If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
Per VanguardLH:
Go to ipleak.net. See if its WebRTC reveals your intranet IP address. With Firefox and media.peerconnection.enabled = False, ipleak.net cannot discover my intranet IP address. I am using "Private Internet Access" (a paid service) and it *seems* like ipleak is happy with it.... at least it shows an IP different from my "Real" IP address. -- Pete Cresswell |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
Per VanguardLH:
gigs/hour) of upload activity. Tried using a network monitor, like SysInternals' TCPview, to see what process is generating all the upstream traffic? Thanks!... Just installed TCPview and it is looking like my Tivo-On-Steroids DVR app and a little black box underneath my TV are the source of the "Upload" traffic. Quotes, because it is strictly over the LAN, not WAN (at least I *think* it is....) and I had not thought of "Upload" as applying to local LAN traffic. Also many of the UL speeds were far in excess of what my FIOS service allows. But killed the SageTV service, watched BitMeter for five minutes and the UL speed quiesced to a steady 1-1.1.... then I re-started the SageTV service, bounced the little black box, and it was back to high UL speeds.... so I guess that's the way it is. -- Pete Cresswell |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
Wolf K wrote:
The main disadvantage, apart from the background hogging of the 'net connection, is that one of the sources may be infected. From my POV that's a deal-breaker. I haven't used a torrent client in years. I've been using torrents for over a decade. Not one single malware. I think the "you'll get infected" crap is from the good folks in the entertainment industry. Also, if you use Bit Torrent or Deluge, you will not automatically become a seeder except for what you're downloading. Once done, you can re3move the torrent and you are no longer seeding. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per VanguardLH: gigs/hour) of upload activity. Tried using a network monitor, like SysInternals' TCPview, to see what process is generating all the upstream traffic? Thanks!... Just installed TCPview and it is looking like my Tivo-On-Steroids DVR app and a little black box underneath my TV are the source of the "Upload" traffic. Quotes, because it is strictly over the LAN, not WAN (at least I *think* it is....) and I had not thought of "Upload" as applying to local LAN traffic. Also many of the UL speeds were far in excess of what my FIOS service allows. But killed the SageTV service, watched BitMeter for five minutes and the UL speed quiesced to a steady 1-1.1.... then I re-started the SageTV service, bounced the little black box, and it was back to high UL speeds.... so I guess that's the way it is. A digital TV tuner here, produces about 7GB per hour. Which I guess would be 2MB/sec or so. (This could vary with SD or HD or higher formats perhaps.) Is the SageTV upload a lot more than that ? To see whether the upload is reasonable, you'd have to compare it to the proposed content. Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:14:08 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
AIUI, the torrent clients work by using their users' machines. Once you've d/l a file, it's available to other users (some clients did ask for permission, back when I tried them). Not necessarily limited to after a file has been fully downloaded. In my experience, any file *segment* that has been successfully downloaded can be made available to others who are seeking that segment. Seeding starts as soon as you've successfully downloaded the first segment. That's probably configurable. The torrent works by scavenging and combining pieces of the file from many different sources. From the users POV this has several advantages: it usually speeds up d/l compared to a single source (server); it bypasses legitimate sources, which may charge for the content; it tends to hide the user's identity. Agreed, except for that last item. I would have said that BT tends to *reveal* your identity rather than hide it, where identity refers to your IP address, to multiple strangers, just as it reveals their identity to you. Everyone who downloads segments of files can see the IP address of everyone else who is also downloading segments of that file. That's one of the reasons why people use a VPN when downloading via BT. The main disadvantage, apart from the background hogging of the 'net connection, is that one of the sources may be infected. From my POV that's a deal-breaker. I haven't used a torrent client in years. The entire file could be infected with malware, although that is extremely rare, but I don't think it's possible that someone is likely to figure out a way to infect a single segment. Every segment has to pass sanity checks after being downloaded and prior to being added to what has already been downloaded and verified. If someone were to mess with a segment, it would be discarded as a result of those sanity checks. Back in the day, I used to hear of instances where someone, possibly the RIAA or a major record company, was seeding music files that were actually just white noise, or sometimes repeated recordings of 'don't steal this music", but I haven't heard of examples of that in about 10-15 years. AFAIK, the default or torrent clients is to run in the background. I've only tried a few over the years, and they all ran in the foreground by default, although each could be minimized to the tray, if desired. -- Char Jackson |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:21:27 