Four new 10 Gbit/s servers available (US)

[Staff 10014]

Hello!

We're very glad to inform you that four new 10 Gbit/s full duplex servers located in New York City are available: Muliphein, Paikauhale, Terebellum, Unukalhai. They have replaced Haedus, Iklil and Lich with more powerful hardware and higher overall bandwidth.

The AirVPN client will show automatically the new servers; if you use any other OpenVPN or WireGuard client you can generate all the files to access them through our configuration/certificates/key generator (menu "Client Area"->"Config generator").

The servers accept connections on ports 53, 80, 443, 1194, 2018 UDP and TCP for OpenVPN and ports 1637, 47107 and 51820 UDP for WireGuard.

The servers support OpenVPN over SSL and OpenVPN over SSH, TLS 1.3, OpenVPN tls-crypt and WireGuard.

Full IPv6 support is included as well.

As usual no traffic limits, no logs, no discrimination on protocols and hardened security against various attacks with separate entry and exit-IP addresses.

You can check the status as usual in our real time servers monitor by clicking the names of the servers.
 

Do not hesitate to contact us for any information or issue.

Kind regards and datalove
AirVPN Team

[cccthats3cs 14]

Very happy with this, thanks!

For anyone wondering (and do not feel like looking it up manually) the new servers are all on the Tzulo network.
 

7 hours ago, Staff said:

They have replaced Haedus and Iklil with more powerful hardware and higher overall bandwidth.

Does this mean that Lich will still be available as an alternate 1 Gbit/s server on M247?

[OpenSourcerer 1441]

$ ip-api muliphein.airservers.org
[…]
"proxy"        : false,
[…]

😏

Proxy: true in 3, 2, 1..

[Staff 10014]

5 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

Does this mean that Lich will still be available as an alternate 1 Gbit/s server on M247? 

Hello!

No, it was an omission, we have now fixed the original message.

Kind regards
 

[ScanFarer 12]

I’m noticing the route my ISP is taking to these servers isn’t great—speeds are noticeably slower. Or at least, I think it’s just on my end. I’m getting much better performance with the M247 servers; to be exact, it’s around 100 Mbps compared to the 500 Mbps+ I’d get with the Haedus server. It’s no big concern for me; just wanted to bring it up.

[cccthats3cs 14]

Is there a reason why these servers are now displaying as 6000 Mbit/s instead of 20000 Mbit/s on the status page?

[OpenSourcerer 1441]

2 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

Is there a reason why these servers are now displaying as 6000 Mbit/s instead of 20000 Mbit/s on the status page?

They're not?

[cccthats3cs 14]

2 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

They're not?

Must have been a temporary issue. They are showing normally now.

[antihesitator 1]

There is a misspelling either in the announcement or with the server itself. See below:

[ersatzzz 5]

These replacement servers are extremely slow and only appear to have only 20% the speed of the previous NYC servers (Haeduis, Ikill, etc). What gives????

[xmartymcflyx 6]

On 11/1/2024 at 1:47 PM, OpenSourcerer said:

$ ip-api muliphein.airservers.org
[…]
"proxy"        : false,
[…]

😏

Proxy: true in 3, 2, 1..

can you explain?

[Raider67 3]

Looking for the same in CHICAGO area always busy! around 70-90% nowadays!

Edited ... by Raider67

[OpenSourcerer 1441]

9 hours ago, xmartymcflyx said:

On 11/1/2024 at 5:47 PM, OpenSourcerer said:

$ ip-api muliphein.airservers.org
[…]
"proxy"        : false,
[…]

😏

Proxy: true in 3, 2, 1..

can you explain?

Muliphein is not known to be an anonymizer yet. These new servers might work particularly well for VoD services.
But not for long, I reckon, so it will stop working in 3, 2, 1,…

[cccthats3cs 14]

On 11/3/2024 at 12:27 AM, ScanFarer said:

I’m noticing the route my ISP is taking to these servers isn’t great—speeds are noticeably slower. Or at least, I think it’s just on my end. I’m getting much better performance with the M247 servers; to be exact, it’s around 100 Mbps compared to the 500 Mbps+ I’d get with the Haedus server. It’s no big concern for me; just wanted to bring it up.

15 hours ago, ersatzzz said:

These replacement servers are extremely slow and only appear to have only 20% the speed of the previous NYC servers (Haeduis, Ikill, etc). What gives????

I am noticing the same performance issues. As a quick real-world test, I set up a torrent between a torrent client connected to 1 of the 4 servers and another torrent client connected to one of the other 4 servers. The speeds as indicated in the screenshot below (this is from the uploading client) barely got above 3 MB/s.


In previous tests that I did following this same methodology using the M247 servers when they were active, I was able to see speeds of usually 8-10 MB/s.

I also downloaded an Ubuntu ISO via BitTorrent on one of the clients. Using this as a test I was able to see download speeds above 25 MB/s for the torrent as a whole, and for a single peer, up to 13 MB/s.

Possibly as @ScanFarer stated, this could be worse routing from my ISP to Tzulo, whereas the route from Tzulo to my ISP seems to be fine based on the download speed observed for the Ubuntu torrent.

[ScanFarer 12]

6 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

I am noticing the same performance issues. As a quick real-world test, I set up a torrent between a torrent client connected to 1 of the 4 servers and another torrent client connected to one of the other 4 servers. The speeds as indicated in the screenshot below (this is from the uploading client) barely got above 3 MB/s.


In previous tests that I did following this same methodology using the M247 servers when they were active, I was able to see speeds of usually 8-10 MB/s.

