I had it some years ago already but then suddenly UNS became very unstable and lots of losses on articles. But that problems will be gone i suppose. And now they have SSL for free.... Starting to get interested.
how to best hide data transport via usenet for other people?
I think the reason is better server sofware readily available, so the main activity of expensive usenet providers is shifting for some time towards advertising and tricking users into keeping using their services.
With NGroups probably it is not they capping bandwidth intentionally since NGroups on the second server is faster than UNS on the first server, maybe it depends how their server is connected to the net.
With NGroups probably it is not they capping bandwidth intentionally since NGroups on the second server is faster than UNS on the first server, maybe it depends how their server is connected to the net.
SSL wouldn't be affected by this because it isn't proxied unless you make it that way. It's just a straight connection to a server as normal but encrypted. You should get equal or near to the speeds you'd get without SSL. Of course this depends on whether or not the SSL server is in the same location as the standard one. As you say, try a month or get a block account and see how it goes.bassie wrote:depending on the geographic location of my or yours, or others computers
maybe to use traceroute to determine which server is faster from there.
SSL should be about the same speed if connections are kept alive (if keep alive option is enabled it is the case with UE), in SSL there is some overhead in CPU time and bandwidth to estabilish the connection, so called handshake.
SSL should be about the same speed if connections are kept alive (if keep alive option is enabled it is the case with UE), in SSL there is some overhead in CPU time and bandwidth to estabilish the connection, so called handshake.
i am testing ngroups now
i have now a subscription, unmetered, 1 month with ngroups.
When i activated ssl, i can use one server for ssl: news.ssl.ngroups.net
with 12 connections. The speed goes up and down betweem 800-1040 or so.
The speed is clearly slower then with using news.ue.ngroups.net, because this one gives 1040 Mb/sec or so.
If i enable both servers (so the non-ssl and the ssl) usenet explorer grabs the most from the non-ssl server (mabye 9:1 ration or so).
I don't see an option for traceroute on their homepage. But may not be necessary because there is only 1 ssl server?
I should also check another time maybe. Now it is 9 pm in the netherlands.
When i activated ssl, i can use one server for ssl: news.ssl.ngroups.net
with 12 connections. The speed goes up and down betweem 800-1040 or so.
The speed is clearly slower then with using news.ue.ngroups.net, because this one gives 1040 Mb/sec or so.
If i enable both servers (so the non-ssl and the ssl) usenet explorer grabs the most from the non-ssl server (mabye 9:1 ration or so).
I don't see an option for traceroute on their homepage. But may not be necessary because there is only 1 ssl server?
I should also check another time maybe. Now it is 9 pm in the netherlands.
Re: i am testing ngroups now
Hostname: news.ssl.ngroups.netbassie wrote:I don't see an option for traceroute on their homepage. But may not be necessary because there is only 1 ssl server?
IP Address: 208.49.82.58
Use tracert to run the traceroute.
Re: i am testing ngroups now
I have vista and i run a dos box. I do tracert news.ssl.ngroups.net and then it shows some pings, but before finishing, the dos box disappears and i am left with no clue. When i repeat i see that with ping 9 it is about 156 ms. then the box disappears.Josef K wrote:Hostname: news.ssl.ngroups.netbassie wrote:I don't see an option for traceroute on their homepage. But may not be necessary because there is only 1 ssl server?
IP Address: 208.49.82.58
Use tracert to run the traceroute.
Re: i am testing ngroups now
Ok, i did.Josef K wrote:Hostname: news.ssl.ngroups.netbassie wrote:I don't see an option for traceroute on their homepage. But may not be necessary because there is only 1 ssl server?
IP Address: 208.49.82.58
Use tracert to run the traceroute.
the first 8 have up to 11 ms. Then 4 with 115-150 ms.
The first ping is to the address of the gateway (the router i have). The last one is to a server of usenetserver it appears.
But what does this help?
port forward in router, could make a difference?
i forwarded the port 563 (which i had to setup in the ssl server) to the computer running ue now.
