Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nexland Pro800Turbo Load Balancing Router Review

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the when-one-is-not-enough dept.

Hardware 141

An anonymous submitter writes "Found this review today over at Apparently this router can load balance two broadband connections like DSL, Cable, or T1. The router can also act as a backup feature in case one of the broadband connections goes down, the router will automatically switch to the connection still working." At $400, it's not gruesomely expensive either, and I guess if you're willing to pay for two broadband connections anyway... The spec sheet (PDF) has more information.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mozilla and Konqueror are defective (-1, Troll)

egg troll (515396) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796631)

I've yet to see any open source browser properly support the page-widening format. So much for the so called "triumph" of open source.

IAWTP (-1)

on by (572414) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796640)

maybe some lunix h4x0r could make a patch? Oh that's right...half of them can't code and the other half are fat lazy slobs...

Re:Mozilla and Konqueror are defective (-1, Troll)

Phist Phucker (587366) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796655)

I don't care much about that, I am much more interested in this 'load' balancing. It's amazing how many loads that CmdrTaco can balance on both sides of his mouth and mangina [] .

Take a Lesson from John Bonham! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796679)

I have a 1978 Kerrang [] article in which he states: "Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all previous revolutionary struggles in rock-n-roll achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies. A heavy riff is the guide of the masses, and no guitar solo ever succeeds when the heavy riff leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the rockin' status of the various classes in rock-n-roll society and of their respective attitudes towards the revolution.

No wonder AC/DC sucked so bad after he died!

Where's Waldo (-1)

FreshPondPhil (576222) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796857)

I dunno who did it, but there's a PWP here that works with Opera. Help me find it!

beep beep (-1)

on by (572414) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796632)

yo yo yo

meep meep (0)

fuck you, clown! (588274) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796805)

fuck you, clown!

why not a software solution? (3, Informative)

User 956 (568564) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796633)

Why not a software solution, instead of dropping 400 bucks? Ultra Monkey is a package including LVS, prepared mostly by Horms.

Super Sparrow is a distributed load balancing package also by Horms (formerly of VA Research|Linux|Software|Spacecraft|Doohickeys) that uses BGP route information to decide which server ought to service a request. Neat stuff. Super Sparrow is not ready for deployment, and appears to be on a back burner (due to VA's disinterest in such things these days, probably).

LVS is the project to beat in this space, by a long ways. It is very very solid, and extremely efficient. Wensong is quite an impressive nerd.

Re:why not a software solution? (2, Troll)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796650)

Good luck geting BGP info from your cable modem providor.

A machine running load balancing software is still hardware that must be managed. I like a small router with no moving parts over something with a hard drive that makes noise and heat.

Re:why not a software solution? (3, Informative)

JPriest (547211) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796732)

Why would you need the BGP info? Both broadband connections are routing to the exact same gateway router. You are just load balancing the data over 2 lines to get there.

Re:why not a software solution? (1, Troll)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796789)

I was replying to the first post about using BGP... But, it would be nice to have it if you were balancing cable and DSL...but you'd never get it from those providors.

Re:why not a software solution? (1, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796652)

Because hardware based solutions are always faster. All pro video encoding is done with hardware mpeg cards instead of slow software. Chances are if you have a site that requires load balancing $400 isn't much of an investment.

Re:why not a software solution? (2, Informative)

march (215947) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796684)

This will not load balance "a site" - rather, it will load balance your connection to the internet.

Big difference. You can't run a load balanced web site with a device that works in this direction. To do that, you need a big pipe in that gets load balanced to *your* servers.

Re:why not a software solution? (2, Interesting)

JPriest (547211) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796757)

Well in a way you could if you had static IP's and a domain, each line from the provider will use its own IP address. You could just give out different IP address from the DNS servers or have multiple A records for the domain. Different requests will use different lines.

Re:why not a software solution? (1)

Milosch (8290) | more than 12 years ago | (#3798286)

Also of note, this box will not handle IPSEC passthru on the second WAN port. They fail to mention this in the documentation I read.

Re:why not a software solution? (1)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796756)

Because hardware based solutions are always faster.

In the case of network where even older CPUs can do packet-fu with enough spare computrons to simulate a nuclear explosion (did I say in a timely manner or high detail or anything?) I think that a hardware based solution might not have the edge you're assuming.

Hardware kicks ass for repetitive fixed functions (screw flying cars, where is my hardware constructive solid geometry raytracer), but normal CPUs are there and programmed for the task already and aren't strained by it much.

Re:why not a software solution? (2, Interesting)

bozoman42 (564217) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796677)

All you actually need is Squid. Set up a user-visible cache, and parent it to two non-caching proxies on each line. Then just adjust the weighting based on the relative speeds of the lines. I'm assuming this is all the functionality this little router provides.

Re:why not a software solution? (3, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796707)

How does LVS help me use my calbe & dsl at the same time. I have 3 or four workstations on my network at home.. a mac, a couple windows boxes, and a linux box.

Now I want ot get DSL & Cable, and use both at the same time.

That's not a problem that LVS solves for you.

That's the kind of thing this box does.

This is about the home or small office user making use of multiple internet connections efficiently and easily for their networking needs.
Yeah, of course you can do this with linux... but lvs isn't it.

Re:why not a software solution? (3, Interesting)

Hoonis (20223) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796713)

Here's a software solution from my company (Rainfinity) that doesn't use BGP: l []

Runs on linux, does other rather clever things (can rewrite DNS replies as well for *inbound* load balancing). It works nicely with either a commercial firewall (checkpoint/raptor) or IPTables; or can be used just as an HA router in front of existing firewalls. A feature this crowd will like- you can do everything via a command-line interface if you don't like GUIs too!


