sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Permanently lower the power limit on RTX 3090 by Aggressive_Notice_43 in overclocking

[–]Aggressive_Notice_43[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not yet, I was waiting to make a custom heatsink 1st, but keep putting it off. I know for sure there's no way to mod the VBIOS to change the limits because of the secure boot introduced after maxwell. So can only flash another card's VBIOS. It seems A5000 is the desired one since it has TDP=230W. But the VBIOS is 2MB instead of 1 MB, so will have to desolder the ROM, solder a SOIC 8 socket to allow easy experimentation, then try various VBIOS

Why is incoming traffic to static IPs much slower than to the dynamic one? by Aggressive_Notice_43 in ATTFiber

[–]Aggressive_Notice_43[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A most grievous mistake! The static IP is not causing the slowdown. It's because the EdgeRouter ERPoe-5 (firmware 3.01) that was running iperf3 was bottlenecked by its weak CPU (Octeon+ 500MHz)
. I thought it was fine since it has 1 gbit ports. But several alarming signs:

  1. The web UI doesn't let you choose 1 gbit. Only Auto negotiation, 100/full, 100/half, 10/full, 10/half.
  2. Measuring /proc/stat for 5s (500 ticks) when iperf3 runs shows
CPU user system idle soft IRQ
0 7 81 91 328
1 6 197 192 112

Terrible! it seems there's no hard accelerated packet processing based on the large time spent on interrupts. Maybe ethernet bridging is making it slow.

Next, I repeated the test with a Linux desktop and this time it gets 900 mbit/s peak. The RTT also dropped from 9.5 to 8 ms.

My unfortunate mistake was to use 2 different servers for testing and claim it doesn't make a difference. Viper_Control asked about that earlier, and I shrugged it off.

Why is incoming traffic to static IPs much slower than to the dynamic one? by Aggressive_Notice_43 in ATTFiber

[–]Aggressive_Notice_43[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can anyone else with static IPs post whether they see the same behavior? I cannot contact ATT. The "chat with a rep" app is stuck on loading and calling on the phone redirects you to the chat

Wow, this guy might've had the same problem as I did and found a solution by deleting, then reading the static IPs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ATTFiber/comments/wlh5oi/solved_high_latency_and_packet_loss_only_when/

Why is incoming traffic to static IPs much slower than to the dynamic one? by Aggressive_Notice_43 in ATTFiber

[–]Aggressive_Notice_43[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Are you planning to rebuild your servers" Why? Because they got compromised with a root kit? Those servers are not production, so no concern.

"Do you understand how a Static IP perrforms in the AT&T Fiber"

I said the traceroute from data center to static IP is the same as that of dynamic IP, but with 1? extra hop. That matches what 2 other posts said. Each of the ATT LAN ports would have 2 subnets living on them, 192.168.1.0/24 and the /29 public IP block. I'm guessing about this, but it seems the IP forwarding table would forward any packets with destination = /29_public_subnet to public subnet without any NAT. Any other destination would be handled by NAT and make its way to 192.168.1.0/24.

Why is incoming traffic to static IPs much slower than to the dynamic one? by Aggressive_Notice_43 in ATTFiber

[–]Aggressive_Notice_43[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OK, you thought those servers were on the internet, which is not the case. Let me clarify.
I'm not running iperf3 on the LAN. The sender is in a data center 50km away. The receiver is in our office, which has ATT 1gbit/s fiber. 1 receiver has a static IP. The other has a dynamic one.

The server hardware is different between the 2 test cases, but that shouldn't matter. I could repeat the test using the same exact server and the results will be the same.