Suggestions to Increase Speed and Performance Issues

ebikesrc2u

The primary goal of this thread is to share ideas that MIGHT improve the speed and performance of VPN services. Also, please put any ideas you have in this thread topic to expose speed and performance issues that need improvement, or add ideas how new services or techniques could be used to improve performance and speed of VPN services.

Could services be improved by having dedicated servers and services for torrents vs streaming vs Internet browsing beyond what is being done now?

I'm not a network expert, so all I can offer are some ideas that might improve speed and performance. Certainly some of these ideas will be mistaken or wrong for a number of reasons, but clearing-up these mistaken ideas is very helpful too. So, if you have some expertise to explain why some idea won't work, then please do explain it.

moshbeast said:

I know dedicated IP"s are never coming and can't blame PIA at all..it would be too easy for them to be forced to identify a specific user in that case, thus defeating their whole mission statement

1) Regarding dedicated IP, identity, and speed issues:

Instead of overloading servers with too many people allowed on one server with that bandwidth limitation becoming far too slow [for streaming content or torrents] I'm certain there are load balancing measures that could be used to prevent servers and its bandwidth limits from becoming overwhelmed with too slow a throughput now. What is being done to prevent these problems now?

2) Also, why not offer a premium speed service that allows only a limited X-number of users on that server bandwidth thus guaranteeing 100% anonymous protection AND 100% speed minimums 24/7 ???

3) Does PIA have the ability to "load balance" from region to region now? There are obvious Internet usage and demand levels that vary greatly between regions and time zones vs your local server location that might be overloaded. Is it possible to reroute users to another region where the bandwidth is not overloaded and speeds are much faster?

Rerouting Internet traffic for load balancing ought to be a given, if possible, and so should a premium speed service too. The technology should already be able to do this now or why not?

4) I know DNS latency delay issues for Internet browsing would be different vs streaming and torrents, so should there be dedicated servers to address these different bandwidth speed vs latency issues of Internet browsing vs downloading for streaming and torrents?

I don't know what PIA does about these issues now, but it would be interesting to learn more about what is being done or might be done to improve services.

ebikesrc2u

Reserved for useful technical information, or how VPN services might be improved.

ebikesrc2u

I hope OmniNegro and UltraHumanite will give other people a chance to post to this thread before either of you post here. I'd just appreciate what others have to offer.

It would be most helpful if a networking expert that runs these kinds of VPN services at PIA or some other VPN provider could respond here with some real world expertise and experience.

tomeworm

ebikesrc2u said:

I hope OmniNegro and UltraHumanite will give other people a chance to post to this thread before either of you post here. I'd just appreciate what others have to offer.

I don't know if you'll appreciate what I have to say or not, but what I have to say is that I appreciate what OmniNegro and UltraHumanite had to say to you about your previous post.  I too was confused by what you had to say. Rather than clarifying your questions when asked to do so you engaged in posturing and assumed the role of a victim.  This second attempt of yours is somewhat better, so perhaps you're learning from your former errors.

For the sake of avoiding your getting to play the victim yet a second time I'll not ask you any questions at all. I don't want you to clarify any points because it's already clear to me that you're in way over your head as it is. You have accurately stated, "I'm not a network expert." That, if anything, is an understatement. Yet you offer up advice as though you were in any way qualified to do so. To respond to your suggestions would mean first having to give you the benefit of an education in networking principles that surpass your abilities to comprehend. So that should be avoided.

I'll merely distill this all down to what I consider to be the common denominator: net neutrality. What you propose here (and #2 in particular) flies in the face of network neutrality, something that I am adamantly opposed to and, hopefully, PIA is too. I can only hope that your anti-network neutrality proposals never gain any traction here. If you wish to continue pushing them then kindly take your ideas to another vpn provider's forums where they might find a more receptive audience.

tomeworm

OmniNegro

I have no idea why you think I should be restricted from posting here. So I will not ask any questions either. This thread is much more clear than the previous one. But like tomeworm, I support net neutrality. Nothing you want could work without it.