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: Per VanguardLH: gigs/hour) of upload activity. Tried using a network monitor, like SysInternals' TCPview, to see what process is generating all the upstream traffic? Thanks!... Just installed TCPview and it is looking like my Tivo-On-Steroids DVR app and a little black box underneath my TV are the source of the "Upload" traffic. Quotes, because it is strictly over the LAN, not WAN (at least I *think* it is....) and I had not thought of "Upload" as applying to local LAN traffic. Also many of the UL speeds were far in excess of what my FIOS service allows. But killed the SageTV service, watched BitMeter for five minutes and the UL speed quiesced to a steady 1-1.1.... then I re-started the SageTV service, bounced the little black box, and it was back to high UL speeds.... so I guess that's the way it is. If that amount of network traffic causes you any issues with the rest of your LAN or your Internet access, consider isolating it to its own LAN. -- Char Jackson |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:21:27 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
But killed the SageTV service, watched BitMeter for five minutes and the UL speed quiesced to a steady 1-1.1.... then I re-started the SageTV service, bounced the little black box, and it was back to high UL speeds.... so I guess that's the way it is. Probably old news, but.... http://sagetv.com/: "We’re thrilled to announce that SageTV has been acquired by Google." -- croy |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
PeteCresswell wrote:
Per VanguardLH: Go to ipleak.net. See if its WebRTC reveals your intranet IP address. With Firefox and media.peerconnection.enabled = False, ipleak.net cannot discover my intranet IP address. I am using "Private Internet Access" (a paid service) and it *seems* like ipleak is happy with it.... at least it shows an IP different from my "Real" IP address. How about the IP address shown by ipleak.net when they use WebRTC? That will, if allowed, show the IP address of your host, not the WAN-side IP address of your router. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Is that _always_ the case, that you're hosting _unknown_ content, or do some of the Torrent (networks? I don't know the correct term, never having participated) only make you pass on the content you wanted - sort of a "you can have it, as long as you in turn pass it on to others" idea Well, just how did YOU get it? From someone else. You're one of the someone else's in the swarm. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Is that _always_ the case, that you're hosting _unknown_ content, or do some of the Torrent (networks? I don't know the correct term, never having participated) only make you pass on the content you wanted - sort of a "you can have it, as long as you in turn pass it on to others" idea Well, just how did YOU get it? From someone else. You're one of the someone else's in the swarm. I'm not saying you wouldn't be passing on to unknown persons; I was just asking whether it is always the case (as was implied by the previous posters) that you are also passing on (and thus storing) unknown material, rather than just the material _you_ actively downloaded. I've never used torrenting, but I always understood that it was a collaborative arrangement - you can download from other torrenters, on condition that you then let yet other torrenters download from you what you have downloaded - not _extra_ material you don't know about. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I'm not saying you wouldn't be passing on to unknown persons; I was just asking whether it is always the case (as was implied by the previous posters) that you are also passing on (and thus storing) unknown material, rather than just the material _you_ actively downloaded. I've never used torrenting, but I always understood that it was a collaborative arrangement - you can download from other torrenters, on condition that you then let yet other torrenters download from you what you have downloaded - not _extra_ material you don't know about. Torrents can work like you describe. As a leech, a file that you retrieve from one, or more, seeders will also be available with you as a seeder to other leechers. A central server would probably have a lot higher upstream bandwidth for you to download the file from them. All those torrent hosts are home PCs with dismal upstream bandwidth, so slicing up a file across multiple seeder hosts parallels the file transfer to effect a higher upstream bandwidth across all those seeder hosts and you get a higher downstream bandwidth for the file transfer. I thought there was an option to also employ other torrent hosts through which the file transfer can happen. That is, instead of a direct connection from your torrenting host to another torrenting host, a mesh network of other torrent-capable hosts could be employed for redundancy or failure recovery. Maybe not. If a seeder host goes down or becomes unreachable to which you are connected as a leech host then maybe the torrent client discards that portion of the torrent you captured already and goes find another seeder host to start all over on getting that slice of the file. That is, maybe torrents have no resume function with a prior seeder host from which you were retrieving a file piece. Could be what I'm thinking about are the VPN providers that punish you for not allowing traffic from others to use your host's idle bandwidth. That is, you get slower effective bandwidth through the VPN network if you don't share your bandwidth