I also downloaded an Ubuntu ISO via BitTorrent on one of the clients. Using this as a test I was able to see download speeds above 25 MB/s for the torrent as a whole, and for a single peer, up to 13 MB/s.

Possibly as @ScanFarer stated, this could be worse routing from my ISP to Tzulo, whereas the route from Tzulo to my ISP seems to be fine based on the download speed observed for the Ubuntu torrent.

A traceroute shows that my traffic is now routed through the GTT network, whereas it went through Lumen/Level 3 with the previous New York servers. My ISP is Spectrum.

[cccthats3cs 14]

16 hours ago, ScanFarer said:

A traceroute shows that my traffic is now routed through the GTT network, whereas it went through Lumen/Level 3 with the previous New York servers. My ISP is Spectrum.

I am on Verizon Fios. Traffic to a new (Tzulo) server is routed through NTT for me, where the previous (M247) went through Lumen.

[Whipshock 4]

It shows these 4 servers are having High packet Loss right now. Is there another thread on resolution for these or an ETA? I used to use Lich which was solid but i've been noticing problems on these 4. Only Paikauhale and Unukalhai were resolving DNS yesterday while the other two weren't. Today all 4 are having issues. Not sure if this is a step up or step down. 

Edited ... by Whipshock

[Upheaval3379 1]

9 hours ago, Whipshock said:

It shows these 4 servers are having High packet Loss right now. Is there another thread on resolution for these or an ETA? I used to use Lich which was solid but i've been noticing problems on these 4. Only Paikauhale and Unukalhai were resolving DNS yesterday while the other two weren't. Today all 4 are having issues. Not sure if this is a step up or step down. 

Same - capacity in the northeast US is currently in really bad shape. Seems like all servers in new york are showing reoccurring hours-long outage and PA has one server that is taking a huge bandwidth hit. I'm not sure there is any diversity in providers in this region or what that looks like as a whole. The PA server is a different upstream company than the new york servers, i do know that.

[Staff 10014]

Hello!

A relevant part of the infrastructure in the USA has been under attack since 24-48 hours ago. The redundancy is currently guaranteeing the usual high quality of service: 200'000 Mbit/s are available and distributed throughout the whole USA territory.

Please take note that in the last 8 months the Tzulo infrastructure, provisioning connectivity now even to NYC servers, has been consistently providing the top speed in the world to AirVPN clients often beating the old "all time high" of 1 Gbit/s on the client side (2 Gbit/s on the server) with WireGuard.

Kind regards
 

[Upheaval3379 1]

@Staff - I understand what you're saying and I'm not saying anything negative about your personal credibility. The service is often very good. However, the lack of upstream provider diversity in the northeast US is leading to capacity issues in the region due to the attacks on what I assume is Tzulo infrastructure. I do agree that the Tzulo infrastructure is otherwise extremely performant.

[Whipshock 4]

All good @Staff. Terebellum is doing great right now. So when it works, it works great. This is on Wireguard right now.

[cccthats3cs 14]

@Staff - Is there a specific reason for why these attacks are only impacting the Tzulo New York servers, for example, if it is a DDoS, someone chose to only DDoS those?
What is confusing me is the possible motive behind this attack and reasons for it to occur. I see two possibilities, either:
(a) an attacker for some reason, now exactly when the servers were changed over, is targeting the new infrastructure, and no other servers that I am aware of,
or (b) the same attacks were ongoing to target the old M247 New York servers but were unsuccessful.

I would appreciate more transparency into what is going on given these issues. I have especially noticed there is usually at least 1 working server out of the 4, but which one is working seems to change, so I am unsure if that is staff temporarily mitigating the issue, or the attacker (in the case of DDoS) having limited resources and switching around the targets.

If these attacks remain ongoing I may switch to another datacenter/city server entirely but am trying to avoid that for now because I would incur a latency and perhaps bandwidth penalty compared to the New York servers, when those are at normal performance. I understand the option to use country/continent configs (currently I use ones set to a specific server), but that does not fix the issue if a server goes down due to an attack for an extended period of time, and would require still manual intervention on my part.

EDIT: Of course just a few minutes after posting this the only working server now has high packet loss, and operations that were going on on one of my clients connected to it have now failed. The point still remains: the ongoing attacks make the servers unusable. Edited ... by cccthats3cs

[copykitty 1]

I understand this may be out of your hands but from my perspective I miss Haedus dearly at the moment 😥

[Staff 10014]

3 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

What is confusing me is the possible motive behind this attack and reasons for it to occur. I see two possibilities, either:

3 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

I would appreciate more transparency into what is going on given these issues.

Hello!

We are honored to see that you expect from us superhuman powers but unfortunately after a reality check we must tell you that not only we don't know the attackers personally, but we are not even able to read minds. Also remember that future mitigation procedures, if any, should not be disclosed, in order not to make the attacker task easier.
 

3 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

(b) the same attacks were ongoing to target the old M247 New York servers but were unsuccessful.

No, there were no attacks. Currently the main objectives are NYC, LA and Raleigh.

Kind regards
 

[cccthats3cs 14]

5 hours ago, Staff said:

Also remember that future mitigation procedures, if any, should not be disclosed, in order not to make the attacker task easier.

This is fine.
 

5 hours ago, Staff said:

No, there were no attacks. Currently the main objectives are NYC, LA and Raleigh.

Thanks for the info. This is what was confusing me and I suppose the timing was just coincidental, rather than M247 having for instance better DDoS mitigation.