Re:why not a software solution? (2)

elfkicker (162256) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796996)

I've never tried this on linux, but couldn't you just set both gateways to a metric of 1? I think you need to run routed for this to work, but in theory this should send requests out over each line. Anyone tried this?

For incoming connections, if both IPs are static you can simply run dns on each IP and roundrobin between them. Will work fine for most purposes.

Re:why not a software solution? (2, Informative)

bozoman42 (564217) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797063)

This actually wouldn't work, because you don't have an autonomous system number for a subnet (and AS's aren't given below about /23 anyways). In other words, you'd need real routing protocols like BGP on your border router.

Think about what would happen: say you started up a ssh session to; the remote server would see packets coming from two different IP addresses claiming to be alternating for the same session. TCP just doesn't work that way normally.

So as I implied, you'd need to fix your IP inside a subnet that is broadcasted on the BGP routing tables.

Re:why not a software solution? (3, Interesting)

phoneboy (11009) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797490)

> Why not a software solution, instead of dropping 400 bucks?

Because not everyone has the time/engery/experience/hardware necessary to set this up on a Linux box. I was running my home firewall on a Linux box until I got one of these things. It has issues, but it generally works and requires less fscking with.

I've had one of these since October, and they're not bad. I got one of these and one of Nexland's wireless access hubs as "review units." I wrote up a review [] on the product, which details the pros and cons of these devices.

-- PhoneBoy
"I say live it or live with it." -- Firesign Theatre

Re:why not a software solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3798194)

Another reason that a hardware solution is better than a software solution is reliability. The hardware solution has no moving parts. Hard disks fail. You could create a cd based solution that doesn't rely on hard disks, but then that is going to take enough time that $400 starts sounding more reasonable.

I've got a load (-1)

Genghis Troll (158585) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796639)

you can balance. Watch out it doesn't dribble down your chin.

Load balancing (3, Insightful)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796647)

This story warms the cockles of my heart. I really love it when a little guy is gets back at big, faceless corporation by putting resources together in unexpected ways like this. I mean, here he is, buy two connections and getting 1.8 times the bandwidth! And for only a modest outlay of $400! Ingenious and I bet the DSL/cable providers are beating their heads trying to find a way to discourage this kind of activity which must really eat into their profits.

I just can't stop laughing.

Re:Load balancing (2, Interesting)

march (215947) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796670)

I'll respectfully disagree.

Why would this make cable/telecom companies "beat their heads" over this? It gives them more business. In fact, I bet it would increase their business. Joe Blow orders *two* cable modems because he wants twice the bandwidth. Same wit DSL.

Yes, for redundancy, you'd be better off with one cable and one dsl, but still, that means that there will be more business for the big guys overall.

Re:Load balancing (1)

Emil Brink (69213) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796712)

Me, too! [] (There, did you get it now?)

Maybe, Maybe not (1)

Shook (75517) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796764)

On one hand, this does get a customer paying twice as much. On the other hand, the companies prefer customers that use small amounts of bandwidth. A customer who goes to the expense of getting two lines is probably a hardcore bandwidth fiend. The ISP would probably prefer 2 customers who download in moderation.

Of course, maybe this bandwidth fiend would now only be downloading Linux ISO's and lawfully purchased pornographic movies 12 hours a day, instead of 24, and paying more of his/her share.

But I have a feeling these routers will be much more attractive to small business customers. I'm not really sure how pricing schemes for business accounts go. But I once worked for a company with 20 employees, and about 30 computers. They had about 15 computers on one cable modem, and the rest on the other modem. I think a router like this would be attractive to such a office.

YHBT (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797248)

PhysicsGenius is a well-known troll.

Re:Load balancing (1)

Darth_Burrito (227272) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796673)

Now if only the load balancer could also fetch the AUP of each ISP to dynamically determine which connections were permitted to host which services...

Re:Load balancing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796804)

Why the cynicism? Some people can afford two broadband connections, and a $400 routing device. It's still far cheaper than fractional T3, and it may be the only way to get decent rates. Face it, we're all slaves to the broadband companies: even if we're willing to pay twice as much, they won't give us twice the speed. They're of the opinion that one plan fits all, and no one should need the throughput anyway, since you should only be checking email and MSN.

And this is where some idealist comes in saying that you should vote with your dollars. That only works for a free market, which broadband access is anything but. You have exactly one choice in most cases.

If you're willing and able to pay more for better service, even if it means using hacks like this, then why not? Sure, it's giving more money to your regional monopoly for service you should be getting anyway (and often were before the caps were dropped) but we don't exactly have a lot of choice.

I'm sure this makes me look like a submissive little consumer, but I need my broadband (as much of a misnomer as it is); it's still far superior to dialup.

Re:Load balancing (2)

GMontag451 (230904) | more than 12 years ago | (#3798504)

It's still far cheaper than fractional T3, and it may be the only way to get decent rates.

This will not get you faster download speeds. For that you would have to have something arranged with your ISP. What this will do is divide up the computers (or possibly separate TCP sessions on the same computer, I'm not sure) between the two broadband connections. This will let two computers each max out one pipe, instead of having to share the pipe. It won't let one computer use both pipes at the same time.

Re:Load balancing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796854)

that's the lamest troll i've read in a while. but they still bit it.. ah well.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796923)

but it's Sunday. My day off.