with others (which has then passing anything they want through your host). Another possibility is I'm mixing up Microsoft's scheme in Windows 10 for deploying updates by distributing them on their customers' hosts (aka peer-to-peer updating), so that might be another cause of Pete's mysterious upstream traffic (if he left that option enabled). https://www.pcworld.com/article/2955...s-systems.html https://www.howtogeek.com/141257/htg...ttorrent-work/ mentions using trackerless torrents. That means a node in the swarm has to contact other nodes in the swarm instead of a central server proffering the tracker data. That would not mean you get any files on your host that you didn't ask for; however, it does mean your host is involved in searches by other nodes in the swarm looking for a file. That means your torrent client has to generate traffic to talk with all the other "nearby" nodes in the swarm. The article didn't define what "nearby" means. You might be correct that you don't host any files that you never requested, or it is something client-side configurable in the mesh network that the swarm uses to decentralize the location of the file. There is a lot of voodoo-speak about torrents, so it's tough to pin down just how it works unless you get into the client code of which I have no interest. Because of the similar naming, Tor can be confused with torrenting (P2P file sharing protocol) over the Tor mesh network. However, the more I read about torrenting the less it seems to be about privacy since the seeder and leech clients have to communicate and dole out their IP addresses to each other -- and anyone can operate a torrent node, including the gov't (just like anyone, including the gov't can operate entrance and exit TOR nodes). The seeder site has to know where to deliver the file requested by the leech node. Tor means having to trust whoever operates an entrance and exit node aren't the same operator. Tor does get mapped; for example, see: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/mappin...-around-world/ Knowing who runs a Tor node and where they are doesn't mean your traffic is subourned. You are trusting an unknown (to you) Tor node operator with your traffic. The bulk of funding for development of Tor comes from the US gov't (https://pando.com/2014/07/16/tor-spooks/). I can see how entrance and exit nodes get mapped, and anyone can operate one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(a...rk)#Weaknesses Since traffic through the Tor network isn't secure unless encrypted, then what's the difference from using HTTPS, FTPS, or other encrypted protocol? Oh, that the endpoints are hidden (but only if you trust the Tor nodes to not exploit weaknesses in Tor), like your ISP cannot see to target site, which is what VPNs do, too. Sometimes it's hard to keep separate Tor from the tor-named protocols (e.g., torrent) that run on the Tor network. Tor this, tor that. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 08:10:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Sometimes it's hard to keep separate Tor from the tor-named protocols (e.g., torrent) that run on the Tor network. Tor this, tor that. There's no relationship between Tor (The Onion Router project) and Bittorrent (decentralized distributed file transfer). Like java versus javascript, they just share similar names. -- Char Jackson |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
Char Jackson wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Sometimes it's hard to keep separate Tor from the tor-named protocols (e.g., torrent) that run on the Tor network. Tor this, tor that. There's no relationship between Tor (The Onion Router project) and Bittorrent (decentralized distributed file transfer). Like java versus javascript, they just share similar names. You're probably right. Bad naming convention, similar to how Microsoft confuses products with similar or reused names. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 08:10:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Sometimes it's hard to keep separate Tor from the tor-named protocols (e.g., torrent) that run on the Tor network. Tor this, tor that. There's no relationship between Tor (The Onion Router project) and Bittorrent (decentralized distributed file transfer). Like java versus javascript, they just share similar names. So, does _either_ of them involve you passing on (and thus storing, at least temporarily) material of which you know nothing? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Download Speed Miserable, then A-OK following PC reboot?
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 04:33:00 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 08:10:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Sometimes it's hard to keep separate Tor from the tor-named protocols (e.g., torrent) that run on the Tor network. Tor this, tor that. There's no relationship between Tor (The Onion Router project) and Bittorrent (decentralized distributed file transfer). Like java versus javascript, they just share similar names. So, does _either_ of them involve you passing on (and thus storing, at least temporarily) material of which you know nothing? Not that I'm aware of, but I've never used Tor (only read about it) and I rarely use BT, so I may have missed something regarding that aspect. There used to be a concept of a BT Supernode, so in that case I assume the answer could be yes, but I don't know if that's still a thing. I don't believe it's a default, assuming it does still exist. -- Char Jackson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|