Fairly unsatisfying conclusion. I’d be interested in knowing what that proprietary program does, how it works so well, how Sony stores video files, etc.
I think the key point is that cameras don't write the video files in one long contiguous block on disk. They internally split it up and write in an interleaved fashion. It even mentions low-level tricks like manipulating the FAT table so the moov atom which is written last appears at the beginning of the file.
I've found when you have a file with stops and starts, it's because the extraction process is not familiar with how the data is laid down on the storage media. So it sees 'I have a file'...and if it's better it sees 'the name of the file is here' and then 'it's this big' and then 'here's the linked list of clusters for that file'....or it starts at the first cluster and gets as far as it can before it runs off the tracks.
> Running iperf server on the router itself creates CPU contention between the WiFi scheduling and the iperf process. The router’s TCP stack isn’t tuned for this either. Classic mistake.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't know much about WiFi so I'm curious what CPU work the router needs to do and what wouldn't be offloaded to hardware somehow (like most routing/forwarding/QoS duties can be).
It has nothing to do with WiFi even; when running a test you need a server that emits the test data - this could be a standard HTTP server on the internet (in case of public speed tests) or a binary like iperf that synthesizes the test data on the fly.
You need to ensure the server is able to send the test data quickly enough so that the network link becomes the bottleneck.
In his case he was running the test server on the router, and the router’s CPU was unable to churn out the data quickly enough to actually saturate the network link (most network equipment does the network switching/routing/NAT in hardware and so doesn’t actually come equipped with a CPU that is capable of line-rate TCP because it’s not actually needed in normal operation).
What justifies the V4 Plus being worth $350? They're using the CM4 so they’ve made a PCB, but what hardware are they adding over the peripherals available on a Pi 4/5? All I can tell is an additional Ethernet port, a SIM card tray, and an “ATX controller”.
What does the board look like, why can’t I DIY that version, etc. Are they just trying to make it up with the software (that I also can’t tell what it looks like).
It's not really worth that much. You absolutely could DIY it, probably just kludge in a basic $30 HDMI capture card. Also JetKVM is now just as "open-source" as PiKVM is, so there's not even a moral high ground to spending extra. Both are open-source software but not open-source firmware or hardware (no schematics or gerbers or anything like that available).
Because port forwarding is done in addition to firewall rules. So it is extra work. And because a lot of devices can’t do UPnP. And because port forwarding at a “large” scale is not good. There are only so many ports.
My fortigate clusters do both natting and session based firewalls. I configure them via a pull request into git which is approved by a second person and applies the config automatically.
I assume that Palo Alto have similar APIs.
My routers don't do anything at layer 4, the fortigates advertise default routes via BGP into the core switches, which route everything.
Now of course you need to make sure that your traffic going out of one firewall comes back via the same firewall, that's trivial to handle though, and is required for session based firewalling.
Plesae don't tell me that "ipv6 is better" because you are still logging into network devices and making changes like its 1999?
You can set up p2p connections using a server only to do connection setup/firewall punching instead of relaying all traffic (e.g. for voice/video calling or hosting a game). You can also have more than 1 computer using the same port on a network.
Always glad to see this.