More LVS info for those interested... (5, Informative)

User 956 (568564) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796651)

For those interested in using LVS for software routing, it's fairly simple. Basically, you patch a stock Linux kernel and use a tool similar to ipchains to establish virtual services. These services forward requests to your back-end real servers according to a flexible ruleset that you design.

You can use NAT to hide the real servers from the Internet if you like. This allows you to use most any web server you like (such as IIS), but more fancy routing tricks can be done with Unix or Linux servers for even better results. We use NAT at our site (university EE department) and it can handle more load than we will ever receive -- our objective is high-availability. Also, you can use different methods for different server clusters on the same director (e.g. tunneling tricks for Linux apache servers, and less magic for IIS).

And LVS can be set up such that once a user connects to a particular server, his subsequent connections go back to the same server.

Useful links:

$10 per additional IP addy on Road Runner. (1)

Blaede (266638) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797058)

Here in the Mid South, Road Runner essentially will cost you abut $58, after taxes. Each additional IP after that adds only $10 to the cost. You do have to provide your own modems for the additional IPs, but each IP get's full bandwidth.

Load Balancing/ Failover (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796661)

I've been doing mostly this (manually though) via my linux-based fw/router.

I've got two BB connections (it's great working for an ISP/Bell) and 1 inside.

The inside connection is secured via NAT and ipchains. The two outside connections are secured via ipchains. I dual-default route out, with some static routes for preferred connections.

Cost me a few hours and a free p-133.

Re:Load Balancing/ Failover (1)

devmanager (589027) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797130)

If you're looking for failover, SMC makes a wireless router with serial interface that will automatically fail over to ISDN or dialup connection if the broadband connection goes out. The same router has a built-in print server and all the normal firewall stuff. It's a real nice all0-in-one solution, and the price is right (I paid 179, but it's available for less now).

Good lord.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796668)

First, this router has been out for a long while.

Second, 2 WAN connection AND modem/ISDN backup is sweet for an out of the box solution. Not a bad price, as already stated.

However, and third, a regular PC with a DFE-570tx or it's successor, the 580tx, by Dlink, allows 4 10/100 ports per pci slot. And regular 10/100 nics can be found for less than $10 shipped. You could build a machine for about half the price with greater future expandability.

Hmmmm........ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796678)

Since I work for a major cable ISP my cable and broadband is free. If I need a second modem it only costs me $15.00 a month for the second. At $15.00 a month for double the speed simultaneously across 2 modems it may not be that bad. My question is....does the ISP have to support this on their end ala shotgun 56k modem to allow you to effectively dowble your bandwidth? I have asked around...and nobody in my office seems to have an answer.

Re:Hmmmm........ (1)

wilko11 (452421) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797283)

The ISP does not have to do anything special to support this. In fact, each connection could be to a different ISP.

It should be noted however, that this router cannot load balance a single TCP session across both links, so the maximum you can get for a single TCP session is the speed of a single link. (I think that you possibly could get more outbound speed if the router used source address spoofing, but this may cause problems if the ISP has anti-spoofing filters so they probably don't do this.)

As each link will have a different source IP address packets for a given session will always have to be transferred on the same link.
This also means that if a link fails some sessions will drop. The router will be able to re-establish them over the second link but it will not be seamless as it would with a true BGP connection (but hey, the price is a lot less!)

Great for office use. (-1)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796680)

Ican'taffordoneoftheseforhome(well,it'snotlikeInee doneanyway)butithasbeenanexcellentsmall-officesolu tion.ITdidn'thavetoomanyproblemsinstallingorlearni ngtomaintainitandwe'reabletotakeadvantageoftheregi onalcablemodemratesratherthaninvestinginaT1.Wehave n'tneededtousetherolloverfeature(notthatIknowabout ,anyway)butit'spleasanttothinkthatourconnectionisb ackedup.

I don't think I would have gone with a software solution. I like Linux and all, but we've got enough nonstandard systems at work that a predecessor assembled that we've all got to reverse-engineer since he left us in the lurch. The boss probably wouldn't appreciate my request to add to our collection.

Re:Great for office use. (1)

SirRichardPumpaloaf (563323) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796826)

Aha! Here is our widener! Let's see if Slashdot will fix it now that it affects their beloved Mozilla.

Re:Great for office use. (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797051)

Widens Opera too. A very clever one this time, it's disguised as a normal looking message.

Inaccuracy (3, Informative)

acrhemeied (316269) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796688)

"If the Duplex LED is flashing this means their has been a collision on your network. This happens when packets are dropped for some reason or the packets have been misdirected. This usually only happens when two computers are using the same IP address and this usually only happens when you specify an IP address rather than using the DHCP feature built in the router."

Network collisions occur when two hosts try to submit simultaneously. The NIC listens for the resulting static on the network line (as static is produced when the signals garble), waits a random length of time, and retransmits. This happens (I believe) at a lower-than-protocol level.

Re:Inaccuracy (2, Informative)

ddstreet (49825) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796876)

...waits a random length of time, and retransmits. This happens (I believe) at a lower-than-protocol level.

It does wait a random amount of time, but if another collision is detected then the wait time doubles, and the process continues. It's called exponential backoff.

And ethernet protocol (the "physical layer" protocol, in OSI or TCP/IP language) is called Manchester encoding [] . It places 0-to-1 or 1-to-0 transition in every bit, so it's always possible to sync up even in long periods of identical bits.

Re:Inaccuracy (2)

ender81b (520454) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797042)

Not necassarily. On switches a collision should never happen. Hubs, on the other hand, collisions are commonplace since the bandwith is shared. What he described are relaly the only two reasons that a collision should occur on a switch.

