I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of 1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around 15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up, which is normal.)
I'm confused...
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey >> apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre >> upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up, >> which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports
70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey >>> apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not >>> actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up, >>> which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports
70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic
download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey >>>> apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not >>>> actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports
70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic
download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not >>>>> actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports
70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic
download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see >> how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:04:48rC>pm GMT, "Alan B" <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports
70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic
download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see >>> how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
Still getting the same nonsense uplink figure here, even over ethernet.
Now updating the mini server to Monterey so i can try it on that!
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:35:28rC>pm GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:04:48rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports >>>>>> 70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic
download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see
how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
Still getting the same nonsense uplink figure here, even over ethernet.
Now updating the mini server to Monterey so i can try it on that!
And... on the upgraded mini, networkQuality runs for a while, then crashes with a timeout error. Interestingly, until it crashes, the down rate is quite accurate, but upload is even crazier than before: around 31Mbps on a connection capable of 1Mbps at best.
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:35:28rC>pm GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:04:48rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports >>>>>> 70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic
download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see
how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
Still getting the same nonsense uplink figure here, even over ethernet.
Now updating the mini server to Monterey so i can try it on that!
And... on the upgraded mini, networkQuality runs for a while, then crashes with a timeout error. Interestingly, until it crashes, the down rate is quite accurate, but upload is even crazier than before: around 31Mbps on a connection capable of 1Mbps at best.
On 8 Jan 2026 at 22:29:08 GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:35:28rC>pm GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:04:48rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports >>>>>>> 70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic >>>>>> download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see
how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
Still getting the same nonsense uplink figure here, even over ethernet.
Now updating the mini server to Monterey so i can try it on that!
And... on the upgraded mini, networkQuality runs for a while, then crashes >> with a timeout error. Interestingly, until it crashes, the down rate is quite
accurate, but upload is even crazier than before: around 31Mbps on a
connection capable of 1Mbps at best.
Does your router give you the down and up sync speeds? There's no way your measured rates can exceed these.
I use Think Broadband's speed tester and it consistently gives me speeds that are the ten to fifteen percent slower than the sync speed.dd
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I use Think Broadband's speed tester and it consistently gives me speeds that are the ten to fifteen percent slower than the sync speed.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see >> how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I suggest you use https://f8lure.mouselike.org/auth.asp
You will need to set up an account using your email address. It can be configured to email you every time the connection drops, and it shows
you a daily graph. You will need to have a static public IP address, or
use a Dynamic DNS Service to provide F8Lure with the actual IP address
of your connection.
You will also need to configure your router to respond to pings on its
WAN port. If you don't know how to do this, tell us the exact make and
model of your router and somebody here may be able to help.
The graph is extremely useful: it shows how the performance varies with
load and congestion.
Warning 1: it (obviously) won't work if your connection uses CGNAT. If
you don't understand this, ask here again.
Warning 2: it won't work with the FRITZ!Box 7530 AX as supplied by the
likes of Zen Internet. The router is crippled, so that it thinks pings arriving at its WAN port are a threat and it blocks them. But you can
(with some difficulty) configure the FRITZ to send you an email whenever
its connection fails.
TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:35:28rC>pm GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:04:48rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports >>>>>>> 70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic >>>>>> download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see
how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
Still getting the same nonsense uplink figure here, even over ethernet.
Now updating the mini server to Monterey so i can try it on that!
And... on the upgraded mini, networkQuality runs for a while, then crashes >> with a timeout error. Interestingly, until it crashes, the down rate is quite
accurate, but upload is even crazier than before: around 31Mbps on a
connection capable of 1Mbps at best.
I get the feeling we may have misunderstood NQrCOs purpose! This Reddit article is quite detailed and IrCOm going to have to read it again to improve my understanding.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1l8xku7/trying_to_understand_networkquality_command_output/>
I get the feeling we may have misunderstood NQrCOs purpose! This Reddit article is quite detailed and IrCOm going to have to read it again to improve my understanding.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1l8xku7/trying_to_understand_networkquality_command_output/>
TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:35:28rC>pm GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:04:48rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 2:31:04rC>pm GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-01-08, Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-01-08, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I've just been experimenting with this - it's been built-in since Monterey
apparently - and it should be very handy, except that it's giving me bizarre
upload figures.
We're still on copper, and typically get around 12Mbps down, and a maximum of
1Mbps up. networkQuality is consistently reporting a download speed of around
15Mbps, which is possible, though unusual, and 13-15Mbps up, which is not
actually possible on this connection.
(Ookla Speedtest and the ThinkBroadband tool both report around 0.5Mbps up,
which is normal.)
I'm confused...
Same here. It reports about 10 down and 22 up but speedtest reports >>>>>>> 70 down and 19 up which is pretty much the norm here.
Using the -s option (run tests sequentially) gives a more realistic >>>>>> download rate but the upload rate still looks too high.
Makes no difference here.
Frustrating; I was hoping I might be able to set it up as a cron job to see
how often the connection's dropping. (Which is too often)
I've just realised that I was connected via WiFi to my router. Now
that I've connected directly to it via a LAN cable and using the -s
option, the results are much the same as Speedtest.
Still getting the same nonsense uplink figure here, even over ethernet.
Now updating the mini server to Monterey so i can try it on that!
And... on the upgraded mini, networkQuality runs for a while, then crashes >> with a timeout error. Interestingly, until it crashes, the down rate is quite
accurate, but upload is even crazier than before: around 31Mbps on a
connection capable of 1Mbps at best.