Perhaps that should be a focus point for future posts, or you could even add that to your reserved post above. I wish you well. (No, that is not a jest. I really do wish you well.)

ebikesrc2u

tomeworm said:

I'll merely distill this all down to what I consider to be the common denominator: net neutrality. What you propose here (and #2 in particular) flies in the face of network neutrality, something that I am adamantly opposed to and, hopefully, PIA is too. I can only hope that your anti-network neutrality proposals never gain any traction here. If you wish to continue pushing them then kindly take your ideas to another vpn provider's forums where they might find a more receptive audience.

Your post is very condescending and an attempt to "put me down" using a false argument. You're an end user of the PIA service just as I am. I assume you have no experience running a VPN service or a data center with networking expertise, and your criticism of #2 in my OP post has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Please start your own thread on Net Neutrality, as nothing I wrote in the OP post here has anything to do with that subject.

IF you or OmniNegro want to debate about Net Neutrality, then please do so off this thread topic. You've proven you misread and did not correctly comprehend what I'm writing about here. Thanks for your consideration.

OmniNegro

You accuse everyone of misreading and not correctly comprehending the subject if we disagree. The reality is that we give you every opportunity to clarify what you meant, but you discard those polite means as an attack and respond as if you were attacked.

If I claim now that you are yourself using a "false argument" to perpetrate a lie, would you argue that a lie is not the same as a "false argument"? Are you lrryie? Admit it now. Because it appears the same to me. You attempt to fight, and are doomed because your fight was meaningless, then you claim you were never fighting because of lawyer nonsense. And that everyone else was fighting, but you were not, so they should burn in Hellfire forevermore because your lawyer side said so.

*Expletive deleted* that. I do not consent to be barraged with you nonsense forevermore. I do not consent to your eternal arguments. I want no part in this bullshitery. Please either behave yourself or leave. UBob has mostly learned to do this. Surely you can too.

If I am mistaken, please correct the errors in your post here that led to that incorrect understanding. Otherwise, I am done fighting your nonsense, and done pretending to care what you want when it is clear you intend only to disrupt and fight people here. Good day. (For the last time, since I am rather sure you intended to push me to the edge of sanity.)

tomeworm

ebikesrc2u said:

...and your criticism of #2 in my OP post has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Please start your own thread on Net Neutrality, as nothing I wrote in the OP post here has anything to do with that subject.

Given your remarkable lack of circumspection I don't doubt but that you are incapable of seeing it for yourself. Nevertheless, what you advocate clearly flies in the face of net neutrality. And no, I won't be going anywhere else to start a thread about it. You brought it up here so it's only proper and correct to expose it here for what it is. You asked for input and I gave it, while also showing considerable restraint in the process. In response you have chosen to, as I predicted you would, play the victim yet once again.

Underscoring your penchant for playing the victim you have just today changed your signature line to read: "A popular thread to read here at the PIA forum with over 19,000 views is: Why PIA is NOT Enough to Protect Your Real IP Address  It's a great lesson to learn how you might be treated here by certain forum members." How very daft.

UltraHumanite

@ebikesrc2u ;Unfortunately your ideas are simply not very good. I think I understand where you're coming from you admittedly have limited networking knowledge so you try your best to come up with solutions to problems you don't fully understand in the context that you're not familiar with. I understand and sympathize with your situation.

Here is how to fix the issues you've out lined. More capacity, as in more servers and more bandwidth. It's relatively easy to identify which locations get overwhelmed so this would be easy to implement. That's it, the issues you mentioned are now resolved.

Here is why your idea of load balancing won't work. There is nothing to balance. Each location has a defined number of servers and a specific amount of bandwidth. As more people login to a location these resources are divided among them. It's a dynamic situation not a static one with the load in constant flux. Once the pool of resources is stressed or exhausted the quality of service suffers.

As others have already pointed out the premium/priority service tier is a horrible idea. It splits the user base into two classes where almost unavoidably one benefits at the others expense.

Load balancing between regions. Almost no one would want this. The obvious problem is the fact that it defeats the idea of multiple server locations which is a good thing and also what most people want. Think about this, why do we have multiple locations and what are the benefit of having them, your idea would nullify all these benefits.

Purpose specific servers, aside from torrent specific servers to accommodate port forwarding and for legal reasons it makes little sense. It would make more sense to add resources to what's already in place that way you can use any server for anything you want without having to switch around. Any way, who'd want to be on a slower server no matter what they are doing.

To your point number 4. I'm not sure what you mean here.

ebikesrc2u

OFF TOPIC BS. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME READING THIS.