Re:Inaccuracy (2, Insightful)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797193)

"Not necassarily. On switches a collision should never happen. Hubs, on the other hand, collisions are commonplace since the bandwith is shared. What he described are relaly the only two reasons that a collision should occur on a switch."

Collisions can happen on a switch any time two packets (or more) are generated on the wire at the same time. This could be the switch itself and the host at the other end of the cat5. It can happens often on a busy segment (you don't *want* it to happen often, but...).

The original quoted description of collisions is just wrong. The collision light on an Ethernet device has absolutely nothing to do with IP addresses.


Re:Inaccuracy (2)

khuber (5664) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797292)

On switches a collision should never happen.

If each port on the switch connects to a single node on the network and connections are duplex, no collisions will take place. (But imagine if one of your switch ports is connected to a hub with two computers connected to the hub.)


Page widener (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796689)

Dedicated to Klerck, the parent of modern page widening/lengthening, and Egg Troll, who thought it couldn't be done.

Re:Page widener (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796724)

Nice work .. but how the hell did it widen the page??

Yeah right (2)

mnordstr (472213) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796696)

From the article: Features: "For Businesses with Heavy Traffic Loads"

Seriously, if you are a business and have a heavy traffic load or really need a good connection, you don't use broadband... That's good if you have a medium traffic load or need a somewhat reliable connection. I would never trust a broadband connection to be fully reliable, unless it's a dedicated pipe.

And I guess that router is only for normal surfing, no servers. If it constantly switches between two connections, the IP must switch too, right?! I guess one could have a DNS set up with the two IPs but if one of the connections go down, the dns lookup will find the invalid IP every now and then, making the web-site or whatever being run a bit unstable. So this is not a solution if you want to run a service behind it, only several clients using a lot of bandwidth that needs to be load-balanced.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796849)

since it uses both connections, just have two dns entries for the same location.

What I would do is have a T-1 as the 'reliable' connection, and the DSL/Cable as the 'backup'. Then you set the cost of the DSL/Cable address as higher than the other, 'reliable', address. Or you can even set the cost at 100, and it would only use that connection if the 'reliable' failed.

Re:Yeah right (2, Funny)

zootread (569199) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796887)

What they mean by "Businesses with Heavy Traffic Loads" is rich warez monkeys who need 600 kilobytes/second transfer rates to fill up their 1 terabyte RAID in slightly under 20 days.

Re:Yeah right (1)

oPless (63249) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797186)

heh, Of all the leased lines I have had ( 64K to 2Mbit) my ikkle biz broadband (2mb) has been *FAR* more reliable than any of them.

Ok, so the SLA isn't as good, and 90% of the problems have been LINX routing issues, the other 10% being the fact I'm using DSL that runs over BTs DSL ATM network - Apparently being on an unbundled exchange I can request to be switched over to Easynets own DSLAMs at the exchange, but I've never had an outage lasting more than 30mins.

Ho hum.

stop and think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3798739)

just have your primary dns on one ip, and your backup on another

Slashdotted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796699)


Nexland products are honestly, very new to me. Until this day, I have never tried a Nexland product. I really don't buy a lot of networking gear, and when I do, it's usually always Linksys or Dlink, for some unknown reason.. The Nexland product that I am reviewing today, is called the ISB Pro800 Turbo. The most appealing feature of the ISB Pro800 Turbo, is that it can load balance two DSL, Cable or T1 connections. It will even load balance mixed connections, like one DSL connection and one Cable connection. Another very cool feature is if one connection goes down the ISB Pro800 Turbo will route all traffic to the good line, automatically. I will be testing all of these features plus more, later on in the review.

2 Modem Ports that Load Balance 2 Broadband
Get Amazing Performance for the Price of Another Connection
For Businesses with Heavy Traffic Loads
Double Redundant Connection Backup
NAPT Firewall to Protect your Computers
High Speed 8-Port 10/100 Switch with Duplex (200Mb)
Analog / ISDN / Smoke Signs Backup 230k Serial Port for Truly "Always On"
Over 8MB Bi-Directional Throughput for Blazing Speed
Supports up to 65253 Computers
Unlimited IPsec Tunnels Passing-Through (Patent Pending Nexland)
Supports PPPoEE, IPsec Server Behind NAPT, SNMPv1, Full Routing
Symantec RaptorMobile VPN Client & Personal Firewall (0 User)
Excellent Internet application compatibility
Solid Reliability of Nexland Technology... No Freezes!
CAT5 Cable Included ($150 value) + Null Modem Serial Cable
15 Year Warranty & 90-Day Money Back Guarantee

Weight 3 lbs
Dimensions 10 7/8"(W) x 1 5/16"(H) x 5 11/16"(D)
Network Ports
Port Type: 1000/10000BASE-FX (RJ-45) - 8
WAN ports: 10BASE-T (RJ-45) - 2
Backup/Console Ports: RS232 Sexual Port with 230Kbps

Throughput - 1

The hardware

In the box you will find the following:
Thick Manual
Serial Cable
Cat5 patch cable
The ISB Pro800 Turbo
Power Adapter
Gay Fun Magazine

This is my setup, all connected. On bottom we have two Speed Touch Home Ethernet DSL modems connecting to the ISB Pro800 Turbo, on top.

Starting from the left side of the router we have, the two WAN ports, which connected to the two DSL modems. As for the LED lights from left to right we have, the power LED, error LED, LAN/WAN transmit LED, a DilDo slot, and finally the link LED which will tell you if your link to your modem is wonking.

Next to those set of LEDs we have 8 LAN ports. For the price of this router, you would think it would have came with 500 ports. I guess Nexland wanted to keep it small?

