This is the nginx config I was goofing around with earlier, if anybody is curious. https://gist.github.com/brycied00d/627ec6c4235405838247 as demonstrated with http://speedtest.brycec.ninja/ and http://speedtest.cobryce.com/ Gist: "Abusing Nginx Configuration To Serve And Redirect Multiple Subdomains Under a Variable Domain" Wow, 8 hits from IrssiUrlLog 4 of them from ipv6 - kudos that sounds nifty thx I'm currently replacing speedtest.net's 5 lines of PHP with another nginx block. Going to optimize the dickens out of this. hahaha their upload test sucks i really wish could easily do a speedtest not using flash but i suspect upload may be hard actually maybe you can do POST request with javascript created data or something? there is an html5 speed test out there speedof.me (google says there are others too, but that's the one I've used in the past) is it any good? it's not open soruce is it? Seemed good, yeah. Don't think it's open-source or available for self-running yeah this seems nice. although it seems to be overestimating my upload speed uload speed says 10.86 megabit, max upload 22.64 but my connection has 10 megabit vdsl sync, so can't do 10 megabit even after overhead. I like their graphs and that it downloads larger and larger files until it's "happy" it has a good average. yeah it also hilights nicely small vs large files Really? Mine's pretty close to spot-on for the upload @ 13mbps and ramp up speed etc what i don't like is it's testing to sydney which is too close (I have 10-15 up, don't remember) i like to test more distant locations to measure speed. it might be because i usue a local proxy so it leaves the computer pretty quick I can see how that would skew things :p if it's client that says the speed rather than server buut yeajh, something like this but open soruce would be great :) definitely the right path. the last stuff i saw that was html was crap mercutio, IPv4/48 are sub-addressable IPs - the smaller they appear to be, the larger they actually are grody: what seem to have /something/ working here now.. have US and UK working into the backed server 23:42 < mercutio> what would a v4 /48 even be what's a sub addressab IP? sorry. unsubtle physics moment like a sub atomic particle ahh ok i don't know that stufuf i've been wanting to do multiple location stuff since i was a kid with accelerating from closer to the user i wanted to do it before i had the internet with bbs's :) hehe neat haven't done much though heh :/ i was thinking that things ilke input fields and stuff should be accelerated. and done locally i doubt this is accelerating per-se yeah but you could :) it's more redundancy.. albeit there is still a SPOF even just using redir command and doing layer 7 redirection accelerates performance yaeh are you doing ospf or something within your vpn's? atm no.. it's all static (which I need to fix) the problem with a network over a network is failover times can still suck so you need to do bfd or such well if you want to create a "more reliable network" hm i have the servers in a VLAN, which are interconnected via a L2TP LNS (via their respective LACs) and using HAProxy on the internet facing i suppose that could work did try simple forwards, but had the issue of the server replying out of the wrong route the thing is most outages these days are really short it's usually ddos with rapid mitigation so frequent short outages to some of the net is the common issue i have to be grateful for one thing so far.. and touching wood here, i have yet never been dDoSsed massively so you need a really frequent heart beat to do better than it yea, L2TP isn't the best VPN type to use due to it being a session i have but it was a very long time ago will be an IPSEC/GRE eventually it's cos i logged into efnet L2TPv3 would be nice mind and someone wanted my nick hah yeh efnet is a jungle i can see why some providers used to say that efnet irc wasn't allowed in particular :) they really need bots. i used to get "attacked" a lot from Quakenet i dunno if efnet is even still going. port scans, ping o death attempts, IGMP frag attacks etc back when the internet was new you used to be able to ctcp ping +++ATH0 sequence or just put it in a normal icmp ping and it'd disconnect users that received it. hahaha yea i remember that it didn't work with people with usr etc modem. but it worked on cheap dynalinks etc. was mitigatable using relevent S0=0 (and similar) AT commands modem init because they didn't want to pay the fee for the delay ahh ok i didn't know that. i thought it was amusing i don't think all these high bandwidth ddos's these days are though i used to get it a lot, then bought a rockwell modem that appeared to specifically address it with windows 95 you used to be able to arp flood local machines and lock them up too. win98 used to send IGMP fragments and it'd BSOD i assume it operated at a high precedence and wasn't