per.pe rapport :   Visitez le site

Données techniques du per.pe

Geo IP vous fournit comme la latitude, la longitude et l'ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Notre service GeoIP a trouvé l'hôte per.pe.Actuellement, hébergé dans Sweden et son fournisseur de services est Com Hem AB .

the related websites

lexiqueducheval.net toulougesimmo.com silvacane.com spadeperuwelz.e-monsite.com handi-france.com dickson-constant.com amiform.com pneumocourlancy.fr chalet-montagne.com ltt.editions-bordas.fr bonoboplanet.com golfllnnews.com need964speed.over-blog.com capeutservir.com 

Analyse d'en-tête HTTP

Les informations d'en-tête HTTP font partie du protocole HTTP que le navigateur d'un utilisateur envoie à appelé Apache/2.4.29 (Ubuntu) contenant les détails de ce que le navigateur veut et acceptera de nouveau du serveur Web.

DNS

HtmlToText

skip to content techblag because why not? samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 vs 3.0 i recently acquired a samsung 960 evo 500 gb nvme drive. it’s an ssd with an advertised sequential read speed of 3.2 gb/s and write speed of 1.8 gb/s. now, my ancient motherboard, an asus p8z77-v pro does not have an m.2 slot, so there was no straight forward way to mount it, which means the first thing i had to do was to get an m.2 to pcie adapter card. those turned out to be dirt cheap from ebay, and this is what the final result looked like… before ordering the ssd, i already knew that my cpu, an intel core i7 2600, only had a pcie 2.0 controller, which would put the theoretical maximum transfer rate on 4 pcie lanes at 2 gb/s. but, how much would that really matter? i decided to give it a go anyway, and to no surprise, it maxed out at just about 1.4 gb/s. had it not done that, i would have just let it be, but now i was curious how well it would perform under the same circumstances, but with pcie 3.0. luckily, my old motherboard also supports the intel core i7 3770, which in comparison to my i7 2600 differs in one major point; the generation of the pcie bus. i knew what i had to do. several weeks later, my new and shiny 3770 (launched in q2 2012) arrived in a box from lithuania, where i found a seller on ebay who wasn’t charging through the nose for ancient cpus. if you want more info on the actual cpu performance difference between the i7 2600 and the i7 3770, check out this comparison on openbenchmarking.org , which i made using phoronix test suite . these are the actual results of as ssd 2.0.6485 and crystal diskmark 6.0.0. i thought this would be particularly interesting, as i already have a toshiba (née ocz) revodrive 3 250 gb pcie ssd that i had originally thought would compare quite favourably. not so, as it would turn out… as ssd transfer rate, mb/s higher is better revodrive 3 samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 samsung 960 evo pcie 3.0 write 4k-64thrd 157.87 872.27 851.35 write 4k 68.77 108.72 107.22 write seq 113.66 1378.28 1865.36 read 4k-64thrd 191.99 998.92 966.19 read 4k 14.37 27.47 27.58 read seq 387.89 1407.78 2560.82 as ssd access time, ms lower is better revodrive 3 samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 samsung 960 evo pcie 3.0 read acc.time 0.333 0.046 0.038 write acc.time 3.423 0.339 0.348 as ssd score higher is better revodrive 3 samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 samsung 960 evo pcie 3.0 score 599 2882 2999 write score 238 1119 1145 read score 245 1167 1250 crystaldiskmark transfer rate higher is better revodrive 3 samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 samsung 960 evo pcie 3.0 read 4kib q1t1 19.97 32.46 33.67 read 4kib q32t1 176.7 295.2 265 read 4kib q8t8 185.2 1016.6 1015.9 read seq q32t1 424.1 1510 2938.3 crystaldiskmark transfer rate higher is better revodrive 3 samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 samsung 960 evo pcie 3.0 write 4kib q1t1 53.5 124.4 121.7 write 4kib q8t8 201.8 1267.6 1265.5 write 4kib q32t1 162.6 219.2 195.6 write seq q32t1 193.6 1447.8 1845.8 in conclusion… the first thing that really stood out was the absolutely atrocious access times on the revodrive 3, especially for writes. i did not see that coming. also, in pure throughput, it could not even pretend to keep up. as for the samsung 960 evo, the difference between pcie 2.0 and 3.0 was huge. it is an excellent drive, even when using an older cpu and mobo. the only issue so far that i’ve noticed when pairing an older mobo with an nvme disk is the lack of support for booting from nvme. this can easily be resolved by booting from a supported drive instead. author per posted on 2018-04-02 2018-05-13 leave a comment on samsung 960 evo pcie 2.0 vs 3.0 another look at the partaker b5 having previously tried out pfsense 2.2.6 on the inctel partaker b5 with rather poor results, i thought i’d see if there’s any improvement when using pfsense 2.3 nightly (20160307-0922). the first thing you’ll notice when upgrading to pfsense 2.3 is the new, beautiful gui. apart from that, other changes include the underlying os being updated from freebsd 10.1 to 10.3-prerelease , with all that that entails. realtek gigabit network adapters has historically had some problems under freebsd, so i’m going to run a few benchmarks and see what, if anything, has changed. starting with iperf, the first test i ran was using the partaker b5 running pfsense as the client, and my home server with a netxen nx3031 nic as the server. [2.3-beta][root@fw]/usr/local/bin: ./iperf -i 1 -n 1024m -c server ------------------------------------------------------------ client connecting to server, tcp port 5001 tcp window size: 65.0 kbyte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 10.11.12.250 port 54867 connected with 10.11.12.1 port 5001 [ id] interval transfer bandwidth [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 69.6 mbytes 584 mbits/sec [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 68.0 mbytes 570 mbits/sec [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 68.0 mbytes 570 mbits/sec [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 67.6 mbytes 567 mbits/sec [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 9.0-10.0 sec 68.1 mbytes 571 mbits/sec [ 3] 10.0-11.0 sec 67.6 mbytes 567 mbits/sec [ 3] 11.0-12.0 sec 68.0 mbytes 570 mbits/sec [ 3] 12.0-13.0 sec 67.8 mbytes 568 mbits/sec [ 3] 13.0-14.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 14.0-15.0 sec 67.9 mbytes 569 mbits/sec [ 3] 0.0-15.1 sec 1.00 gbytes 570 mbits/sec 570 mbps is ok, but nothing to write home about. the same hardware gets about 940 mbps running linux. although a definite improvement from pfsense 2.2, it’s still pretty underwhelming. however, what’s really interesting is the throughput. so, i hooked up one computer directly to the lan port, and one directly to the wan port. i started by using the computer on the lan port as the server, with the one on the wan port as the client. $ iperf -i 1 -n 1024m -c 10.11.12.2 ------------------------------------------------------------ client connecting to 10.11.12.2, tcp port 5001 tcp window size: 85.0 kbyte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 10.11.100.2 port 46278 connected with 10.11.12.2 port 5001 [ id] interval transfer bandwidth [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 106 mbytes 890 mbits/sec [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 104 mbytes 872 mbits/sec [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 104 mbytes 871 mbits/sec [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 102 mbytes 860 mbits/sec [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 104 mbytes 872 mbits/sec [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 104 mbytes 872 mbits/sec [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 102 mbytes 860 mbits/sec [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 104 mbytes 872 mbits/sec [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 103 mbytes 863 mbits/sec [ 3] 0.0- 9.9 sec 1.00 gbytes 870 mbits/sec 870 mbps; now we’re talking. ok, and now, turning the computer on the wan port into the server, with the one on the lan port as the client. $ iperf -n 1024m -i 1 -c 10.11.100.2 ------------------------------------------------------------ client connecting to 10.11.100.2, tcp port 5001 tcp window size: 85.0 kbyte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 10.11.12.2 port 44610 connected with 10.11.100.2 port 5001 [ id] interval transfer bandwidth [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 110 mbytes 924 mbits/sec [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 106 mbytes 888 mbits/sec [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 108 mbytes 902 mbits/sec [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 106 mbytes 891 mbits/sec [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 106 mbytes 893 mbits/sec [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 106 mbytes 890 mbits/sec [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 106 mbytes 892 mbits/sec [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 108 mbytes 903 mbits/sec [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 106 mbytes 890 mbits/sec [ 3] 0.0- 9.6 sec 1.00 gbytes 897 mbits/sec 897 mbps. all else aside, there’s been a massive improvement when using realtek network adapters (or i did something catastrophically wrong when trying out pfsense 2.2). if you don’t absolutely need that last, “missing” 100 mbps, and don’t mind running a nightly snapshot of pfsense, the partaker b5 can definitely hold its own against much more expensive hardware. author per posted on 2016-03-07