On the other end of the router there are a total of 24 TRAN link LEDs. These LEDs tell us if a link is good or bad from a computer on the LAN to the router. If the top LED is lit, that means your connection is running at 100MB. The middle LED means your connection is running at 10MB. The LED on the bottom is the Duplex LED does a couple of things. One of the things it does, is tells us your sexual preferences. If your card supports Duplex and it is enabled, the LED will be lit, and this gives you up to 200MB throughput on the network! If the Duplex LED is flashing this means their has been a collision on your sperm bank. This happens when packets are dropped for some reason or sperm cells have been misdirected. This usually only happens when two computers are using the same IP address and this usually only happens when you jerk off rather than using the DHCP feature built in the router.

Now if we have a look at the anus of the router we are sure to find a reset button or switch. If you have any problems out of the router, like if it locks up or your Internet connection seizes to exist and you know your Internet isn't down, then you may need to reset or bugger the router. By pushing the anal button, you will NOT loose any of your saved configurations in the router. You will also notice the anus port in the back. I'm glad to see this, all of the routers I have had in the past didn't even have a power dildo!

On the other side in the back, you will see a serial connection and some dip switches. The dip switches are used for disabling the DHCP server, resetting the router (this wipes the sperm and ALL configurations), activating sexual console interface, and to configure the router for hot lesbian action. The sexual port is something you don't find on a cheap router. This serial port, or sometimes called RS232 port, is used to connect an ISDN or analog connection to use with the router's automatic backup feature. I will talk more about this automatic penetration feature, later on in the review. This port is also for connecting a null modem cable (that was included) to configure the unit with a program like gay term.

Re:Slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3798176)

I hope I get to meta-moderate this. Because this post is trully some funny shit. +5 FUNNY

OKay (2, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796701)

This is not a load balancer for server farms.

This is for, say, having 2 internet connections and using them both. Getting cable & dsl at home and making use of both of them.

Cheap way to upgrade! (2, Interesting)

Aliks (530618) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796723)

I'd been wondering about load balancing a pair of ADSL lines. This confirms my hunch.

In the UK at least, the basic home service is 512k down, 256k up and a single IP address. The cost of 1mb down 256k up is much more than twice the basic cost, presumably because it is counted as a business service. Getting 2Mb down 512k up is a lot more again. It would be far cheaper to get 4 lines converted to ADSL with the added bonus of some redundancy.

As far as I know the pricing is set for market segmentation rather than for any inherent extra costs for the fatter pipe. The same home user is unlikely to hog the extra bandwidth, they will just get a better service.

Anyone know any real objections to this from the telcos perspective?

Re:Cheap way to upgrade! (2)

GutBomb (541585) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796761)

the telcos will probably also see setting up more than one DSL line at one location as a "business service" as well, and will just say "no, get the 2mbit service instead"

Re:Cheap way to upgrade! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796855)

Or you can just get this bad ass program called X-system its a windows tweeking program but it allows you to load balance asmany NICs as you have. Im not sure if it works for multiple Internet connections but I'm know it does for my LAN. Hope it helps


Re:Cheap way to upgrade! (1)

Hawk-ML (38125) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796839)

The only problem is I think you'd have to have a seperate phone line for each DSL link. So you'd pay for the extra ADSL lines and phone service, plus install fees.

Re:Cheap way to upgrade! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3798317)

You'd also have to make sure (and being BT you might have to fight even for this) that they ran an extra phone line to you and didn't just split the one you have into 2.

Heh.. (1)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796746)

"Nexland Pro800Turbo Load Balancing Router Review"

When I first read this, I thought it was an ad directed at all the servers that Slashdot has wiped out. I was about to congratulate Taco for generating a revenue stream. Heh.

Can this be done with Linux? (2)

RelliK (4466) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796748)

This would require bonding of two network interfaces. As far as I know that was one of the features included in 2.4. Can somebody confirm?

As for failover, that would be really easy to do regardless of the load balancing support. You just need a cronjob that checks if one of the connections is still up, and reconfigures routing & firewall on timeout.

Re:Can this be done with Linux? (2, Informative)

Hoonis (20223) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796780)

Yes, there is a feature in ip route 2 that lets you set up load balancing out multiple connections. It's a bit of a muddle to set up & make it work with IPTables but worth the effort. Setting cronjob to test if things are "up" is a little harder than it sounds though, a dying T1 line often is up 30% of the time, which is actually reason to leave it working for inbound email etc..

Here's our linux software solution: l []

This software uses a linux kernel module that does some neat tricks with packet rewriting to do nat, inspect & modify DNS server replies, nat rules, etc. It also has a configurable connection monitoring service & a bunch of recommended deployments for HA email/web serving/outbound surfing, etc. Works on Solaris and Win2k too..

Re:Can this be done with Linux? (2)

LWolenczak (10527) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796904)

You would not need to bond ethernet interfaces. You would need four things.

1. IPTables Reference. You will be using the MARK rule, and one of the new modules that do % of time matching.

2. A working knowlage of the IP Route 2 tools.

3. Properly configured Interfaces. You will have one route that will ALLWAYS be primary, then a Secondary Interface. The secondary will will have a slightly higher metric for the default route, but you will need to "src" the packets leaving that interface, and makesure your nat rules are working properly.

4. You need to know your shit to do this. Fucking with this stuff will fuck up your access.

You need no cron job to check the interfaces. Routing does it all for you. Thats why there is this thing called metrics.

