|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] BitTorrant and routers
|
D-links aren't that bad. Their wireless power output could be better.
So far, I have installed 6 DI-624s and a DI-524 in various family
homes. The first one to go was the DI-624 at my home. It was roughly
2.5 yrs old and definitely not the oldest in the group.
I second Will's suggestion to get a router that supports OpenWRT or a
similar open source firmware. Don't worry about buying a 802.11N
router if you aren't sure. You can always upgrade later and keep the
802.11G/B router for your guests and free-loaders.
HTH
Amul
On 2/9/07, Matt Singleton <msingle1@sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
I'll second Buffalo over D-Link. I've had nothing but trouble with
D-Link and nothing but success with Buffalo.
Matt
Will Dyson wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Doug Crompton <doug@crompton.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect more then a few are using Torrant SW on this list. While I have
>> primarily used it in winXp this is more a router question. I am using
>> Linksys BEFRS41's here and I am having lockups issues when running
>> Torrent. Goggling for this, it seems that this is a common issue with
>> this
>> and other Linksys models and there does not seem to be a satisfactory
>> fix.
>> I suspect that they cannot handle the number of open connections in a
>> NAT'ed environment.
>>
>>
>> The consensus is to go to Dlink routers. Anyone have any comments on
>> this?
>
>
> I had that router for a while, and it behaved exactly as you describe.
> I also think that the rate at which connections are made and dropped
> with BT is part of the issue. I suspect that it was not removing old
> connections from the NAT table quickly enough, and would end up
> overflowing the table at some point.
>
> The solution is certainly to ditch that old router.
>
> I would, however, break with this consensus in favor of Dlink routers.
> I don't have anything specifically against Dlink (although I've had
> enough problems with Netgear to avoid them at all costs).
>
> Instead, my recommendation is for any router that is capable of
> running 3rd party firmware (such as openwrt). The vendor-supplied
> firmware on these units is pretty good and (for those with a little
> hacker-fu) the 3rd party firmware really lets the hardware shine.
>
> If you don't need pre-802.11-N capability, the Buffalo WHR-G54S simply
> cannot be beat at around $40 retail.
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|