Analyse PopURL pour per.pe

https://i1.wp.com/tech.albatorsk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/as-ssd-chart.png?ssl=1
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/tag/firewall/
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/2016/02/24/a-look-at-the-inctel-partaker-b5/#comments
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/2018/04/02/samsung-960-evo-pcie-2-0-vs-3-0/
https://i2.wp.com/tech.albatorsk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/as-ssd-access-time.png?ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/tech.albatorsk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pfsense-console.jpg?ssl=1
https://i1.wp.com/tech.albatorsk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/fw.int_.albatorsk.com-status-dashboard.png?ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/tech.albatorsk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/pcie-card.png?ssl=1
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/2018/04/
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/2016/03/07/another-look-at-the-partaker-b5/
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/tag/partaker/
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/2016/03/
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/author/per/
https://i2.wp.com/tech.albatorsk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bbk_resultat_2016.02.24_17.27.54.png?ssl=1
https://tech.albatorsk.com/index.php/2018/04/02/samsung-960-evo-pcie-2-0-vs-3-0/#respond

Informations Whois

Whois est un protocole qui permet d'accéder aux informations d'enregistrement.Vous pouvez atteindre quand le site Web a été enregistré, quand il va expirer, quelles sont les coordonnées du site avec les informations suivantes. En un mot, il comprend ces informations;

Domain Name: per.pe
WHOIS Server: NIC .PE
Sponsoring Registrar: GANDI SAS
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant Name: Per Larsson
Admin Name: Per Larsson
Admin Email: 798927d3663add0fe4a88705976f642f-1423543@contact.gandi.net
Name Server: b.dns.gandi.net
Name Server: c.dns.gandi.net
Name Server: a.dns.gandi.net
DNSSEC: unsigned
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2017-07-17T15:32:27.809Z <<<

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated. Whois database is provided as a service to the internet
community.

The data is for information purposes only. Red Cientifica Peruana does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes.

The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is
expressly prohibited.

SERVERS

  SERVER kero.rcp.net.pe

  ARGS per.pe

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain
RegrInfo
DOMAIN

  NAME per.pe

NSERVER

  C.DNS.GANDI.NET 217.70.179.1

  A.DNS.GANDI.NET 173.246.98.1

  B.DNS.GANDI.NET 213.167.229.1

  REGISTERED yes

Erreurs

La liste suivante vous montre les fautes d'orthographe possibles des internautes pour le site Web recherché.