Bristol Digest, Vol 591, Issue 1

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: BT Profiling Slowed down my connection - OT (Amias Channer)
2. Re: Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2 (Amias Channer)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:58:04 +0000
From: Amias Channer <me@amias.net>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] BT Profiling Slowed down my connection - OT
Message-ID:
<CAMgU7XXWaTWzz0c=jAP9=Ny0hNV4bYNuTgQ2SePvHCjYqn_cDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hello Peter,

You do need to leave a device permenantly connected to an ADSL connection
to get the best speeds , the exchange uses a lot of power and doesn't want
to use power supplying lines that are not running so it optimises itself.

If you don't want to run wifi overnight you could just tell your router to
turn off wifi. Another option might be to use a separate ADSL modem (with
ethernet) and plug your router (with ethernet uplink) in to that and
ideally use a seperate AP with ethernet uplink, this would allow you to use
a timer plug to physically switch off the wifi but leave the adsl and rest
of the netwok up.

fwiw i leave wifi on all the time , i'd be suprised if it cost more than
10p per night. If you are worried about climate change (which we all should
be) then get your energy from a 100% renewable supplier like good energy ,
economically speaking the more renewable energy used the better.

Cheers
Amias

On 31 January 2015 at 15:18, Alex Butcher (LUG) <lug@assursys.co.uk> wrote:

> Eclipse have (characteristically) given you good info.
>
> If you want the gory details, start with <
> http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/DLM_system.htm&gt; then read the rest of that
> site.
>
>
> On 31 January 2015 12:29:57 GMT+00:00, Peter Hemmings <
> peter@hemmings.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have had some problems recently and would appreciate any info on
>> "profiling".
>>
>> Background:
>>
>> A month ago I fitted a new WiFi Router which I normally switch off at
>> night AND when not using it.
>> My normal download speed is about 5.2Mb/s and my synced speed of 5.9 but
>> last week I noticed the download was down to 3.2!
>> After doing the normal checks filter change/removing everything attached
>> and then testing from the "Line In" jack, Eclipse confirmed it was the
>> exchange that had throttled it back and I should leave it on 24/7.
>> After a couple of days my sync speed went up to 7.2 BUT I was still
>> getting 3.2 downloads!!
>> Eclipse then said that was correct as there was still a limit on the
>> line and they would request a "profile reset" but I should wait 24
>> hours for it to "learn" the line and increase the speed.
>>
>>
>>
>> My download speed has now increased
>> to about 6.5 which is as good as I
>> have ever had, but I was wondering if others had experience/knowledge
>> of profiling, in particular, is it really necessary to have the router
>> on 24/7 or is it OK just to switch it off a night?
>>
>> Also, why was there a need to reset my profile to increase download
>> speeds if I had the router on 24/7 !?
>>
>> I was also informed that BT's new exchange S/W cannot tell the
>> difference between a faulty line and switching off the router, so if
>> its switched on and off a few times during the day, download speeds
>> will reduce.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20150223/87928499/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:25:41 +0000
From: Amias Channer <me@amias.net>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2
Message-ID:
<CAMgU7XVeB31eWmyL3CTJM0hgAWvqWPy+2cRC2aKtuj7NaAJtGA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hello Luggers,

+1 for samsung SDD's , intel ones are also good.

I work for a company that makes virtualised storage systems , i do testing
and the only non enterprise SDD's that proved reliable enough where samsung
and intel. If you want solid and fast look at drives using the sandforce
chipsets/firmware or checkout the fusionio offerings but you will need to
be seated when you read the price.

You must always have backups of SDD storage as it is just not as reliable
as HDD.

Personally i would build the system so that all live storage is SDD using
LVM then have it periodically copy snapshots to HDD that is unmounted at
all other times. The raw speed and silence of SDDs will ruin HDD's for you.
Also if you are doing audio work SDD makes much less electrical noise on
the system soundcard , this might also be an issue if you are doing complex
electronics with or near the computer.

RAID'ing SDD is mostly pointless unless you have some really big iron and
enterprise type data throughput requirements , there are some interesting
solutions that provide hybrid SDD/HDD storage but none of them feel
anything like as quick as an SDD. Most RAID is designed around fixing the
problems with spinning disks.

Cheers
Amias


On 3 February 2015 at 14:56, Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Fergus Allan wrote:
>
> SSD's have been incredibly unreliable. Either dirty pages returned or
>> complete failure.
>>
>> I've had 2 crucial SSD's, both failed totally at 3 months old; little red
>> light comes on and no access to any part of the disk. The first also
>> returned dirty pages pretty much from day 1. I've haven't fixed all my
>> corrupted data from that issue. That was a few years ago. We were
>> discussing ordering some SSDs at work and I suggested Crucial even though
>> I
>> don't trust their devices, expecting a positive reaction, but they shot
>> that down as too unreliable.
>>
>
> But of course you've got backups you can restore from, right?!?
>
> We make extensive use of SSDs in our centralised storage at work, with no
> particular problems. But, of course, we'll almost certainly be using
> enterprise kit rather than consumer stuff.
>
> When choosing an SSD for a new desktop, amongst the consumer stuff, the
> Samsung 850 PRO SSDs struck me as having appreciably better longevity
> ratings (150TBW for the 128GB and 256GB models, 300TBW for the 512GB and
> 1TB) than most others and with a warranty (10 years) to match.
>
> <http://www.storagereview.com/demystifying_ssd_endurance>
>
> Personally, I still rely on (spinning rust) hard drives in RAID1 for
> storing
> data that's at all important. The SSD is purely to improve responsiveness
> of
> the OS and key applications, and it is backed up regularly to a RAID1 array
> (or it will be, when I get round to it!)
>
> OCZ went bust and was bought out and the brand name retained. As far as I
>> can tell, OCZ makes crucial look good for reliability.
>>
>> 22 years? Not a chance. 3 maybe and back up often.
>>
>
> That depends on the figure for maximum write volume (in TBW) and what your
> write activity is like. For an SSD to last 22 years in a "normal
> workstation" (<http://ssdendurancetest.com/>) requires specifying for
> 10-20GB/day of writes, or 80.3-160.6TBW. Only a dozen or so drives from the
> two manufacturers you name are rated for over 100TBW:
> <http://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hdssd&xf=1035_OCZ~1035_
> Crucial~4930_100#xf_top>.
>
> I'm toying with using SSD's again, but can't quite trust them unless I
>> raid
>> them.
>>
>
> TBH, I haven't trusted un-mirrored HDDs since 2002.
>
> Fergus.
>>
>
> Best Regards,
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20150223/12f5806d/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 591, Issue 1
***************************************