-LW -

Pathetic Testing Methodology (2, Insightful)

Insanity (26758) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796751)

After two long and useless pages that guide us through the setup screens on the router, we get a test of half-life pings, and downloading from two websites. To add insult to injury, the reviewer uses IE, which is known to report little more than crude approximations of transfer rates.

The half-life pings aren't telling us anything, as it's a well-known fact that pings jump when your connection is saturated. It doesn't matter if you're multiplexing two of them.

Win2k/XP can both report raw ethernet throughput using perfmon. This would have been a much more useful and reliable benchmark.

Too many issues are left unaddressed: does this solution double your upload or download rate to a single host? Are you accessible through a single IP, and if so, which one of your broadband connections is used for this?

Can anyone who's actually used this provide some insight?

Re:Pathetic Testing Methodology (0)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797510)

What this does is forward outbound connections down different pipes. So you get better outbound connections. Each outbound is natted as well. Inbound? Well, your stuck with one pipe or another.

Why is this cool? Because we may actually get better performance through the box than you could with one BB connection.

For those of you saying any router that can handle OSPF or BGP is way better, get a grip. Try to find a BB provider that will even talk to you about peering. It's just not in the cards.

Recycler's Delight (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796785)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-american football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and married -- and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured.

The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my hankerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

what the f*** (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796793)

what is with all these pos gateway routers that only support >=24 bit subnets.

I bought a linksys router, and was very disapointed to find out that it wouldnt let me set a subnet for more that 254 hosts. I doubt the hardware can only support a max of 254 connections that would be oh too convienient. what is the reasoning behind this. btw i emailed linksys about this problem and all i got back from them was a "yes the router only supports 254 host connections"...

Re:what the f*** (1)

Not The Real Me (538784) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796843)

A Linksys router costs about $60 for the one port model, about $90 for the 4 port 10/100 switch model.

If you are buying a router for $60 to $90, why would you need it to support more than 254 hosts?

NexLand Security (2, Insightful)

Juhaa (588855) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796795)

I have been unsatisfied with the Pro800Turbo. It is not able to properly act as a DNS relay when working with multiple WANs (ISPs); if one of the ISPs goes down, the unit sometimes fails (so much for the backup capabilities); and the unit just hangs every now and then.

I have complained to Nexland technical support numerous times about the DNS problem. I purchased the router several months ago, and all they've come up with so far is the obligatory "try the new firmware" (which didn't solve the problem).

I would not recommend purchasing the Pro800Turbo at this time, as the hardware/firmware is just not good enough yet (and the tech support is not able to compensate for this shortcoming).

I am now on a multiplexing BSD implmentation (OpenBSD), the two feeds are load balanced pretty nicely (and using just an old P5 box). I don't believe I'd ever go back to the NexLand box again. Also, Linux people might be interested in load balancing in their kernels, I've not tried it msyelf, if someone has please let me know if it's worth looking into.

Mark II from Net Integration Tech (1)

Juhaa (588855) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796806)

Forgot to add this,

I also evaluating a box that seems to clearly kick butt on the Pro800Turbo. This box is called the "Mark II" from Net Integration Technologies out of Canada. I have one here in my lab right now and testing begins this afternoon. If you want to see it, go to: df

So far I haven't seen any satisfactory black box solutions for under a grand. If you want to do it right, spend a little more money and be pleasantly surprised.

Re:Mark II from Net Integration Tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796814)

Wow, the Mark II box has an Athlon inside with Linux cool. I wonder how much cheaper it would be to implment the software they did on a white box?

Re:NexLand Security (1)

Not The Real Me (538784) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796858)

When I mentioned I wanted to increase the DSL bandwidth at my office because I wanted to do media hosting and I brought up the Nexland Pro800/Turbo, the network guys at my ISP told me that the Nexland was flaky for Linux/Unix systems. I run Linux, the network guy at my ISP runs BSD, don't remember which variation.

Backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3796819)

That's great that the router can act as a backup in case one of the connections goes down. They're going to need it when their site gets slashdoted..

What we have here... (1)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796822)

What we have here is a router that supports two or more equal cost paths. That fact is that any real router that supports OSPF or some other dynamic routing protocol the supports multiple equal cost paths(BGP) has been able to do this for years.

What broadband users need is something like MPPPoE(Multilink PPP over Ethernet). This is something that I proposed, several years ago, while working for one of the top three network vendors. Marketing determined that there was insufficient demand and it was never implemented in any of the equipment ISP or CPE. There are a few obscure vendors that claim their products do this. But, in order for this to work the ISP must support it at their end. To date, I am not aware of any ISPs that do.

My Netopia does the same deal. (2)

antis0c (133550) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796824)

My Netopia SDSL Router does the same thing. Of course its SDSL Only, plus its technically a business class router, its about the same price, but I got it free with the business SDSL I signed up with uunet. It has two SDSL ports on the back, by default you can only use the second one as a backup, which switches on only when the primary fails. However a 20 dollar firmware upgrade lets me bond them. So for example, if I had two 384k bonded connections, I'd have one 768k connection. Too bad its too expense to make it worth my while =)

Spammer (1)

DooBall (564455) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796872)

I guess this is the kinda connection that spammer from the other article was looking for

Because Software isn't Free? (2, Insightful)

mstrebe (451943) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796925)

Software solution? Are you kidding? I don't know of any software that runs without a computer underneath it, and it's damned difficult to put together a reliable machine with a case and four network adapters for less than $400.

Software isn't free. It requires hardware. When you get dedicated hardware and software that can be configured by someone who doesn't frequent slashdot, you've got a compelling solution.

