EMULE

I see. Have a look at these..

Connection refused means it was able to connect but on your host nothing is listening on port 18992.

Well, it's the worst ISP in China.They shape everything.I suggest you should switch to other ISP such as China Telecom , China Unicom or China Mobile.You may find some cheap plans on the RedNote.But BE CAREFUL.
If you switch your ISP to I mentioned above, you could try these servers.
China Telecom: NL , DE , US SJC , US LAX
China Unicom: nearly all european servers (except IE , NO , SE) (I recommend NL , DE) , US servers in the west coast.
China Mobile: JP , SG servers
I recommend using OpenVPN (IP Entry 3 & UDP & Port 443),since WireGuard is too easy to be identified (run a Wireshark and you know what I mean).
If you have IPv6 connection,you should use them first (unless it's too slow for you).The GFW is less aggressive on IPv6 compared to IPv4

I wouldn't say that, seeing as the project seemingly recommends using its own Linux kernel module, so only specialized projects may pull this out-of-tree module and compile it into their kernels. On a standard router, maybe even if you flash it with specialized ROMs like OpenWrt, you may find Wireguard, but not AmneziaWG. It also seems to need its own forks of standard Wireguard tools which you probably won't find in some distribution families. Maybe Debian at some point, later Ubuntu, and maybe maybe Fedora. On Arch, it might surface on the AUR (or probably is), and on SuSE on the OBS. Red Hat will never adopt it, and if Enterprise is not really interested, you get into a situation where single developers, or a single group of devs, are maintaining something used commercially again. It is not sustainable; you'll never know if it'll still be there in 5 years, or if internal disputes won't force the project to be forked and developed under a different name. But standard Wireguard is developed by well-known researchers, right in the kernel, and garnered enough commercial interest that some consumer networking companies implemented it as a feature. Wireguard is sustainable. AmneziaWG is not. It will never replace standard Wireguard.
Besides, the aim of Wireguard is not privacy. And most people around the forums (by topics created in the forums, at least) use the VPN not for the privacy aspect but because they want to torrent. What they're looking for is performance. You don't need AmneziaWG for that.

What I'm concerned about is the relationship Wireguard <> AmneziaWG. AmneziaWG would have the obligation to behave in a way a standard Wireguard behaves if server and client differ. I don't know how Wireguard will react if those fixed parameters talked about in the docs are altered. Maybe it's not even a problem, since AmneziaWG clients can connect here normally. At least according to some threads it doesn't seem to be a problem. Dunno.

But, no, a replacement is highly unlikely, both generally and specifically on AirVPN.

Great suggestion!

Hello,  

I am a user from mainland China. During my usage, I've noticed that many servers with low load bandwidth usage are actually slower, such as those in Taiwan and Japan.  

I’d like to offer a suggestion to AirVPN. Personally, I believe the evaluation criteria for server quality should be based on CPU usage over a certain period, such as the average CPU usage over half an hour, rather than load bandwidth. I’ve frequently encountered handshake timeouts when connecting to "sulafat," even though the displayed load bandwidth isn’t high. I suspect this is most likely related to high CPU usage on the server, which causes key resolution timeouts.  

If I could connect to a server with relatively idle CPU resources, I think the connection quality would be much better.  

After all, speed is closely tied to protocol overhead. For example, if a 1 Gbit/s server is connected to 100 users using the WireGuard protocol, the server’s load bandwidth might reach up to 900 Mbit/s. However, if it’s connected to 100 users using SSL + OpenVPN TCP protocol, the load bandwidth might only be 400 Mbit/s. Clearly, the latter scenario places a higher burden on the server, yet the load bandwidth appears lower.  

Therefore, I believe servers with lower CPU usage offer better quality, rather than those with lower load bandwidth. Using average CPU usage as a metric seems more scientific to me.  

Does my point make sense? Does anyone agree with what I’m saying?

Thanks.

Hello,  

I am a user from mainland China. During my usage, I've noticed that many servers with low load bandwidth usage are actually slower, such as those in Taiwan and Japan.  

I’d like to offer a suggestion to AirVPN. Personally, I believe the evaluation criteria for server quality should be based on CPU usage over a certain period, such as the average CPU usage over half an hour, rather than load bandwidth. I’ve frequently encountered handshake timeouts when connecting to "sulafat," even though the displayed load bandwidth isn’t high. I suspect this is most likely related to high CPU usage on the server, which causes key resolution timeouts.  

If I could connect to a server with relatively idle CPU resources, I think the connection quality would be much better.  

After all, speed is closely tied to protocol overhead. For example, if a 1 Gbit/s server is connected to 100 users using the WireGuard protocol, the server’s load bandwidth might reach up to 900 Mbit/s. However, if it’s connected to 100 users using SSL + OpenVPN TCP protocol, the load bandwidth might only be 400 Mbit/s. Clearly, the latter scenario places a higher burden on the server, yet the load bandwidth appears lower.  

Therefore, I believe servers with lower CPU usage offer better quality, rather than those with lower load bandwidth. Using average CPU usage as a metric seems more scientific to me.  

Does my point make sense? Does anyone agree with what I’m saying?

Thanks.

Happy Birthday!!!