OmniNegro said:

You accuse everyone of misreading and not correctly comprehending the subject if we disagree. The reality is that we give you every opportunity to clarify what you meant, but you discard those polite means as an attack and respond as if you were attacked.

If I claim now that you are yourself using a "false argument" to perpetrate a lie, would you argue that a lie is not the same as a "false argument"? Are you lrryie? Admit it now. Because it appears the same to me. You attempt to fight, and are doomed because your fight was meaningless, then you claim you were never fighting because of lawyer nonsense. And that everyone else was fighting, but you were not, so they should burn in Hellfire forevermore because your lawyer side said so.

*Expletive deleted* that. I do not consent to be barraged with you nonsense forevermore. I do not consent to your eternal arguments. I want no part in this bullshitery. Please either behave yourself or leave. UBob has mostly learned to do this. Surely you can too.

If I am mistaken, please correct the errors in your post here that led to that incorrect understanding. Otherwise, I am done fighting your nonsense, and done pretending to care what you want when it is clear you intend only to disrupt and fight people here. Good day. (For the last time, since I am rather sure you intended to push me to the edge of sanity.)

OFF TOPIC REPLY TO RESPOND TO THE OFF TOPIC BS ABOVE.

You seem to take great pleasure to post this kind of reply, which it is definitely a waste of everyone's time to read it.

The best thing you can do for your own sake is to never post on threads I start as the OP. I certainly *never*, YES NEVER ever, want you to post on any thread that I start as the OP. That way you won't waste everyone's time reading these kinds of useless and pointless posts from you which are very repetitive, play the victim, falsify the issues, and don't even address what the OP is about.

You just can't resist to try and harass and abuse me personally???

I support net neutrality if that is possible to do. Had the Federal Government made an Interstate Internet Highway that was funded by taxpayers, then the private interests would likely not be able to defend their property rights over their equipment highways. My ISP offers several tiers of service at different prices, and there is no reason a VPN could offer such services IF they want to too.

I do not pretend to know the answers. I'm just asking for networking experts to offer suggestions how this might be done, and I already said in the OP my ideas or suggestions can be mistaken.

OmniNegro and tomeworm are NOT networking experts experienced running a VPN service or a Data Center. Both of these people are just end users of the PIA service, so I would prefer to get advice and help from more experienced people than these unhelpful [in this thread topic] people.

Just to be clear though, based on the kinds of posts OmniNegro makes to all thread topics I start as the OP and the posts tomeworm has made to this thread, I certainly request that both of you don't post to this thread anymore. IMO, both of you waste everyone's time reading your posts that are Off Topic in this thread.

Regardless, net neutrality still has nothing to do with any point I'm making in the OP. I suppose the Supreme Court will have to decide such issues IF that is possible.

itsmefloraluca

ebikesrc2u said:

OFF TOPIC BS. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME READING THIS.

OmniNegro said:

You accuse everyone of misreading and not correctly comprehending the subject if we disagree. The reality is that we give you every opportunity to clarify what you meant, but you discard those polite means as an attack and respond as if you were attacked.

If I claim now that you are yourself using a "false argument" to perpetrate a lie, would you argue that a lie is not the same as a "false argument"? Are you lrryie? Admit it now. Because it appears the same to me. You attempt to fight, and are doomed because your fight was meaningless, then you claim you were never fighting because of lawyer nonsense. And that everyone else was fighting, but you were not, so they should burn in Hellfire forevermore because your lawyer side said so.

*Expletive deleted* that. I do not consent to be barraged with you nonsense forevermore. I do not consent to your eternal arguments. I want no part in this bullshitery. Please either behave yourself or leave. UBob has mostly learned to do this. Surely you can too.

If I am mistaken, please correct the errors in your post here that led to that incorrect understanding. Otherwise, I am done fighting your nonsense, and done pretending to care what you want when it is clear you intend only to disrupt and fight people here. Good day. (For the last time, since I am rather sure you intended to push me to the edge of sanity.)

OFF TOPIC REPLY TO RESPOND TO THE OFF TOPIC BS ABOVE.

You seem to take great pleasure to post this kind of reply, which it is definitely a waste of everyone's time to read it.