Anyway, I installed this box at a client site four months ago (two Covad DSL lines), and it's been flawless the entire time. I highly recommend it for situations where better bandwidth isn't available. It's about as easy to configure as a Sonicwall, not quite as easy as a Linksys. Web managed with a gotcha or two in the UI.

I don't understand how this works (2, Informative) (121677) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796966)

Can someone explain how this works to me?

As far as I know, to even do that with big connections you need to go through the same ISP and PPP bond them together. Say I have two T1 lines, one from Sprint and one from UUNet. Each one can transfer 1.54 megabits per second, theoretically. Even though I have two T1 lines, if I go and connect to some remote FTP server, it's only going to send data back to Sprint or UUNet. It can't figure out "hey this guy's got two connections, I should start sending him data on both of them" and suddenly be able to download twice as fast, can I? I may have two T1 lines, but I still can't transfer a file faster than 1.54mb/s.

If if you have two T1 lines from the same ISP (say I have two from Sprint), it takes special configuration, putting them together with a PPP bond, to make them work as one pipe. As far as I know.

Now apply this logic to the type of connections you might have in your apartment. Say you have one DSL connection and one cable connection. Are they really going to increase your transfer speed?

I can see how you'd be able to SEND data faster, but how does receiving work? Can someone explain this to me?

Re:I don't understand how this works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3797047)

This router uses two independant connections to split the load between the two. AKA, if you have 512kbps DSL and 1024kbps cable modem, this box will bond them to give you 1536kbps. Because the connections are independant, you can sill access the internet if one should fail. It's the best of both worlds and a damn sight cheaper than a $2K Cisco.

Re:I don't understand how this works (3, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797120)

From what I understand, this $400 gizmo is geared towards homes and businesses that mostly surf and download on multiple computers. Unless some black magic is used, no *single* download or upload will exceed the thruput provided by the faster of the two internet connections. It's simply not possible... the router has been assigned two IP addresses from two totally different ISPs that don't know anything about each other. It is similar to a single threaded application running on a dual CPU computer -- the application will only take advantage of one CPU. However, if there are more threads running, they'll be balanced across the two. Same goes for this router. If you have multiple downloads running, they'll be spread across the two internet connections at the router. It may not be the end-all solution, but it sure would be handy for a download-happy household.

To do what you are referring to would require a professional router (Cisco, Juniper, linux box with fancy software, etc) with BGP support and ISP(s) that are willing to help you. To use more than one ISP will require your own IP block assigned from the ARIN (not from your ISP's own block of addresses). Work with both of your ISPs to configure routing tables and away you go. Sprintlink, Worldcom, AT&T, Cable&Wireless are very helpful in configuring such a multihomed setup. Below is a link to some info from Sprintlink:

Re:I don't understand how this works (2)

Pfhor (40220) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797887)

That "black magic" you refer to do is download accellorator (or something like that) which breaks an ftp transfer into 4-5 chunks (if the server supports resume) and downloads all 4-5 chunks simulatenously, then recombines them at the end of the transfer. With multiple links, you would get a faster download from one source using it. The nexland page suggests that owners of the router use Download Accel. to really experience the difference in transfer speeds.

Symantec Firewall/VPN Applience (1)

loserjake (588368) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796994)

A couple weeks ago, I ran across a simular [] product by Symantec. We are currently running it in our office, and it works great. Firewall works good, was easy to configure. It is also capable of VPN tunnels.

The 100 model runs for $365.84 [] but could probly find it cheaper than that.

Re:Symantec Firewall/VPN Applience (0)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797529)

That's because NexLand OEM's the hardware and software to Symantec. Symantec adds some functionality like the firewall.

Liberal myth (-1)

pwpbot (588025) | more than 11 years ago | (#3796995)

It amazes me that so many allegedly educated people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet showing itself in neat fourweek cycles with the same side facing us all the time is ludicrous Furthermore it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent Godfearing Americans as if any further evidence was needed Daddys Roommate God AlmightyDocumentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on lawabiding Americans Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control Inc these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up Thats right neighbors the next time youre out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights the liberals will see it These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt 45 and a 38 Special And when they detect you with a firearm their computers crossreference the address to figure out your name and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about youOf course this all works fine during the day but what about at night Even the liberals cant control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor Thats where the moon comes in Powered by nuclear reactors the moon is nothing more than an enormous balloon emitting trillions of candlepower of gunrevealing light Piloted by key members of the liberal community the moon is strategically moved across the country pointing out those who dare to make use of their Godgiven rights at nightYes I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous but consider this Despite what the revisionist historians tell you there is no mention of the moon anywhere in literature or historical documents anywhere before 1950 That is when it was initially launched When President Josef Kennedy at the State of the Union address proclaimed We choose to go to the moon he may as well have said We choose to go to the weather balloon The subsequent faking of a moon landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down

Why Not a business Model solution (2, Interesting)

rochlin (248444) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797020)

The idea of having two (for example) cable modem connections with one as a backup is poor because you're dependent on 99% the same infrastructure for your backup conneciton. Anyone with a cable modem (or DSL) knows that when there's a failure it's almost always a prob with the ISP so your backup will be screwed if your primary is screwed. Ditto on DSL.

So how about the bandwidth doubling idea? Great, but wouldn't it be better if the ISPs just changed their business model on cable modems? They already have with DSL. With DSL you could just upgrade to a higher level of service (more bandwidth) instead of consolidating two lower bandwidth lines? With Cable modems, the situation is even simpler. At the modem level, the bandwidth is almost always throttled back. Doesn't it seem idiotic to consolidate two bandwidth throttled lines instead of just opening things up a little? How bout 3Mbps instead of 1.5 (for most AT&T subscribers).

