Jump to content

craigr

Members
  • Content Count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About craigr

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • Gender
    Male
  • URL
    http://www.cir-engineering.com
  • Location
    Chicago USA
  • Personal Text
    Video Calibration Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1165 profile views
  1. All the ping times are poor, but actual data transfer rates may not be effected by high ping times. Though higher ping times often indicate poor bandwidth volume. I would usually get less than 40-65 ms for Toronto. These were what I got: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. C:\Windows\system32>ping de-berlin.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging de-berlin.privateinternetaccess.com [193.176.86.134] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 193.176.86.134: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=54 Reply from 193.176.86.134: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=54 Reply from 193.176.86.134: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=54 Reply from 193.176.86.134: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 193.176.86.134: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 149ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 149ms C:\Windows\system32>ping de-frankfurt.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging de-frankfurt.privateinternetaccess.com [185.220.70.163] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 185.220.70.163: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=54 Reply from 185.220.70.163: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=54 Reply from 185.220.70.163: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=54 Reply from 185.220.70.163: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 185.220.70.163: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 145ms, Maximum = 147ms, Average = 146ms C:\Windows\system32>ping sweden.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging sweden.privateinternetaccess.com [45.12.220.246] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 45.12.220.246: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=55 Reply from 45.12.220.246: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=55 Reply from 45.12.220.246: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=55 Reply from 45.12.220.246: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 45.12.220.246: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 154ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 155ms C:\Windows\system32>ping swiss.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging swiss.privateinternetaccess.com [185.212.170.184] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 185.212.170.184: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=55 Reply from 185.212.170.184: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=55 Reply from 185.212.170.184: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=55 Reply from 185.212.170.184: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 185.212.170.184: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 143ms, Maximum = 146ms, Average = 144ms C:\Windows\system32>ping france.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging france.privateinternetaccess.com [194.99.106.148] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 194.99.106.148: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=52 Reply from 194.99.106.148: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=52 Reply from 194.99.106.148: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=52 Reply from 194.99.106.148: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=52 Ping statistics for 194.99.106.148: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 147ms, Maximum = 148ms, Average = 147ms C:\Windows\system32>ping czech.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging czech.privateinternetaccess.com [185.216.35.68] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 185.216.35.68: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=55 Reply from 185.216.35.68: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=55 Reply from 185.216.35.68: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=55 Reply from 185.216.35.68: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 185.216.35.68: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 154ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 155ms C:\Windows\system32>ping spain.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging spain.privateinternetaccess.com [185.230.124.50] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 185.230.124.50: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=56 Reply from 185.230.124.50: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=56 Reply from 185.230.124.50: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=56 Reply from 185.230.124.50: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=56 Ping statistics for 185.230.124.50: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 140ms, Maximum = 141ms, Average = 140ms C:\Windows\system32>ping ro.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging ro.privateinternetaccess.com [185.210.218.108] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 185.210.218.108: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=50 Reply from 185.210.218.108: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=50 Reply from 185.210.218.108: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=50 Reply from 185.210.218.108: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 185.210.218.108: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 185ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 187ms C:\Windows\system32>ping israel.privateinternetaccess.com Pinging israel.privateinternetaccess.com [31.168.172.142] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 31.168.172.142: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=55 Reply from 31.168.172.142: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=55 Reply from 31.168.172.142: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=55 Reply from 31.168.172.142: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 31.168.172.142: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 192ms, Maximum = 193ms, Average = 192ms C:\Windows\system32> craigr
