Saturday, 13 March 2004, 23:18:59 EST

I just got back from seeing Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ. It is a really interesting movie and definitely deserves the rating that has been applied to it - leave the kids at home. We got there late because, well, you know how slow women can be at times; we walked in about ten minutes in to the movie. I didn't realize that there would not be any trailers but now that I think about it, why would an independent film have trailers? So, if you plan on going get there on time. I will come back to this point in a minute, on with my opinion of the movie.

I think that the movie was filmed superbly. While the movie is definitely filmed from a religious perspective it is also filmed in such a way as to show the politics behind the story of the movie (I am being objective, don't flame for it). As a result, it is a good movie for anyone that likes good movies to go see. I do think that some scenes were drawn out a little long. For example, the procession through town to the crucifixtion site. I don't believe it needs to be quite as long as it is. I got the point pretty early in, he has quite a burden to bear and he is going to be beaten even more whilst doing it. The scene did not need to be thirty minutes long to get its point across.

Back to me getting to the movie late. That is insanely rude and I don't feel too bad about it when I am walking in on trailers. But, when I walk in while the actual movie is running that is just ridiculously rude. The amazing part? What I did is nowhere near as rude as the rest of the fuckheads that were there. I swear they were sending text messages to each other on their phones with the sounds turned on. I don't understand how people can go to the movies and think "Oh, I don't need to turn my phone off. I am special." If I had stuff to throw I would have thrown it; all of the phones ringing were within ten feet of me.

Any way, if you want to see a good movie I recommend going to see this one. Just leave the kids at home. You do get to see exposed ribs, elbows, and other goodies and I doubt any one under sixteen is going to understand what they are seeing (and sixteen is cutting it close). Now I have to get back to building a router that supports Quality of Service since my room mates don't know how to fairly share bandwidth during active use times.

Categories:

Define sharing bandwidth fairly. If you mean it gives you the right to block peoples access when they're NOT even causing you to slow down 3 times without mentioning a word then yes sharing is not an option.

Posted by Mohsin on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 1:29:43 EST.

I was playing a game online when my ping rate jumped through the fucking roof. I looked out the outgoing log on the router and 192.168.0.8 was sending stuff all over the fucking world. If you can sit there and tell me that a machine sending to thirty different IPs at the same time is not affecting bandwidth then I call you a fucking liar.

No, I will not say a word when someone is fucking the bandwidth knowing that other people are trying to use it. Don't get pissy with me if you don't know that your machine is sending a shitton of packets because it will get booted off the network if I notice it. If you don't realize that it is doing that is not my fault. Either stop running p2p applications or check the machine for viruses.

As for the right. The bill is in my fucking name. If there is a misuse of bandwidth that gets noticed by authorities it comes back on my head. I would say that gives me the right to do whatever I absolutely goddamned feel like doing.

I do not want to deny anyone in the apartment access to the internet but I will also not suffer shittastic ping rates like ones found at Clayton Place. Get the hell over it.

Posted by James Sumners on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 1:47:15 EST.

So changing the rules on the router at will without consulting the people using is perfectly fine? I had to spend about 40 min going through .swp files because every time the rules got changed I got kicked off any ssh sessions and my instant messaging programs. Communication is all that was needed. Not on a damn website though.

Posted by John Wallom on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 10:56:48 EST.

I had just reloaded my machine and I was using windows update, and getting drivers for my machine. If that is what caused you to slow down then you know what like you said get over it. If I use the connection at 1:30am you have a problem with it. If its 10pm you have a problem with it.

If you're playing a game if you ever think of saying hey I'm playing a game let me use the connection no one will stop you. All you have to do is mention it not expect us to magically read your fucking mind.

Posted by Mohsin on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 11:00:41 EST.

Screen is a lovely application that will prevent you from ever having to go through .swp files.

I thought I made it clear. I do not know who owned 192.168.0.8. I still do not know because you both seem to be claiming that the blocking of that IP affected you. I only blocked 192.168.0.8 from doing anything because it was uploading a helluva lot of information to a bunch of different IPs.

Based on the statement that you had just reloaded your machine I would assume that it was your machine infected with some virus like MS.Blast. I assume that when a rule gets put in place that disables an IP and is named "goddammituploadshitlater" the owner of that IP would stop for a second and figure out what their machine is uploading so heavily. Typing over a few ssh sessions, browsing the web, chatting, and downloading files is not going to affect the upload bandwidth. But a piece of shit Windows machine infected with a DoS virus will. You should know better than to download the big updates, service packs, after the machine is loaded. You should know that putting a freshly loaded Windows machine on an internet connected network will get that machine infected.

And, if Mohsin's machine really was the owner of 192.168.0.8, I have no idea why your machine would have noticed anything at all John. Neither of my boxes were affected and I was sshed in to a couple boxes and chatting online with various programs. So, if your machine did not have that IP address and some how got disconnected when that specific IP was booted that just shows another point of how the router is, in my opinion, shitty. Also, all I did was say that I am building a router that will manage bandwidth because the bandwidth does not get shared effectively in this apartment. I did not say something in another means because it didn't need to be said and if I did try to say something it would not have gone over very well. As you can tell from my original response to Mohsin I am fairly pissed off about the whole situation. And when I am that pissed of my voice does not stay in a friendly tone. Better to use text.

