# Wired and Wireless both are connected



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 7, 2009)

So if both are connected and running does it speed up your Access 
I no I'm being really lazy to ask this i could just run a few test's and verify one way or the other or just type it into google but I want to heare it from you people


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 7, 2009)

i really dont thinkk so if im not mistaken when browsing you can only use one connection.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 7, 2009)

I think your right


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

No. Doesn't speed anything up.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 7, 2009)

> No. Doesn't speed anything up.


no it doesn't....


----------



## digibucc (Jul 7, 2009)

it's actually pretty ridiculous if you ask me - that there is no way (using a dl manager, dividing into parts) to download from two separate connections at once (in windows).

obviously if they go to the same router, that's stupid - but I have two entirely different connections plugged in , and for a year have been trying to find a way to use them at the same time to increase dl speed on one computer.

load balancing routers , expensive as they are, don't even really do it.  they are backwards , meant to make it so more people can access your server at once , vs my accessing someone else's server at higher speeds,


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

digibucc said:


> it's actually pretty ridiculous if you ask me - that there is no way (using a dl manager, dividing into parts) to download from two separate connections at once (in windows).
> 
> obviously if they go to the same router, that's stupid - but I have two entirely different connections plugged in , and for a year have been trying to find a way to use them at the same time to increase dl speed on one computer.
> 
> load balancing routers , expensive as they are, don't even really do it.  they are backwards , meant to make it so more people can access your server at once , vs my accessing someone else's server at higher speeds,



Did you try bridging your connections in Windows, then running them thru a switch?


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 7, 2009)

Yeah you would have to load balance in windows as well as on your router. But when it comes down to it your internet speed isnt limited by ethernet LAN (unless you're on 10mbit, you poor soul). Wireless it can be affected, and is often quicker to wire in. But even if you did load balance successfully. I can't imagine having faster download speeds.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Yeah you would have to load balance in windows as well as on your router. But when it comes down to it your internet speed isnt limited by ethernet LAN (unless you're on 10mbit, you poor soul). Wireless it can be affected, and is often quicker to wire in. But even if you did load balance successfully. I can't imagine having faster download speeds.



True. The only way you could get faster speeds is if you somehow had 2 separate internet accounts with independent modems.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> True. The only way you could get faster speeds is if you somehow had 2 separate internet accounts with independent modems.


I've seen routers that do have dual WAN.  For most people, a single gigabit LAN (125 MB/s) should be more than enough.  The only time you might strain it is if you have two computers with SSD drives moving data between them.

Then again, routers are usually your weakest link unless you bought commercial grade routers.  The fastest home routers (gigabit/802.11n) bog down in transfers rather quick.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Did you try bridging your connections in Windows, then running them thru a switch?



that is not anything i have ever heard of.  i heard bridging in windows - but nothing to do with running to a switch afterward.

any more info on this?  I wills earch for it now, but anything else you know would be appreciated.

thanks!


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 8, 2009)

Strange thought here....
So my internet is thru RR, it's the Turbo package, which is 15mbps down and a whopping 1.5mbps up(never and i mean never more than 98kbps) anyways It is also restricted to 2.5mbps streams with a total of 6 max streams for a total 15mbps(or any combination that leads to 15mbps but not more than 2.5mbps stream) so is there a way to bridge those streams, not sure if im stating this correctly
or is that an os restriction or browser restriction


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2009)

it wont work. the way all this stuff works is like dual core CPU's - any program you use will max out one network connection, ignoring the other - other programs can run off the second one, but they need to be coded with a network card selection or they just use the default windows one... and not many apps have that, do they?


As has been said, its all useless anyway. Speeding up the connection to your switch/router/modem wont do squat, since your internet speed is what controls *drumroll* your internet speed.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Strange thought here....
> So my internet is thru RR, it's the Turbo package, which is 15mbps down and a whopping 1.5mbps up(never and i mean never more than 98kbps) anyways It is also restricted to 2.5mbps streams with a total of 6 max streams for a total 15mbps(or any combination that leads to 15mbps but not more than 2.5mbps stream) so is there a way to bridge those streams, not sure if im stating this correctly
> or is that an os restriction or browser restriction


If it's 2.5 per stream, just try a download manager that will open multiple streams at once.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> If it's 2.5 per stream, just try a download manager that will open multiple streams at once.



download managers are the way to go there. something like getright or free download manager,


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 8, 2009)

> If it's 2.5 per stream, just try a download manager that will open multiple streams at once.


 like Limewire or D2D's download manager



> it wont work. the way all this stuff works is like dual core CPU's - any program you use will max out one network connection, ignoring the other - other programs can run off the second one, but they need to be coded with a network card selection or they just use the default windows one... and not many apps have that, do they?
> 
> 
> As has been said, its all useless anyway. Speeding up the connection to your switch/router/modem wont do squat, since your internet speed is what controls *drumroll* your internet speed.


