Remote computing+multiple internet services=superconnection? You its unfair that my family pays for 1. My Moms Work 2. My Dads Work 3. My Internet Away from home 4. Internet at Home 5. Internet at school Is there anyway I could somehow funnel these together wirelessly and get a superconnection. I think its fair as we pay for them all. In fact I think families should join together and be able to do something like this. Its like the idea of bonding but even better Is it possible? actually this is possiblly the greatest idea ever lol. does Tor sort of do something like this? Then if everybody shared internet we could all have crazy connection speeds
Well its like the idea that you could use multiply your bandwith by using multiple sources of connections. Even if the connection is hosted on another computer
Except how it all has to come into one machine, which would then be limited to whatever it can take in.
Well, most Internet connections are a fair bit slower than the max you can take in over an Ethernet cable - or at least mine is. The bigger problems are: - How you're connecting to all these other machines. Obviously you can't go through an Internet connection for this, and if they're close enough to be networked directly together, aren't they pretty likely to be sharing the same Internet connection to begin with? - Load balancing. It looks like you can theoretically do per-connection load balancing in Windows by using the "RandomAdapter" and "SingleResponse" registry keys (put them in the Google.com Internet search engine for details) but I think it will only speed up parallel downloads.
Corey>I wish there was like a way people could all partition parts of their own internet service and feed it into a giant pool and then everyone could access this super crazy fast pool of internet <Corey>or at least with your family and school <Corey>because I have internet at school. Mom has internet at work <Corey>dad has internet at work <Corey>stupid that its not all constantly used <Corey>actually there was a pretty amazing product developed <Corey>the Slupr <Corey>http://geektechnique.org/projectlab/781/slurpr-the-mother-of-all-wardrive-boxes <Corey>Too bad I don't think it ever came out and that was in 2007 <Corey>on one hand it would've meant everyone was hacking the shit out of each other connections... <Corey>but it also could have like brought forth a new area where information is protected but connections are shared <Corey>everyone using neighbors signals would mean everyone would have fast internet
They are all way slower. I've got relatively fast interweb at 160Mbps/s. This is nowhere near the max of 1Gb/s which are on now standard switches & NICs. There are a few places in town which offer this kind of speed, but they are generally limited to single buildings.
Wouldn't the bottleneck be your wireless card ot the router? Like if everything was close enough could you use a pringle can with a Wireless N card and pull them together? Kind of like reverse bittorrent... with the internet! Even if you could wouldn't you want a more effective solution like getting wideband? The way I see it no matter what you do your still sharing/competing for your internet with the office or the neighborhood. Where does the break in subsections occur?
It is feasible, but your situation may make it technically impossible. You are effectively looking at "shotgunning" your connections. The problem, as stated before, is that you would need some method of combining the connections in order properly service internet requests: in the simplest form, a request could be sent over a single connection; in the most complex, a request would be handled by multiple connections. There used to be dedicated hardware (and some software) solutions for shotgunning modems, but I am not aware of current solutions. Back to the feasibility. In order to do this, you would need direct access to each connection from a central location. Wirelessly, you would need to make sure each internet connection you want to combine is within the reach of your centralized multiplexer (not really a router per se, but functions in a similar manner). Even assuming you have all of the locations within reach of, and existing in a single wireless network (doubtful), you still probably won't get the results you want. There will be extensive overhead to forward requests over the wireless network, decide how to split them, send them back over the wireless network to the appropriate connection location, receive the results and send the back to the original requester. That could require upwards of 2 + 2x (where x is the number of internet connections) wireless transmissions. Wireless latency of any form would be magnified. Even then, you probably wouldn't get near the maximum "spec" speed for the wireless network due to interference, distance, etc. Of course, I'm simplifying here by not making a distinction between packets, sessions, etc., but the potential problems should still be apparent at this point.