Now, let me touch on the statement "If I use the connection at 1:30am you have a problem with it. If its 10pm you have a problem with it." That is incorrect. I only have a problem with it when it slows down the rest of the network. All three of us could play any game online that we wanted at the exact same time and not notice a hitch. Two of us could be download massive amounts of whatever-the-fuck and the third playing games with no problems. But, when you start uploading a bunch of crap it affects ALL the bandwidth. Also, when you walked in the door and asked me why I was crawling around on the living floor I told you that I was trying to figure out what was causing so much lag and that I was "trying to play games online." If that isn't "saying hey I'm playing a game let me use the connection" I don't know what is.

The router I am building will place p2p applications lower in the bandwith spectrum so that ssh sessions, web browsing, and game playing can be done whilst they are running. If something else crops up that starts uploading massive amounts of packets it too will be placed in the low priority list. The router will be put in place and the DSL modem will only assign the IP to it.

Posted by James Sumners on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 11:40:05 EST.

I am using wireless. Whenever a change on the router occurs, it restarts at least a portion or it's applications. The wireless portion always gets restarted. That is why I kept loosing my connection. Also, I would like to point out that there is no way for Mohsin's machine to have gotten infected with Blaster or any other worm. It is not the DMZ and the ports needed to get infected are not forwarded to his machine. You should know fairly well that if one of us unpugged your network cable from the router you would be extremely pissed. All I am asking is before doing something we should communicate.

Posted by John Wallom on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 12:35:08 EST.

That is the only scenario that I can come up with that would cause his machine to send out so much traffic without him knowing about it if it was indeed his machine. Like I said I do not know what machine it was, I just know the IP.

Do you disagree with a router that will manage bandwidth in such a fashion as to prevent this from happening again? It only lowers the priority of packets in the queue it does not prevent them from being sent.

Posted by James Sumners on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 12:42:12 EST.

It didn't have the ms blast or anything on it James I had already applied that patch. Is it asking to much from you if you notice something like that happening that you tell the person hey its doing this. I'm not 10 miles away from you its just down the hall, hell just yell it out and I'll hear you.

As for your statement when I was uploading that one night I apologized and said sorry for using the bandwidth. Didn't happen again after that.

This all could have been easily avoided if you said hey dude I think something maybe wrong with your machine go check it out.

Posted by Mohsin on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 12:46:56 EST.

My point is is that I have repeatedly had to make the request that uploading be extremely limited during times when the connection is actively being used. I am done with polite requests and reminders. If it starts to affect my usage of the connection I am only going to take long enought to identify the problem and rectify the problem before getting back to what I was doing. I will not spend any time trying to identify who has the IP causing problems. And truly, with QoS in place with good rules it should not even come up again.

I have done everything I can to limit what I upload. If I decide to download a torrent, be it the latest game patch or whatever, I limit the outgoing speed to 1K/sec. The only uploading that I do which goes over that is when I upload about 500K to this website to add new content.

Posted by James Sumners on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 13:08:18 EST.

I do not disagree with QoS, I do not want a peice of equipment that someone who is angry can go make changes and the rest of us have to live with it until that person calms down.

Posted by John Wallom on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 13:09:43 EST.

I am calm. All ports that need to be forwarded to various machines will be. I am not haphazardly throwing a machine togher. I am taking time to make sure it is done right and tested before being put in place.

Posted by James Sumners on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 13:30:31 EST.

If I upload a 20mb file once a week will those 10 or even 20 minutes bother you so much that you can't put up with it. If I wasn't paying for it I can understand you not wanting to put up with it at all but anytime I upload it's during those "Active times".

If you could specify a time when its okay to upload that would greatly resolve the problem.

Posted by Mohsin on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 15:28:00 EST.

I was not saying you are not calm now, i am talking about Friday night. If you set up a rule on a machine that me or Mohsin do not have access to, we are screwed until you calm down. As it stands now, if one person angrily stops a service that all of us pay for, it can be fixed. I understand it is in your name, but that does not mean you or either of us have a right to deny each other any of the service we all pay for. That is what happened. Neither of us unplugged your machine when someone was leaching. We said stuff and when the problem was found it was fixed. That is communication.

Posted by John Wallom on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 15:33:05 EST.

If I remember correctly I am not the one that changed the password to the router. Seems to me that I was, in essence, notifying the person that their machine is fuckin' stuff up and they should do something about it. To me that is not denying service. Had I blocked the access to that IP and then changed the IP the, yes, I would have been denying service.

As of right now, I write this message through the new router. Masquerading is working (evidently) and I am working on port forwarding now.

I realize that any time you upload is during "active times" and that is why I want to implement something that will allow maximum upload rate while the connection is idle and lower the rate to make room for other applications when it is idle. I pay for the service as well and one of the KEY reasons I opted for the service is so that I can play internet games. I did not get a broadband connection for warez bullshit.

Posted by James Sumners on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 16:43:13 EST.

#1, loading/reloading a computer is not warez.

#2, if you actually think that putting a rule on the router is communicating, you are correct, however that is not being considerate of others. I changed the password because I was tired of both my roomates bitching and my connection being dropped. Not once did you ask me if I was having any problems. The closest think was when you ran past my room and asked if Mohsin was home.

#3 Not once did I deny anyone in this apartment any usage of the network they paid for.

Posted by John Wallom on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 17:37:31 EST.

Screw what I just said. I am done with this discussion.

Posted by John Wallom on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 17:52:09 EST.

Tomorrow on As the Network Turns...

Posted by William Graves on Sunday, 14 March 2004, 20:00:27 EST.