Yeah but it seems like waste to be restricted
multi threads combine why not multi lines like Qam


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Yeah but it seems like waste to be restricted



they do that for a reason. you might as well have bought a 2.5Mb internet plan.

Its not like anything you do on your PC, can alter a setting on the ISP side of things - your only solution is to make more 'streams' as you call them - torrents and download managers both make multiple connections, so they'd let you do some things at full speed.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 8, 2009)

Yeah


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> and not many apps have that, do they?


Specifically, you need to be able to specify an IP address the app needs to use.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

i cannot believe that it is impossibly difficult to code a piece of software that when:

you have 2 separate internet connections, possibly through 2 separate ISPs(but at the very least 2 accounts with one ISP)
you have 2 nics

it can work as a download manager, splitting every file into pieces.  and then download multiple pieces at once across the different connections. most load-balance routers don't do what we are talking about. load-balancing is more for rolllover and reliability. what we want is actually called link aggregation. there are projects in the past, but nothing working and no-one good enough cares to code it.

and someone said just buy a higher level speed (or that that is the ISPs motive) but that has nothing to do with protocol and software creation on an open source level.

secondly - screw that.  if I have (as i do) my work internet connection (paid by work) and my personal (paid by me) both at 1MB - why should I not be able to combine them to get download speeds of 2MB.

and remember - I am not necessarily talking about 2MB from one server.  understandably not all hosts can handle that speed.  but as with a download manager, say I am downloading 10 files from 10 different servers.  with proper link aggregation they should download at a combined speed of 2MB

what makes this so difficult or whatever that it has not been done yet?  I don't get it


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

digibucc said:


> i cannot believe that it is impossibly difficult to code a piece of software that when:
> 
> you have 2 separate internet connections, possibly through 2 separate ISPs(but at the very least 2 accounts with one ISP)
> you have 2 nics
> ...


I think an overall lack of demand for it is what prevents its development. Most people do just opt for the faster service.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I think an overall lack of demand for it is what prevents its development. Most people do just opt for the faster service.



I had thought of that.  And it does seem the only explanation that kinda works.

But with all of the other crap people spend time on developing - and how simple I would think it would be with the proper protocol understanding.  there has got to be something complicated about it - or someone would have done it just screwing around by now.

I just can't see what that is. the idea seems solid.  I don't have the coding knowledge, but I don't see where that could be it.  the protocol AFAIK could handle it fine.  I took CCNA and the way the packets progress is so incredibly messy, it gets sorted at the ends anyway.  I just don't get it is all


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2009)

the problem is deciding which application uses which network card.

Windows runs on a priority system - use the topmost in the list which has a working connection. programs are just coded to follow that.

If you ahve two connections... run two seperate downloads. tada. as has been said, its the dual core thing again - or as an example someone told me "just because you have two women, doesnt mean you can have a baby in four and a half months"


Sure, someone could code an app to work on this... but why? the amount of people with two internet connections at the same time is very, very low. ones always slower or more expensive than the other - who the hell has two DSL or two cable connections to there house?


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

im talking a single application that works as a download manager.  looks at the available connections and runs multiple threads if necessary.
even with the low demand - it seems so simple that I still can't believe it hasn't been done.



> If you ahve two connections... run two seperate downloads. tada.


and how do we do that?  I would be fine if I could use one computer, and even two separate copies of a download manager (though one is preferred).  and even if it can't split individual files in parts, just download each file with a different connection.  I can't find a way to do this on one computer.