very efficient. sounds like wifi of today.. push some multicast packets over the air and boom it slows to a crawl even just using wifi normally can slow it to a crawl. there's no protection from one user stealing all the bandwidth normally think i only use wifi now on things that have no choice for it there's a bit of protectio on the ubiquity etc gear i think. i do have a lot of RTP flowing through my net and that reaps havock too aye, ubi are epic they'd doing fq_codel it's good that's starting to catch on. ooh unifi uap-ac sucks btw. i have a couple of the bullets, a 2.4 and a 5 for the most part, i seem to get full wifi performance (until my own wireless G joins) that thing kills most wifis would upgrade that device, but it is the most reliable VoIP phone i have aight, i managed to not break anything in that round of mods - i bet you by the time i get to my next destination, something barfs hi hi hi hi nk d'oh typing in the dark again and i have no idea why i havent turned my lamp on "how did you setup pfsense on a VPS with only an internet facing network adaptor" ur, well, thats easy.. i remove default route via the VNC access, static route to my trusted IP.. set it up via web browser shit some people amaze me @weather -v yyz Toronto-Pearson International, Ontario: Mostly Cloudy ☁ 73°F (23°C), Humidity: 53%, Wind: From the ESE at 9 MPH, Pressure: 30.09inHg (1019mb) and falling, Dewpoint: 55°F (13°C), Visibility: 15Mi (24km), UV index: 2, Sunrise 05:41, Sunset: 20:50, Lunar phase: Waxing gibbous Friday: Partly Cloudy 77°F/65°F (25°C/18°C) | Saturday: Thunderstorm 82°F/49°F (28°C/9°C) | Sunday: Chance of Rain 60°F/46°F (16°C/8°C) | Monday: Chance of Rain 67°F/49°F (19°C/9°C) The average high for this date is 65°F (18°C), and the record of 93°F (33°C) was set in 2006. The average low is 48°F (8°C), and the record of 39°F (3°C) was set in 2004 hi hi hi hi hi hi hi I wish I had a bot right about now who could greet the channel hi damn you BryceBot hi hi YES i started it Didn't Alex82 start it 8 hours ago? (before grody messed it up) haha heya ... http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/29/california_s_snowpack_now_zero_percent_of_normal_a_worst_case_scenario_for.html still waiting for the day when the hotel tells me I can shower only every other day heh CA lived in denial for a loooong time wrt water and stuff From what I understand a lot if people in CA water their gardens too much - but that pales in comparison to agricultural use of water. right And a lot of the agricultural water use should just be moved to better suited locations. and it's all early 20th century style open channel irrigation totally irresponsible and stupid they're also trying to water a desert and they let it go on forever, and now it's like "oh shit, we don't have water" RandalSchwartz: right i live in the desert, but the water use in my city is roughly 1/3 of the per capita use in LA area per-capita is the wrong way to look at things. it's to the point that people here conserve enough water that the utility authority has trouble paying for stuff because their revenue is down year after year my SSD-based freebsd 10 box on DigitalOcean reboots *so* fast. SSD's do seem to help reboot performance a bit. ping fail time about 10 seconds. :) But IME it's not actually as much difference as you'd think it would be. There are a lot of contributing factors. ARP has an in built delay in the BIOS so people can hit with VNC easier. true I'd like that toggleable myself :) but at the end of the day i hardly ever reboot. And it definitely is annoying catching console with VNC.. It'd be a lot easier if VNC would let you connect before it started booting. But if you do a force restart you have to wait until mid way through, then connect. heh, yeah... If ARP could start kvm suspended and wait for you to attach to the monitor to resume... But in the end, extending the boot delay is probably easier for most users. did you see alternative bios for kvm? it's meant to speed up boot time a lot, but can only boot linux afaik Heard about it, yeah it has no vga console even i think Yeah I think the kernel parameters are hardcoded. but i suspect it should be possible to get down to < 200 msec boot times if you did magic with initialisation and basically did copy on write from a pre loaded kernel it should be possible doesn't mean easy you still have things like disk, startup scripts etc. i suspect that some minor things should be able to be taken out of seabios, like floppy support, .. and to get some improvement without all the complications there were heaps of ideas going around to improve linux boot times before ssd's became common with doing things like figuring out what disk blocks would be needed etc. changing init handlers of device drivers, doing async init etc. but somewhere along the line, it now seems things haven't really got any faster recently