I get the feeling we may have misunderstood NQrCOs purpose! This Reddit article is quite detailed and IrCOm going to have to read it again to improve my understanding.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1l8xku7/trying_to_understand_networkquality_command_output/>
Many thanks, I hadn't come across that! Now set up, though currently without DynDNS. Any recommendations for providers? I haven't used it for years.
TimH wrote:
[snip]
Many thanks, I hadn't come across that! Now set up, though currently without >> DynDNS. Any recommendations for providers? I haven't used it for years.
Look at the DynDNS screen in your router. It may list the providers
that it works with - possibly quite a limited list. Pick one of them.
On 09/01/2026 09:00, Old John wrote:
I use Think Broadband's speed tester and it consistently gives me speeds that
are the ten to fifteen percent slower than the sync speed.
How does this result look to you, John?
https://i.ibb.co/pjxsyfyT/Screenshot-2026-01-09-at-11-21-01.png
How do you check the "Sync speed"?
On 9 Jan 2026 at 10:05:56rC>pm GMT, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
TimH wrote:
[snip]
Many thanks, I hadn't come across that! Now set up, though currently without
DynDNS. Any recommendations for providers? I haven't used it for years.
Look at the DynDNS screen in your router. It may list the providers
that it works with - possibly quite a limited list. Pick one of them.
Ha! It never even occurred to me it would be that simple :) Done, thanks.
(half way through I remembered that I used to use dyndns.org, but I see that it's now owned by Oracle. Ugh.)
On 9 Jan 2026 at 11:24:01 GMT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 09:00, Old John wrote:
I use Think Broadband's speed tester and it consistently gives me speeds that
are the ten to fifteen percent slower than the sync speed.
How does this result look to you, John?
https://i.ibb.co/pjxsyfyT/Screenshot-2026-01-09-at-11-21-01.png
How do you check the "Sync speed"?
Personally, I go to the router and click the "Status" button. It's a BT/EE router. But no doubt this varies from router to router so YMMV.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/036RBmMupqZ6XGBPVV3fGaYKg
TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2026 at 10:05:56rC>pm GMT, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >>
TimH wrote:
[snip]
Many thanks, I hadn't come across that! Now set up, though currently without
DynDNS. Any recommendations for providers? I haven't used it for years. >>>>
Look at the DynDNS screen in your router. It may list the providers
that it works with - possibly quite a limited list. Pick one of them.
Ha! It never even occurred to me it would be that simple :) Done, thanks.
(half way through I remembered that I used to use dyndns.org, but I see that >> it's now owned by Oracle. Ugh.)
Yes I may configure a dynamic DNS solution for my server, not that IrCOm experiencing any particular issues, but more to improve my understanding. Perhaps you can teach an old dog new tricks ;-)
On 11 Jan 2026 at 11:09:16rC>am GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2026 at 10:05:56rC>pm GMT, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
TimH wrote:
[snip]
Many thanks, I hadn't come across that! Now set up, though currently without
DynDNS. Any recommendations for providers? I haven't used it for years. >>>>>
Look at the DynDNS screen in your router. It may list the providers
that it works with - possibly quite a limited list. Pick one of them.
Ha! It never even occurred to me it would be that simple :) Done, thanks. >>>
(half way through I remembered that I used to use dyndns.org, but I see that
it's now owned by Oracle. Ugh.)
Yes I may configure a dynamic DNS solution for my server, not that IrCOm
experiencing any particular issues, but more to improve my understanding.
Perhaps you can teach an old dog new tricks ;-)
I've really gone down the rabbit hole now: not only set up DDNS with Graham's suggested external ping checker, but also reflashed the router firmware and installed on it various toys including automated speedtests with pretty charts. Nobody mention displacement activity.
On 2026-01-11, TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2026 at 11:09:16rC>am GMT, "Alan B"
<alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2026 at 10:05:56rC>pm GMT, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
TimH wrote:Ha! It never even occurred to me it would be that simple :) Done, thanks. >>>>
[snip]
Many thanks, I hadn't come across that! Now set up, though currently without
DynDNS. Any recommendations for providers? I haven't used it for years. >>>>>>
Look at the DynDNS screen in your router. It may list the providers >>>>> that it works with - possibly quite a limited list. Pick one of them. >>>>
(half way through I remembered that I used to use dyndns.org, but I see that
it's now owned by Oracle. Ugh.)
Yes I may configure a dynamic DNS solution for my server, not that IrCOm >>> experiencing any particular issues, but more to improve my understanding. >>> Perhaps you can teach an old dog new tricks ;-)
I've really gone down the rabbit hole now: not only set up DDNS with Graham's
suggested external ping checker, but also reflashed the router firmware and >> installed on it various toys including automated speedtests with pretty
charts. Nobody mention displacement activity.
I've a quick look at NoIP but I need to get my head around setting up
the A, AAAA stuff first before I proceed. There's clearly a lot more
to it than just getting a hostname!
Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2026 at 3:35:28rC>pm GMT, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
I get the feeling we may have misunderstood NQrCOs purpose! This Reddit
article is quite detailed and IrCOm going to have to read it again to improve
my understanding.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1l8xku7/trying_to_understand_networkquality_command_output/>
Shame. I was seeing some very healthy figures, but in the end the "responsiveness" on both up and down is "low". Am on a mifi connection currently so it chimes with my experience despite both up and down
supposedly being 20-30 Mbps.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:54:31 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,205 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
