internet connection speed limited by OS?

[horton]

is it?

I am about to upgrade from a 40Mbps connection to 160Mbps connection, and the guy on the phone arranging the setup date told her that I would have to use Vista rather than XP as XP will only support 30 or 40Mbps.

any truth in this shit?

I have no desire to use Vista or anything other than XP on my current machine.

[MKJ]

no.
untill recently we ran win2k at my work and i get about 300Mbps (3 threads of 12mb/s) thruogh the internet

it also makes no sense since the internetconnection runs over the same port as local network would, and 1 Gigabit LANs have been common for quite some time.

[horton]

here I was sitting in blissfull ignorance thinking that I could just plug in a fat connection.

so new gigabit router, new lan cables (5e)? and new network cards (I'm assuming that the shit onboard cards do not support fast speeds)

I hope this satisfies my girlfriend's need to download every single American TV show via torrent at a speed faster than light.

[ToxicBug]

160mbps? christ! whats the up speed?

[horton]

10 I think.

[^misantropia^]

Vista does (or did) something weird to network speeds when playing audio:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/26/1628200.shtml
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/21/1441240
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/0256208

[Deathshroud]

I doubt it, but they might be referring to the QoS packet scheduler.

[R00k]

and new network cards (I'm assuming that the shit onboard cards do not support fast speeds)

Depends on your machine. Most newer onboard cards support gigabit ethernet. That would be plenty.

[Silicone_Milk]

you suck. I'm running a 5 mbps connection

[obsidian]

Me too. I'd be happy with your upload speed as my download speed.

[Underpants?]

and new network cards (I'm assuming that the shit onboard cards do not support fast speeds)

Depends on your machine. Most newer onboard cards support gigabit ethernet. That would be plenty.

lotta truth here... I've also seen odd things such as Gnome / Firefox smoke on redhat enterprise, then shit the bed on centos, same "release version/"

[Fender]

CentOS is about to become our official desktop distro @ work for SOX404 compliance.

[Underpants?]

i don't know sox as well as an ex-it man should, but if that is indeed some kind of sox regulatory code, it is indeed, brilliant in it's irony. Firefox is shit, faster fox is shit, not sure about konquorer(sp?), but Safari is shit and and i definitely mean utter shit. Hell, all browsers i've tested seem to be below par (by below par i mean they can lick my hairy, stuck-to-my-leg-and-marinated-in-10-day-man-sweat nut) for performance with anything flash-related. 3rd-party drivers help to some extent, but if you use any of the nvidia stuff, well lawdy lawdy look fuh some fun tams when you's about's ta yum update der kernel in dat bitch!

[Captain a13n]

internet connection speed limited by OS?

Yes. At least on win9x on which youtube video is played at the lowest quality due to the band width limitation of win9x though it can be widened by registry editting via utility apps.

[R00k]

CentOS is about to become our official desktop distro @ work for SOX404 compliance.

I'm having to build a Linux machine on VMWare. Ubuntu was requested, so I loaded it, but I've had nothing except problems with it. CentOS was recommended to me by someone.

I know shit about Linux though. What's so hot about Cent? And do you know if it's a good distro for servers?

[Underpants?]

My .02 if ya want it r00kie: desktop software aside, centos is basically rhel, with fewer stripped down packages but still lots of goodies, like HA/DRDB among other clustered services. Very large HCL base. It's extremely stable and reliable as a LAMP or SMB or subversion server, from what I've experienced. Plus, people who are worlds smarter than me have highly recommend it in the past.

[Captain]

people who are worlds smarter than me have highly recommend it in the past.

Well that's not saying much.

[Underpants?]

who let you out of your cage, Mr. Peepers?

[Fender]

We aren't Facebook, but we run a 1M unique visitors/day site on CentOS.

[Underpants?]

benchmarks are good, eh? we run about 18MM or whatever, across 30 CentOS vmguests on 2 CenOS vmware systems located in HW's facility in Amsterdam... I'm still waiting for something to go wrong so i have an excuse to fly out and visit those crazy dutchee gays.

[Underpants?]

not really "go wrong", maybe "need onsite upgrade assistance," or something...
*Knocks on wood

[^misantropia^]

I'm having to build a Linux machine on VMWare. Ubuntu was requested, so I loaded it, but I've had nothing except problems with it.

If you are not using VMWare's enterprise-y features, give VirtualBox a spin. It's heaps easier to configure and deploy.

PS: Is this to be a server image? Were you using vanilla Ubuntu or Ubuntu Server?

[horton]

strange shit. despite what I read everywhere, and what everyone told me (both here and elsewhere) the laptop with Vista is hitting about 65Mbps and the PCs with XP are getting about 22Mbps.

I assumed it was all hardware, but something in XP seems to be gaying my connection.

[Fender]

When did MS change their TCP/IP stack from their own to one based on *inx (FreeBSD, IIRC)?
edit: n/m that seems to be unsubstantiated

[R00k]

Thanks for the replies fellas.

My .02 if ya want it r00kie: desktop software aside, centos is basically rhel, with fewer stripped down packages but still lots of goodies, like HA/DRDB among other clustered services. Very large HCL base. It's extremely stable and reliable as a LAMP or SMB or subversion server, from what I've experienced. Plus, people who are worlds smarter than me have highly recommend it in the past.

That's excellent to hear -- SubVersion is what I'm building it for.