Return to Ctrl blog to find something to discuss! Look for the comment button at the bottom of each article.
#1
#2
Hi,
Thank you for your truly interesting article.
I'd like to add, as I've read somewhere I can't unfortunately remember, that despite some older Mac actually supports newer OSes like Big Sur and Monterey, Apple cuts its OS support off from older Macs due to Intel's decision to stop developing patches for older CPUs (do you recall Spectre and Heart Bleed vulnerabilities?) on newer OSes.
Regards.
This guide is useful for dealing with the silent errors when SELinux doesn't log anything to the audit log.
https://ahelpme.com/linux/selinux/selinux-permission-denied-and-no-log-in-audit-log/
It's an absolutely stupid system.
But does Windows update install the bloatware if you change the region? Wondering because I've manually deleted bloatware before but after updating they were reinstalled again!
Hi Alan, this is the figure I get when running performance tests. It’s also very close to the figure quoted in the specsheet on the MikroTik product page for the RB750Gr3.
You can indeed configure it (basically remove all firewall rules) under optimal conditions for higher speeds, but it ceases to be a useful router at that point.
The gr3 does over 700mbps routed, both ways, after your claim of 300 I could not carry on reading, lost all credibility
I've got s TP-Link Archer router. It maxes out at 460MBps but my Mac hooked up to the modem goes to 740MBps. I bought it on Amazon as its recommended gigabit router. Reddit confirms the router doesn't deliver on the promised speed.
Back around 2014/2015, I got gigabit at home and IPV6 at the same time. I remember getting 0.9 gbps on IPv6 but only somewhere around 0.6 gbps on ipv4. I think it was a TPLINK (or maybe DLINK).
My ISP said it was the router. I think I paid almost 250 euro for a replacement router. The first replacement couldn't do more than maybe 0.5 gbps. Replaced it too and the third router finally managed 1 gbps on ipv4 and 6. Both replacement claimed "gigabit speed", or maybe it was "gigabit router" as you say, but only one got the job done.
I fell for this a couple of years ago. Upgraded from 300mbps to gigabit and my ISP told me to get a new router. Bought an ASUS that said gigabit ethernet and gigabit router on the box. Can't remember the model but it did well in reviews. It couldn't do more than 480mbps over cabled network to Speedtest. My laptop did almost a gigabit when connected directly to the modem.
That type of hardware acceleration is indeed possible. (Often called “Layer 3 hardware offloading” or something similar.) You’ll find that in some router. However, if you just go out and buy a boxed router off the shelves somewhere, you’ll have no idea what you’re getting.
My main point with this article was to raise awareness about what manufacturers call “gigabit router”. You’ll see all the major brands label everything — even the ones that aren’t LAN <=> WAN gigabit-capable — with this label.
It’s a bit different with enterprise-grade stuff. The manufacturers are more up-front about the actual speeds you’re getting. You’ll notice that they don’t use the term “gigabit router” unless it can route your stuff at at least a gigabit speed with a basic configuration.
Not sure how common this practice is, but some manufactures (like TP-Link) include a function that they refer to as Hardware NAT - and like the name suggests it acts like a hardware accelerator for performing LAN <=> WAN routing, and as long as you don't require any complex configuration (since you are only moving package back and forward between the LAN and Internet) this works fine and it's perfectly capable of reaching 1Gbps on very cheap equipment, since the CPU is no longer in play.
Most consumers never bother with anything else, since they also have no interest in any advance routing configuration, and they do get the full 1Gbps that they pay for.
Alex