The best thing you can do for your own sake is to never post on threads I start as the OP. I certainly *never*, YES NEVER ever, want you to post on any thread that I start as the OP. That way you won't waste everyone's time reading these kinds of useless and pointless posts from you which are very repetitive, play the victim, falsify the issues, and don't even address what the OP is about.

You just can't resist to try and harass and abuse me personally???

I support net neutrality if that is possible to do. Had the Federal Government made an Interstate Internet Highway that was funded by taxpayers, then the private interests would likely not be able to defend their property rights over their equipment highways. My ISP offers several tiers of service at different prices, and there is no reason a VPN could offer such services IF they want to too.

I do not pretend to know the answers. I'm just asking for networking experts to offer suggestions how this might be done, and I already said in the OP my ideas or suggestions can be mistaken.

OmniNegro and tomeworm are NOT networking experts experienced running a VPN service or a Data Center. Both of these people are just end users of the PIA service, so I would prefer to get advice and help from more experienced people than these unhelpful [in this thread topic] people.

Just to be clear though, based on the kinds of posts OmniNegro makes to all thread topics I start as the OP and the posts tomeworm has made to this thread, I certainly request that both of you don't post to this thread anymore. IMO, both of you waste everyone's time reading your posts that are Off Topic in this thread.

Regardless, net neutrality still has nothing to do with any point I'm making in the OP. I suppose the Supreme Court will have to decide such issues IF that is possible.

I for one like reading OmniNegro or tomeworm posts and responses they give to what members post on this forum.They have given good advice to members and OmniNegro is always helping forum members and he has helped me also whenever i need help.

ebikesrc2u

UltraHumanite said:

Load balancing between regions. Almost no one would want this. The obvious problem is the fact that it defeats the idea of multiple server locations which is a good thing and also what most people want. Think about this, why do we have multiple locations and what are the benefit of having them, your idea would nullify all these benefits.

Thanks for your detailed reply which was very much On Topic and expressed your POV in easy to understand language.

I've been wondering if PIA is not already doing this regional load balancing in some instances. Why? I know for a fact that I've logged in to PIA specific locations over the past year numerous times, but when I check the IP location it is in a different state far away from my initial login location. Almost a year ago I saw the login location even show it was in Spain vs the USA [or UK] if my memory is correct. I thought I might have been hacked by that kind of result.

Load balancing from region to region, as long as latency does not become an issue, may still be the smarter way to go, because congested areas can be offloaded to underused equipment. No sense in buying excess equipment at one location IF load demand can be distributed.

I'm certain ISP providers already use some form of load balancing on a national or regional scale, so the technology is available to do this.

Based on my login information PIA may already be doing regional load balancing in some instances. Otherwise, can anyone explain why my login location is NOT always exactly where I logged in???

Can a PIA employee explain why that is happening already?

OmniNegro

ebikesrc2u said:

UltraHumanite said:

Load balancing between regions. Almost no one would want this. The obvious problem is the fact that it defeats the idea of multiple server locations which is a good thing and also what most people want. Think about this, why do we have multiple locations and what are the benefit of having them, your idea would nullify all these benefits.

Thanks for your detailed reply which was very much On Topic and expressed your POV in easy to understand language.

I've been wondering if PIA is not already doing this regional load balancing in some instances. Why? I know for a fact that I've logged in to PIA specific locations over the past year numerous times, but when I check the IP location it is in a different state far away from my initial login location. Almost a year ago I saw the login location even show it was in Spain vs the USA [or UK] if my memory is correct. I thought I might have been hacked by that kind of result.

Load balancing from region to region, as long as latency does not become an issue, may still be the smarter way to go, because congested areas can be offloaded to underused equipment. No sense in buying excess equipment at one location IF load demand can be distributed.

I'm certain ISP providers already use some form of load balancing on a national or regional scale, so the technology is available to do this.

Based on my login information PIA may already be doing regional load balancing in some instances. Otherwise, can anyone explain why my login location is NOT always exactly where I logged in???

Can a PIA employee explain why that is happening already?

You are seeing incorrect geolocation information. The servers are where they say they are, and you are not being shuffled through to different locations. It is just a problem in maintaining a unified list of the location of millions of servers at fixed IPs that occasionally get changed out for other IPs. Wherever you are looking this up at does not update the details in time for you to see the correct information.

*Edit* Removed an accidental double quote.