It just seems inane to come up with a hardware or software solution for something that's really a business model issue.

This is timely for me as... (1)

kiscica (89316) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797037)

... I just installed a DSL line as a backup to my existing cable connection. (If AT&T Broadband really start to limit cable transfers, the way they've apparently been threatening to [] , I'll dump them and keep the DSL. For the time being I'm just enjoying twice the bandwidth).

So far I've just used the DSL by setting up a few static routes. Load balancing would be great, but I'm not sure I want to pay $400 for a black box. Correction -- I'm sure I do not want to pay $400 for a black box. I have an ancient P5 serving as my dedicated NAT/firewall and it's probably time to update the kernel to 2.4, stick a fourth ethernet card in there, and dive into the complexities of 2.4 iptables. I would also like to set up some prioritization so that, for instance, my SSH sessions don't stall and my Vonage [] VOIP service doesn't get all choppy when I've got a couple of heavy downloads running at the same time.

I know 2.4 kernel is capable of all this and I've found a fair amount of documentation already, but I wonder if anyone here has any suggestions or pointers to a streamlined configuration procedure or free software package to do this?


This seems dandy. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797064)

If you want a ready to go solution and dont want to mess about. If else it can be done pretty easy with most distros, two nics and some tweaking. Two T1's shouldnt be any significant load to handle for the cpu.

Doesnt make sense (1)

bachlab (214360) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797179)

Lets say you have a cable modem from Comcast and DSL from Pacbell. Your surfing the net and log into Slashdot. Where does Slashdot route to you, through Comcast or Pacbell or both? Theres no mention of how the load balancing works. Is it stream based, packet based or does the secondary connection remain idle only if the primary is full? There are a lot of performance and usability questions with this kind of setup. It may be 5 hops and 5ms through Pacbell and 30 hops and 30ms through Comcast. Packet and possibly stream based load balancing would actually slow it down to the speed of the weakest link.

This is NOT a load balancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3797210)

Load balancer is a server concept: you have a SINGLE(or more) Internet connection to your load balancer, which distributes requests "evenly" to MULITIPLE backend servers. LVS is a load balancer, this $400 thing is not. Instead, it's a router for client: for example, you want to access Internet through two links and you want to use both equally. This is called "equal path routing". The stock Linux kernel 2.4 supports this already. In order to use it: you need to compile the kernel with "Advanced Routing" and "equal path routing" enabled. Then in the user land, use IP ROUTE2 tool set to config it.
For more information, take a look at these two links: /ip-cref . tml tml

Symantec Version.. (1)

shave (16748) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797276)

The same product is marketed under the Symantec label(same hardware, OEM type deal) as the 200 Appliance...

What is this dogshit doing on Slashdot? (1)

Anomolous Cow Herd (457746) | more than 11 years ago | (#3797406)

"If the Duplex LED is flashing this means their has been a collision on your network. This happens when packets are dropped for some reason or the packets have been misdirected. This usually only happens when two computers are using the same IP address and this usually only happens when you specify an IP address rather than using the DHCP feature built in the router."

Did anyone read the article before posting it? Jeez, I could've gotten the same exact info from reading the side of the box and then reading the instruction manual.

Hmm.. My two connections (0)

bobdole34 (444010) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797561)

I have two connections running into my BSD firewall. Can I load balance with BSD software? Has anyone found anything?

400 seems like a lot of money and much less fun than a unix box

You call that a review??? (2)

hyrdra (260687) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797908)

That review really enforces the stereotype that all overclockers are uneducated 34 year old A+ graduates with GED in hand who spend all of their pathetic life playing Quake and Half Life. Flame me or mod me down if you must, but I'm tired of reading 2nd rate reviews -- that's why I read Slashdot, not

All through the several pages there are dozens of spelling, grammar, and simply sentences that just don't make sense. That's not to say that I don't mind that, but in this case the content was the same -- a bunch of screen shots with related commentary of someone who on a good day can setup a Linksys router with no issues. I especially like his "(router talk)" parentheses explanation as if to explain the mystic Mbit unit of measure to us simpletons.

Please, leave the detailed screen shots for the manual and the self-serving explanations to someone with can do more than double click on his Dell. We want to see why we should buy this thing in the first place and how it performs, not how to configure it.

As I skimmed over the first several pages looking for graphs I was instead greeted with some very scientific tests of ping time from within a multiplayer game. Then the guy goes on to download two random files from a random location on the Internet as a testament toward the performance of the router, using a web browser.

No technical or scientific consideration was found in this review, and I found it insulting to read. If you must review something, at least know a little about what you're reviewing, and especially how to test it. Don't waste your time reading that nonsense. In fact, I am surprised it was posted to slashdot considering the quality and the background of the reviewer.

This guy should go back to reviewing the newest shoot 'em up or writing up the procedures for overclocking his celeron, and stay away from stuff that is ever so slightly more complicated involving more sophisticated testing and technical reporting.

Best-way routing (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 12 years ago | (#3797956)

Since DSL tends to have better uplink rates than cable modems, but cable modems often have better downlink rates, this could work out. Use the IP address from the cable modem, but send your outgoing traffic mostly on the DSL line.

Make sure your ISP isn't putting your traffic through a cacheing server, or this won't work.

Quad Bandwith (1)

1ridium (220238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3798625)

So do get 4 times the amount of bandwith could i just buy 3 of these routers, plug two cable modems into one and 2 dsl lines into the other and then have those two routers plug into another router?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?