I needed to setup IPsec from a customer to me and the customers router/firewall (netgear srx5308) has a dynamic IP which is given from the ISP which can't offer static IPs. So it needs to use dynamic dns for it to work. In this case there really isn't a client to run the software on since it's a router/firewall. Unfortunately it seems that most routers are rather unfriendly towards custom DDNS solutions and most offer only dyndns.com or similar templates. Which was the case with this router too. Leaving me with no way to use my own dynamic dns server IP. I have the option of switching out the customers router and I've been looking around for alternatives and other routers/solutions and I was wondering if anyone on this great site might have been in a similar situation or might just know about some router/firewall that is more friendly towards custom ddns solutions that I might be able to use. Thanks in advance for any help or guidance!

  Read the article

• Stack Managed Switches over a distance

  - by Joel Coel

  We have several buildings with stacked switches, where the distance between the stacked units is considerable... separate floors, or at opposite ends of a hallway. They are 3Com switches that stack using cat6 cabling. These switches are coming up on 12 years old now, and as I look around at replacements it seems no one supports this scenario any more. Stacking switches want to use fiber links (it more for me to run and terminate the fiber stacking cables than to purchase the switch) or other custom cables that seem only intended to jump up to the next unit in a rack. What have others done to support stacking over a distance? I'm considering breaking up the stacked switches into separate managed entities and just bridging from the root switch in the buildings, but I'd really like to avoid that for what I hope are obvious reason. The closest thing I've found are from netgear that use hdmi cables for the stacking connection... I could try to support that by running an additional cat6 line and re-terminating both links into a single hdmi port, but I have concerns over that approach as well.

  Read the article

• ADSL2+ - High sync-rate, good line attenuation, but low noise margin and slow speeds

  - by Mark Pim

  I've been with my ISP (IdNet) for a few months and have been getting some good speeds, but in the last week the speed has dramatically decreased (from 15 Mbps+ to around 0.2 Mbps). This happens at all times of day, not just peak periods. Obviously I've done all I can to isolate problems my end - only one PC is connected to the router (via ethernet cable) and no other background programs are using the network etc. I've raised the issue with the ISP and they've suggested trying a new ADSL filter to see if that is casuing the problem, but I thought it would also be good to get the opinion of superuser on possible causes or other troubleshooting I can do. Here are the juicy stats :) My router (Netgear DGN1000) reports: Downstream Upstream Connection Speed 17602 kbps 1062 kbps Line Attenuation 17.9 db 8.6 db Noise Margin 6.0 db 6.1 db I used RouterStats and it seems to show those figures stay fairly consistent all the time I ran the BT speedtest and it reported: download speed of 164 kbps, out of a max achievable of 21000 kbps upload speed of 859 kbps, out of 1048 kbps DSL connection rate 17719 kbps down and 1048 kbps up IP Profile of 15000 kbps Is there any more troubleshooting I can do? Does this look like a problem with my equipment / wiring or with BT's line? Any advice would be great :)

  Read the article

• WAN Optimization for Small Office/Home Office

  - by TiernanO

  I have been reading up on WAN optimization for the last while, mostly out of interest of speeding up my own internet connections, but also to speed up the office internet connection. At home, I have 2 cable modems plugged into a RouterBoard RB750, which load balances the connections. In the office, we have a single connection into a NetGear router. Most of the WAN Optimization products I have seen, seem to be prohibitively expensive, but also seem to be based on the idea of having multiple branches around the world. What I am looking for, ideally, is as follows: software install: I am "guessing" I need to install it in 2 places: one in the office or house, and one in "the cloud". any connections going to, say, The US (we are in Europe, but our backup's live in the US currently, which would be something important to speed up) would be "tunnelled" though the Optimizer. If downloading or uploading large files, open multiple connections between both "the cloud" and the optimizer... This is where a lot of speed could be gained. finally, for items not compressed, they would be compressed on the cloud side of things, also items that are already on the optimizer could be not sent again. kind of like RSync or Proxy servers... So, is there something that can be done? Is it available using off the shelf components (some magic script with SSH, Squid, Linux and duct tape) or is it something that needs to be purchased? or even an Open Source Project that does 90% of what i am asking?

  Read the article

• What differences are there between "home" switches and "professional" switches?

  - by pjreddie

  Our radio station uses a PtP wireless system to stream our radio and TV signals from our studio up a hill to our transmitter. We have been having problems with warbly sound and drop outs that come from some point in this system. An engineer that occasionally visits the station thinks it could be the switches we use on each side of the PtP wireless system to connect the PtP devices to the encoders and decoders and wants us to get two of these switches: http://www.amazon.com/Netgear-JGS516-ProSafe-16-Port-Ethernet/dp/B0002CWPOK/ref=dp_return_1 The encoder/decoder setup only streams 8Mbps total so it seems like the switches we have should not be stressed out, unless they are causing sufficient latency to degrade the performance of the encoder/decoder. At each end of the connection we only have 4 connections, is there any reason we couldn't get a cheaper, "home" quality switch like this: http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DGS-1005G-5-Port-Gigabit-Desktop/dp/tech-data/B003X7TRWE/ref=de_a_smtd Is there a significant difference that we would notice in terms of latency between these two switches? How much does the quality of the switch actually matter in this scenario? Any help is appreciated, feel free to ask questions if anything needs clarification. Thanks

  Read the article

• Switched to new router and now experiencing lag?

  - by Mr_CryptoPrime

  I switched from a dynex-802.11b/g to a Netgear-802.11b/g/n just yesterday. My router is down stairs because my phoneline upstairs is retarded....but my PS3 is still upstairs (SOCOM: Confrontation is game I am experiencing issues). I have done everything I can to make sure the connection is solid and have checked the status and it has been as high as 80% and usually lingers at about 60%. I thought about upgrading my bandwidth from 1.5mbs to 7mbs, but I am guessing something is wrong if it worked fine before? Now the game seems more laggy and my voice chat is choppy. Others seem to receive my voice data fine because I can hear my own feedback clearly from other players (if you are in close proximity to another player and speak and there volume is loud enough sometimes you can hear yourself). I wonder if I port forward or setup DMZ then it will be fixed, but I am not sure and don't know quite how to do it. Has anyone else ever experienced this when switching routers? What did you do to fix it? Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >