Wired and Wireless both are connected

[jmcslob]

So if both are connected and running does it speed up your Access
I no I'm being really lazy to ask this i could just run a few test's and verify one way or the other or just type it into google but I want to heare it from you people

[Solaris17]

i really dont thinkk so if im not mistaken when browsing you can only use one connection.

[jmcslob]

I think your right

[Wile E]

No. Doesn't speed anything up.

[jmcslob]

No. Doesn't speed anything up.

no it doesn't....

[digibucc]

it's actually pretty ridiculous if you ask me - that there is no way (using a dl manager, dividing into parts) to download from two separate connections at once (in windows).

obviously if they go to the same router, that's stupid - but I have two entirely different connections plugged in , and for a year have been trying to find a way to use them at the same time to increase dl speed on one computer.

load balancing routers , expensive as they are, don't even really do it. they are backwards , meant to make it so more people can access your server at once , vs my accessing someone else's server at higher speeds,

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by digibucc

it's actually pretty ridiculous if you ask me - that there is no way (using a dl manager, dividing into parts) to download from two separate connections at once (in windows).

obviously if they go to the same router, that's stupid - but I have two entirely different connections plugged in , and for a year have been trying to find a way to use them at the same time to increase dl speed on one computer.

load balancing routers , expensive as they are, don't even really do it. they are backwards , meant to make it so more people can access your server at once , vs my accessing someone else's server at higher speeds,

Did you try bridging your connections in Windows, then running them thru a switch?

[Hybrid_theory]

Yeah you would have to load balance in windows as well as on your router. But when it comes down to it your internet speed isnt limited by ethernet LAN (unless you're on 10mbit, you poor soul). Wireless it can be affected, and is often quicker to wire in. But even if you did load balance successfully. I can't imagine having faster download speeds.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Hybrid_theory

Yeah you would have to load balance in windows as well as on your router. But when it comes down to it your internet speed isnt limited by ethernet LAN (unless you're on 10mbit, you poor soul). Wireless it can be affected, and is often quicker to wire in. But even if you did load balance successfully. I can't imagine having faster download speeds.

True. The only way you could get faster speeds is if you somehow had 2 separate internet accounts with independent modems.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Wile E

True. The only way you could get faster speeds is if you somehow had 2 separate internet accounts with independent modems.

I've seen routers that do have dual WAN. For most people, a single gigabit LAN (125 MB/s) should be more than enough. The only time you might strain it is if you have two computers with SSD drives moving data between them.

Then again, routers are usually your weakest link unless you bought commercial grade routers. The fastest home routers (gigabit/802.11n) bog down in transfers rather quick.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by Wile E

Did you try bridging your connections in Windows, then running them thru a switch?

that is not anything i have ever heard of. i heard bridging in windows - but nothing to do with running to a switch afterward.

any more info on this? I wills earch for it now, but anything else you know would be appreciated.

thanks!

[jmcslob]

Strange thought here....
So my internet is thru RR, it's the Turbo package, which is 15mbps down and a whopping 1.5mbps up(never and i mean never more than 98kbps) anyways It is also restricted to 2.5mbps streams with a total of 6 max streams for a total 15mbps(or any combination that leads to 15mbps but not more than 2.5mbps stream) so is there a way to bridge those streams, not sure if im stating this correctly
or is that an os restriction or browser restriction

[Mussels]

it wont work. the way all this stuff works is like dual core CPU's - any program you use will max out one network connection, ignoring the other - other programs can run off the second one, but they need to be coded with a network card selection or they just use the default windows one... and not many apps have that, do they?


As has been said, its all useless anyway. Speeding up the connection to your switch/router/modem wont do squat, since your internet speed is what controls *drumroll* your internet speed.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by jmcslob

Strange thought here....
So my internet is thru RR, it's the Turbo package, which is 15mbps down and a whopping 1.5mbps up(never and i mean never more than 98kbps) anyways It is also restricted to 2.5mbps streams with a total of 6 max streams for a total 15mbps(or any combination that leads to 15mbps but not more than 2.5mbps stream) so is there a way to bridge those streams, not sure if im stating this correctly
or is that an os restriction or browser restriction

If it's 2.5 per stream, just try a download manager that will open multiple streams at once.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Wile E

If it's 2.5 per stream, just try a download manager that will open multiple streams at once.

download managers are the way to go there. something like getright or free download manager,

[jmcslob]

If it's 2.5 per stream, just try a download manager that will open multiple streams at once.

like Limewire or D2D's download manager

it wont work. the way all this stuff works is like dual core CPU's - any program you use will max out one network connection, ignoring the other - other programs can run off the second one, but they need to be coded with a network card selection or they just use the default windows one... and not many apps have that, do they?


As has been said, its all useless anyway. Speeding up the connection to your switch/router/modem wont do squat, since your internet speed is what controls *drumroll* your internet speed.

Yeah but it seems like waste to be restricted
multi threads combine why not multi lines like Qam

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by jmcslob

Yeah but it seems like waste to be restricted

they do that for a reason. you might as well have bought a 2.5Mb internet plan.

Its not like anything you do on your PC, can alter a setting on the ISP side of things - your only solution is to make more 'streams' as you call them - torrents and download managers both make multiple connections, so they'd let you do some things at full speed.

[jmcslob]

Yeah

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Mussels

and not many apps have that, do they?

Specifically, you need to be able to specify an IP address the app needs to use.

[digibucc]

i cannot believe that it is impossibly difficult to code a piece of software that when:

you have 2 separate internet connections, possibly through 2 separate ISPs(but at the very least 2 accounts with one ISP)
you have 2 nics

it can work as a download manager, splitting every file into pieces. and then download multiple pieces at once across the different connections. most load-balance routers don't do what we are talking about. load-balancing is more for rolllover and reliability. what we want is actually called link aggregation. there are projects in the past, but nothing working and no-one good enough cares to code it.

and someone said just buy a higher level speed (or that that is the ISPs motive) but that has nothing to do with protocol and software creation on an open source level.

secondly - screw that. if I have (as i do) my work internet connection (paid by work) and my personal (paid by me) both at 1MB - why should I not be able to combine them to get download speeds of 2MB.

and remember - I am not necessarily talking about 2MB from one server. understandably not all hosts can handle that speed. but as with a download manager, say I am downloading 10 files from 10 different servers. with proper link aggregation they should download at a combined speed of 2MB

what makes this so difficult or whatever that it has not been done yet? I don't get it

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by digibucc

i cannot believe that it is impossibly difficult to code a piece of software that when:

you have 2 separate internet connections, possibly through 2 separate ISPs(but at the very least 2 accounts with one ISP)
you have 2 nics

it can work as a download manager, splitting every file into pieces. and then download multiple pieces at once across the different connections. most load-balance routers don't do what we are talking about. load-balancing is more for rolllover and reliability. what we want is actually called link aggregation. there are projects in the past, but nothing working and no-one good enough cares to code it.

and someone said just buy a higher level speed (or that that is the ISPs motive) but that has nothing to do with protocol and software creation on an open source level.

secondly - screw that. if I have (as i do) my work internet connection (paid by work) and my personal (paid by me) both at 1MB - why should I not be able to combine them to get download speeds of 2MB.

and remember - I am not necessarily talking about 2MB from one server. understandably not all hosts can handle that speed. but as with a download manager, say I am downloading 10 files from 10 different servers. with proper link aggregation they should download at a combined speed of 2MB

what makes this so difficult or whatever that it has not been done yet? I don't get it

I think an overall lack of demand for it is what prevents its development. Most people do just opt for the faster service.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by Wile E

I think an overall lack of demand for it is what prevents its development. Most people do just opt for the faster service.

I had thought of that. And it does seem the only explanation that kinda works.

But with all of the other crap people spend time on developing - and how simple I would think it would be with the proper protocol understanding. there has got to be something complicated about it - or someone would have done it just screwing around by now.

I just can't see what that is. the idea seems solid. I don't have the coding knowledge, but I don't see where that could be it. the protocol AFAIK could handle it fine. I took CCNA and the way the packets progress is so incredibly messy, it gets sorted at the ends anyway. I just don't get it is all

[Mussels]

the problem is deciding which application uses which network card.

Windows runs on a priority system - use the topmost in the list which has a working connection. programs are just coded to follow that.

If you ahve two connections... run two seperate downloads. tada. as has been said, its the dual core thing again - or as an example someone told me "just because you have two women, doesnt mean you can have a baby in four and a half months"


Sure, someone could code an app to work on this... but why? the amount of people with two internet connections at the same time is very, very low. ones always slower or more expensive than the other - who the hell has two DSL or two cable connections to there house?

[digibucc]

im talking a single application that works as a download manager. looks at the available connections and runs multiple threads if necessary.
even with the low demand - it seems so simple that I still can't believe it hasn't been done.

If you ahve two connections... run two seperate downloads. tada.

and how do we do that? I would be fine if I could use one computer, and even two separate copies of a download manager (though one is preferred). and even if it can't split individual files in parts, just download each file with a different connection. I can't find a way to do this on one computer.

I have to have one computer using one connection, one on the other , then merge the files - but then it's too much of a hassle to be worth it.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by digibucc

im talking a single application that works as a download manager. looks at the available connections and runs multiple threads if necessary.

even with the low demand - it seems so simple that I still can't believe it hasn't been done.

its not 'low' demand - its non existant.