I have to have one computer using one connection, one on the other , then merge the files - but then it's too much of a hassle to be worth it.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2009)

digibucc said:


> im talking a single application that works as a download manager.  looks at the available connections and runs multiple threads if necessary.
> 
> even with the low demand - it seems so simple that I still can't believe it hasn't been done.



its not 'low' demand - its non existant.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> its not 'low' demand - its non existant.



gee ... guess I should just stop being curious then?  your answer is that no one cares about the idea? bull.

I do not believe that there is non-existant demand for the ability to use two internet connections combined to increase speed.  

the idea has been around so long - there have been working ways before - there are ways to do it with linux.  there are forums dedicated to it , terms created describing it - and hardware created to do it.

i simply do not accept that there is no demand for this ability.  In the SOHO , 3rd world infrastructure - there is huge demand. that is not the reason.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

digibucc said:


> gee ... guess I should just stop being curious then?  your answer is that no one cares about the idea? bull.
> 
> I do not believe that there is non-existant demand for the ability to use two internet connections combined to increase speed.
> 
> ...


If there is linux support for it, perhaps you could build a cheap linux box, and use it as a router, and let it handle all the calls, and just route to your network's computers.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> If there is linux support for it, perhaps you could build a cheap linux box, and use it as a router, and let it handle all the calls, and just route to your network's computers.



i know i know.  i just already have 4 computers running, and i don't have the hardware lying around.  it just seems a solution would be out there for windows.

for linux you need a basic hardware but 3 or more nics.  it requires a lot of conf setup, and then it has to run as a gateway.  i am pushing more and more towards doing this -

i am still just confused - thinking there has got to be just a different way to accomplish this im not thinking of.  I just don't see how windows doesn't have a similar solution.  it used to.

thank you though


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 8, 2009)

The solution might be IPv6.  I haven't checked but having multiple IPs of a single machine is an issue revolved around IPv4 where every packet has a specific recipient.  IPv6 (or future specification) may have had features incorporated that allow every packet to be accepted by one of many recipients.  Such a technology won't catch on until the average household has at least two simultaneous Internet connections or it is standardized prior to becoming popular.



> Wikipedia
> 
> IPv6 also implements new features that simplify aspects of address assignment (stateless address autoconfiguration) and network renumbering (prefix and router announcements) when changing Internet connectivity providers.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

digibucc said:


> i know i know.  i just already have 4 computers running, and i don't have the hardware lying around.  it just seems a solution would be out there for windows.
> 
> for linux you need a basic hardware but 3 or more nics.  it requires a lot of conf setup, and then it has to run as a gateway.  i am pushing more and more towards doing this -
> 
> ...


You wouldn't need 3 or 4 NICs if the box is set up properly. You only need 2. One for the WAN, and one for the LAN. You just need an unmanaged switch on the LAN NIC.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> You wouldn't need 3 or 4 NICs if the box is set up properly. You only need 2. One for the WAN, and one for the LAN. You just need an unmanaged switch on the LAN NIC.



THANK YOU!  I had not thought of that.  I have such a switch and the box needed is simple enough.
*
edit: but wait, in order to plug 2 wan connections , i would need three.  this still saves me from connecting the individual pcs to the linux box (using the switch) but for every isp connection id need another nic, correct?*

I'd still like a windows solution , but this may just be the way to go.

also, @FordGT90Concept

I will look into ipv6 - my router works with it, and so does my switch - windows 7 obviously does so it's worth learning more about.

sorry to hijack the OP thread , but thanks for the ideas!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

digibucc said:


> THANK YOU!  I had not thought of that.  I have such a switch and the box needed is simple enough.
> *
> edit: but wait, in order to plug 2 wan connections , i would need three.  this still saves me from connecting the individual pcs to the linux box (using the switch) but for every isp connection id need another nic, correct?*
> 
> ...


Yeah, your edit is correct. I didn't think it thru all the way. lol.


----------



## thraxed (Jul 11, 2009)

net 1................net 2
 \   ...................   /
..Router1......Router2  (assuming cheap routers
..\  ...............      /
........Switch 1
.........   |                     <- crossover cable might be needed
........Switch 2
.........  /|\
......PC PC  PC


That way you can have as many inet choices as you want, and still only need 1 nic per pc.  Newer motherboard like gigabyte x58 ud5 you can use both nics as one nic if ya want (2 cables for double the bandwidth)  Not that you would ever need that much bandwidth for internet.


----------