  2. If you want to find which has the best speed than you just have to try them. Going back and forth across the pond will absolutely slow things down. I could usually get 8-10 MB/s off of Toronto. I tried over seas port forwarding in the past and always found speeds were deleteriously affected. I think we need to hope that port forwarding is returned to the Canadian servers quickly. Port forwarding isn't just about speed, it's about being able to find peers to upload to and download from. Without port forwarding most private trackers just won't work at all or possibly very poorly. Let's keep our fingers crossed. craigr
  3. 2020-04-09 11:33:21,842 DEBG 'start-script' stdout output: [info] List of PIA endpoints that support port forwarding:- [info] de-berlin.privateinternetaccess.com [info] de-frankfurt.privateinternetaccess.com [info] sweden.privateinternetaccess.com [info] swiss.privateinternetaccess.com [info] france.privateinternetaccess.com [info] czech.privateinternetaccess.com [info] spain.privateinternetaccess.com [info] ro.privateinternetaccess.com [info] israel.privateinternetaccess.com Best regards, craigr
  4. Yeah, this morning I awoke to no traffic and tried to reconnect to Toronto and Montreal... no go. Found the info Googling and Berlin is working for me. I came here to post this info, but you already had it up. Should have come here first. According to the logs my Toronto port forwarded connection was doped at 00:47 this morning and deluge continuously tried to reconnect for ten hours after that. Strange timing. It has been working fine until then. Weird because PIA support says it's been down for nine days. craigr
  5. This is a bit over my head too. I love the idea of the feature, but won't be able to utilize it until someone can please provide a more detailed explanation. Right now I am wasting 3x VPN connections for three different dockers. It would be nice to run all three dockers through the same VPN connection and have a kill switch working. I also need port forwarding with PIA which I don't know if it is possible with the new feature? Also, updated from 6.8.2 without issue. Thanks all, craigr
  6. It may work... I'll let you know once I've tried it. I am having some unexpected issues that may keep me from setting this up for at least a few days. Kind regards, craigr
  7. DHCP on is coming from the router. However, the unRAID server is on a static IP as is the PC. So I don't think the PC would need to pull a DHCP as long as it's static. DNS is assigned at the unRAID server and specified at the PC as well. PC is running Windows 7. Thanks! craigr
  8. Yes exactly. However the switch handles LACP (HP 1810-24G J9803A). Thanks! craigr
  9. Also, right now both unRAID and the PC are connected to my switch, all with static IP addresses. craigr
  10. I want to do a kind of strange thing; I'd like to connect my PC (which is right next to my unRAID server) directly to the unRAID server AND be able to access the internet on the PC running "through" the unRIAD LAN port. I have an Intel 4-port I350 coming tomorrow and want to use all four port for 802.3ad LACP. I will then have two available NIC ports on my Supermicro. I would like to connect the PC to one of these two ports to access unRAID, but maintain internet connectivity with the PC by using unRAID's connection to the internet. Could somebody point me in the direction of how this may be accomplished? I know it's not that difficult, but lack the proper vocabulary and knowledge. This would make it so that I don't need to run anymore Ethernet cables through my walls to my office. Thanks for any help and kind regards, craigr
  11. I am having similar issues. I will post a log next time. If I am unpacking a large RAR file on the cache drive nothing else can happen on the array. Netdata will even freeze and when it comes back there is no data (a blank section) on all the CPU charts for however long it froze while extracting the files. craigr
  12. The CPU is in and running nicely. Thanks again, craigr
  13. I've been using this plug in for a very long time and absolutely love it. Thanks so much! I have a request. Would it be possible to move the "IPMI Summary" on the Dashboard from the top of the page to the bottom of the page? With the newer look of unRAID the look and layout for the IPMI Summary just down't match and I'd also like to have access to other information at the top of the page. A silly cosmetic tweak I know, but I just thought I would ask. Kind regards, craigr
  14. Finally was able to reboot and update. All looks good here, but I don't run any VM's. Thanks, craigr
  15. Well it’s been a while, but it looks like you may already have the right vendor to flash directly without cross flashing. You are in firmware 15 so you absolutely should upgrade. i think you may find that you can just flash it with no option rom directly. I’ll look at this more later when I can get to my computer. and yes I can send you version 14 if you need it. best, craigr