|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The reason I switched modems (and vendors - from istar to Rogers cable)
was to try and alleviate some or all of the following:
- when i tried to access data via the net I kept getting "could not find
host name (11002)" errors. Reuters told me my vendor was too far from
the "backbone" of the net and by the time the host name was found my pc
had timed out.
- it would take me 3 or 4 tries per night twice a week to get my 4800
stocks using a 56k v90 modem
- speed of access was a 3rd consideration although the answer I got an
this was "it depends". The question was "Will my downloads be faster
than with my 56k v.90 equipped modem?" The reality - YES a cable modem
gets you the data faster. I am not a techie. I asked the cable
provider how much faster will the cable modem be & they said 53 times
faster. I now know if I am waiting for someting to load on my screen
chances are its not the links - its the computer at the other end - or
my computer. My cable modem is on a node with 60 other users. All the
nodes are linked via fibre optic to a hub on (not near) the backbone of
the net.
- I thought perhaps I might be able to get around these id=800 errors
and packet timeouts. For the week it worked perfectly I almost
considered dropping Reuters an apology letter saying it was my computer
configuration (being so far off the backbone and all) that was at
fault. However having tried two data vendors configured quite
differently and two very different modems I am 100% confident this is
not a user issue. Reuters or the network or the combination of the two
is where the problem lies.
I still haven't coded a trailer so I will have to do this manually.
David Duggan
(In heaven again - my download worked! - I live another day)
Stan Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Metardr (or whoever you are) would you please tell us more
> about your Cable modem set-up? Who's providing the service
> and is your throughput actually 53 x 56 KBPS? Cable Modems
> have to share the bandwidth with the others on the loop so your
> actual throughput could be substantially less than the 10 MBPS
> theoretical.Does your service provider guarantee any minimum
> throughput?
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>
> ----------
> > From: metardr@xxxxxxxx
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Reuters
> > Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:44 AM
> >
> > Up here in Toronto Canada (in the middle of the upcoming ice age -
> > forget global warming) we trashed our 56k modem last week in favour of a
> > cable modem (which is 53 times faster).
> >
> > I thought I had died and gone to heaven for about a week.
> >
> > But I was wrong.
> >
> > I have not escaped the gravitational pull of the dreaded ID=800 and it's
> > equally feared cousins the "Error Packet Time Out" messages.
> >
> > So we shall not soar above the great unwashed and we will remain here
> > grounded, wailing, whining, destitute and penniless without our data,
> > until the Net god(s) (maybe there is more than one) takes pity on our
> > souls.
> >
> > I think I'm going to cry or go to the nut house.
> >
> > Will someone at that blessed company - I can't even say it let alone
> > purchase their stock - you know - the one that starts with the R -
> > PLEASE PUT THINGS BACK TO THE WAY THEY WERE.
> >
> > Its not so hard. Or maybe it was just the weather???
> >
> >
> >
> > RAYWOLF30@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm having the same problem in NY . ID-800
|