MaxBlitzer, User (Posts: 68)
Jul 05, 2018 5:17:14 am EDT
Conrad, Support (Posts: 2985)
Jul 05, 2018 6:33:22 am EDT
I am not sure what service you can possibly mean. A connection can be either direct or mediated through a server - be it our public server or a self-hosted server. If our public servers don't work for you well, feel free to use the self-hosted server, this is one of the reasons why we offer it (for free).Are there any plans to implement a service to facilitate direct connections between hosts instead of connections relaying through your servers unless manually setting up port forwarding and using direct IP's?
A ping from your location to our server doesn't say anything about the quality of the server itself. Our servers can sustain far more load than now and are located in one of the largest datacenters in Canada.I've frequently ran into performance issues through the various relays used by Remote Utilities. Way, way, too frequently. The latency is high and there is significant ping loss. I have a PC next to me that I'm connecting to that has more than 8 seconds of latency (it's varied fr om 4-18 seconds while I've been writing this). The re's the scenic login screen and then the computer boots up with Spotify open and the large pictures seem to bring it to a crawl even with 16 bits colour. I have it on HDMI output to a monitor on my right, and then connecting using Internet ID fr om my main PC next to it. At this moment, round trip ping time to your relay server in Montreal is 163ms (from west Canada. I normally get 78ms pings to Ontario, so this Montreal hub kinda sucks as you'll see below) with approx 18% packet loss.
We recommend that you use a self-hosted server or even direct connection where possible.I believe you also have a relay server in California, which is closer and lower latency, approximately 50ms with no ping loss so far. So I'm not sure how hosts pick the relay servers, whether its random, first to respond, round robin, or load balanced, etc. But there is very clear and poor performance using the relay server and I don't see a way for me to bounce it to a better relay server and I don't see anything happening on the server side to migrate me to the better performing server that is 1/3 latency and without packet loss.
MaxBlitzer, User (Posts: 68)
Jul 06, 2018 3:54:40 am EDT
Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean, because businesses would definitely prefer to run traffic between their hosts directly and not through another server unless they had to. We'll just agree to disagree on that. Perhaps if I was unclear, all I really meant is that connections be made using direct connection, but without the user having to configure anything, it is handled automatically by the server. But I do believe you answered my question by not having any plans to implement such a feature. Fair enough.If you mean peer-to-peer connectivity though, I am sorry but this is not the way to go for us. It might work for free and personal tools, but since we also sell to businesses they won't be happy to use a P2P application due to security concerns that such applications can bring.
Yeah, I failed to make my point clear again, unfortunately. You could have the single greatest server in the world, but it means very little if the Internet pipe leading to it has problems (like throwing a party when the roads are washed out and the guests can't arrive). The data I showed you indicated it wasn't your server, but the pipe leading to your server. And I further pointed out that all your server metrics about how lightly loaded and how fast your server is is not going to show this problem. I can only anecdotally report that I have found repeated, very high latency problems. You did make a point of saying you have a world class data center, which may be true. But that doesn't change the fact that the Internet regularly has congestion and routing problems and this is a real world problem.A ping fr om your location to our server doesn't say anything about the quality of the server itself. Our servers can sustain far more load than now and are located in one of the largest datacenters in Canada.
I understand that. But that just means it'll still be relayed through my connection instead of directly between users. So it will help a lot, but not avoid the problem. It shifts the server maintenance and cost to me (which isn't unfair, you're making a free product). I have endless linux servers both locally and in closer datacenters and if you had a server that ran on linux, I'd be all over that. But you've also stated that isn't a priority. For the low amount of usage per month, I can't say I'll be doing that. The time alone on maintenance of the server would be more than amount used.We recommend that you use a self-hosted server or even direct connection wh ere possible.
Conrad, Support (Posts: 2985)
Jul 06, 2018 4:05:12 am EDT
Perhaps, cascade connection may qualify as such a feature.Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean, because businesses would definitely prefer to run traffic between their hosts directly and not through another server unless they had to. We'll just agree to disagree on that. Perhaps if I was unclear, all I really meant is that connections be made using direct connection, but without the user having to configure anything, it is handled automatically by the server. But I do believe you answered my question by not having any plans to implement such a feature. Fair enough.
MaxBlitzer, User (Posts: 68)
Jul 06, 2018 4:49:08 am EDT
Thanks, that would be very useful for places with more than one machine and I'll look at setting that up in once place. But not so much when target computers are at different locations.Conrad wrote:
Hello Max,Perhaps, cascade connection may qualify as such a feature.Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean, because businesses would definitely prefer to run traffic between their hosts directly and not through another server unless they had to. We'll just agree to disagree on that. Perhaps if I was unclear, all I really meant is that connections be made using direct connection, but without the user having to configure anything, it is handled automatically by the server. But I do believe you answered my question by not having any plans to implement such a feature. Fair enough.
Thanks.
Jeremy C, User (Posts: 10)
Jan 22, 2019 10:38:06 pm EST
Conrad Sallian, Support (Posts: 2985)
Jan 23, 2019 11:27:50 am EST
Automatic performance settings adjustment and a more user-friendly Speed/Balanced/Performance selector are under way. I must acknowledge that in their current form RU's performance settings aren't especially intuitive.I did this because previous version of RU is slow, so I want to bypass any servers or internet speed issues. However, doing this requires port forwards.
* Website time zone: America/New_York (UTC -4)