Not sure if it is helping, but should it?
Not sure if it is helping, but should it?
Hmm, posting lots since I was last here not that long ago...
To tracert, run 'cmd' first so the command prompt stays put and doesn't disappear.
The tracert will tell you the latency and the number of hops you are routed through to get to the server. The more hops combined with high latency equals slower speeds, essentially. Each hop has to respond during data transfer and therefore your throughput will be reduced if one or more have high latency. Typically if all hops are under 50-60ms then everything should be good.
You shouldn't need to port forward under average conditions, e.g. you have a computer connected to a router. If you have a bit of a funky setup then you may need to but not with the above mentioned scenario.
The Euro server tracerts to newsfarm.ams2.highwinds-media.com [69.16.176.253]
US is newsfarm.atl.highwinds-media.com [208.49.82.60]
SSL is secure.newsfarm.atl.highwinds-media.com [208.49.82.58]
All have different IPs so they aren't duplicated.
The speed for me is proving to slowdown always during peak times. Not even fibre optics can save us now. Since I schedule UE to only download overnight I never really notice this anyway.
To tracert, run 'cmd' first so the command prompt stays put and doesn't disappear.
The tracert will tell you the latency and the number of hops you are routed through to get to the server. The more hops combined with high latency equals slower speeds, essentially. Each hop has to respond during data transfer and therefore your throughput will be reduced if one or more have high latency. Typically if all hops are under 50-60ms then everything should be good.
You shouldn't need to port forward under average conditions, e.g. you have a computer connected to a router. If you have a bit of a funky setup then you may need to but not with the above mentioned scenario.
The Euro server tracerts to newsfarm.ams2.highwinds-media.com [69.16.176.253]
US is newsfarm.atl.highwinds-media.com [208.49.82.60]
SSL is secure.newsfarm.atl.highwinds-media.com [208.49.82.58]
All have different IPs so they aren't duplicated.
The speed for me is proving to slowdown always during peak times. Not even fibre optics can save us now. Since I schedule UE to only download overnight I never really notice this anyway.
if i check tracert news.eu.ngroups.net i arrive at "unknown.newshosting.com" [69.16.176.253] with 10 hops and 12 11 11 ms. And with this one downloading is fastest.
if i check treacert news.ssl.ngroups.net i arrive at "secure.usenetserver.com" [208.49.82.58] 117 115 113 ms
at 7 am (netherlands) speed is 800-1000 KB/S with ssl
I will just finish this month, then try another provider. At the end i will be ready if i really need this ssl.
if i check treacert news.ssl.ngroups.net i arrive at "secure.usenetserver.com" [208.49.82.58] 117 115 113 ms
at 7 am (netherlands) speed is 800-1000 KB/S with ssl
I will just finish this month, then try another provider. At the end i will be ready if i really need this ssl.
At the beginning of the tracert it will say 'Tracing route to' and then the name of the actual host you're tracing.
The problem with Ngroups is that they are decently priced but their speed isn't all that good. Providers with excellent speed tend to be highly priced and not something I'm willing to shell out for when I don't always take advantage of it. Some are outrageously priced for unlimited and only give you miniscule GBs/month at a similar rate to Ngroups' unlimited which I can easily swallow up in an hour or two. Also, getting SSL can be an addon which will cost more yet again. For me, as I said before, scheduling to download overnight gets me everything I want so it's a good compromise that I'm willing to live with.
The problem with Ngroups is that they are decently priced but their speed isn't all that good. Providers with excellent speed tend to be highly priced and not something I'm willing to shell out for when I don't always take advantage of it. Some are outrageously priced for unlimited and only give you miniscule GBs/month at a similar rate to Ngroups' unlimited which I can easily swallow up in an hour or two. Also, getting SSL can be an addon which will cost more yet again. For me, as I said before, scheduling to download overnight gets me everything I want so it's a good compromise that I'm willing to live with.