From: "Massimo S." <ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com>
Reply-To: ml@ecomstation.it
Subject: Re: [eCS-ISP] Injoy FW 4.2.2 and download datarates (connection
 speed) the eternal mistery :)
To: eCS ISP Mailing List <ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com>
References: <list-2020949@2rosenthals.com>
Organization: eComStation dot it
Message-ID: <d215d51f-63b3-af44-d24e-ae2ff25164ab@ecomstation.it>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:25:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; it-IT; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060424
 Thunderbird/1.0.8 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <list-2020949@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: it-IT
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Il 17/06/2021 00:47, Steven Levine ha scritto:
> In <list-2020856@2rosenthals.com>, on 06/16/21
>     at 11:46 PM, "Massimo S." <ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com> said:
> 
> Hi Massimo,
> 
>> "busy surviving" is not a justification
> 
> No, it's not.  It is a reason.  Roderick in not trying to justify
> anything.  Let's just say Roderick's written English loses something in
> the translation.
> 
>> i've installed at a client's place IJ fw on a 3Ghz core I7 with 4GB of
>> ram, with SSD storage and i still have performances issues
> 
> This makes sense to me.  Nothing you have done will completely address the
> perforance issues.
> 
>> so i don't believe the stuff of ring0 and ring3
> 
> You can choose to believe what you want.  It's a free country.  With your
> extensive developement skill and techincal knowledge of driver internals,
> I'm sure you know exactly where the problems are.  I'm waiting for you to
> explain to us how to solve then.
> 
>> since if you play with the "intermediary parameters" of packet assembling
>> you get speed improvements
> 
> You said it yourself.  You get improvement.  However, you have yet to find
> a set of intermediary parameters that provide you the performance you
> desire.  This should tell you something.
> 
>> i believe the problem is that the product *do not have updated
>> documentation* with correct settings for the different kind of
>> connections
> 
> This assumes that your so-called correct settings exist.  What do you
> think is going on here.  There are a few folks on this list that are still
> using ijfw.  Do you think they know the correct settings and are simply
> unwilling to share them with you?
> 
>> the documentation are still very old PDFs (some it's even hard to open
>> nowadays) from FX firm, they have been never updated by the new software
>> house
> 
> Think about why this may be.  Perhaps nothing has changed in the ijfw
> internals that warrants updating the manuals.
> 
>> when you modify a rule or a parameter that need firewall restart the
>> firewall become unresponsive so that you have to call by phone the
>> customer and power off the server, it's allmost about one year that i
>> wait for such fix
> 
> I have no idea what you are doing wrong.  I routinely modify rules while
> accessing the server over a secure VNC connection and have never had that
> happen to me
> 
> If you mess up a rule because you did not test it before updating the
> production system, well what can I say?
> 
>> did they tested the software on a modern connection?
> 
> This kind of stupid comment is sure to get you an immediate response from
> the vendor.
> 
> You seem to have a poor grasp of history.  FX.DK stopped development of
> the ijfw approximately 2008.  For all practical purposes the product was
> dead  Bitwise purchased the rights to the software probably about 2011
> hoping that they could generate sufficient sales to resurrect the product.
> 4.2 was release sometime around 2014.  It is now 2021.  The performance of
> the product was just fine for circa 2005 networks.  Times change.
> 
> BTW, what version of fxwrap.sys are you running?
> 
> Steven

on one machine  # 18 Jun 2020 13:21:02

on one machine  # 22 May 2014 13:49:54

on the other machines  # 14 Dec 2018 21:06:18

builds

thanks

massimo