Vpn should show Latency + Load on vpn servers

Rock.87 · 2024-11-22T23:39:36+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

If VPN providers could display the load and latency of each virtual location, it would be much easier to select the optimal location for a faster connection, reducing the need for multiple connection attempts to different servers. i think cyber ghost vpn has this option.

Find more posts tagged with

Active

Status: Active

Comments

Alexandru_BD

Hi,

Bitdefender VPN will select the fastest server available for you, by connecting to Automatic. As such, I don't think it's necessary to display the load and latency for the servers, because on this setup it will choose the best server anyway.

Rock.87

@Alexandru_BD You are absolutely right about the max speed

'' on this setup it will choose the best server anyway ''

But , if some user need to choose a better speed by connecting to any city ( virtual location ) in a specific country , the displayed server load & ping ll help him to choose the virtual location.

Alexandru_BD

I think speed isn't only about the server, the protocol can also play a part in this. Some protocols are faster than others and some networks restrict the speed of certain protocols.

For a faster connection, users can try changing the protocol in Bitdefender VPN’s settings until they identify the fastest option:

IPSec – iOS only: Fast and secure, but your iPhone and iPad battery drains much faster.
Hydra Catapult – Fastest VPN protocol with bank-grade security.
Wireguard – Strong security and a high level of performance.
OpenVPN UDP – Fast and efficient, but could sometimes skip data packets.
OpenVPN TCP – A bit slower, but delivers your data entirely and in the correct order. More reliable than OpenVPN UDP.

So, if you ask me, I'm still not convinced that displaying the load and latency would prove useful in the end, but nevertheless, the feature request was forwarded to the development teams automatically, following your post here.

Thanks!

Rock.87

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/346907#Comment_346907

It ain't just about the protocols, comrade. Server load is the secret sauce for VPN speed. Connect to a sleepy server and watch your speed soar

Alexandru_BD

OK, I think there are indeed solid arguments here. As such, I did a bit of research and based on my findings, I can tell you that the VPN teams do have a proof of concept for a feature that can incorporate this information (latency, server load, upload speed, download speed) which may help users choose the most suitable server to connect to for various usage contexts like gaming, downloading, ultra privacy, etc., so this is actually something that the developers would consider on the product roadmap, however, I am not at liberty to say when and if such a feature will become available, since there isn't any ETA for this yet, and the feature is still in the conceptual phase.

Thank you once again for your feedback.

Regards,

Alex

Rock.87

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/347082#Comment_347082

Add one more thing , real time protocols should be visible ( check my previously posted pic in this thread )

By revealing the real-time protocol name (UDP, TCP, WireGuard), we can offer users a more transparent view of their VPN connection. This will allow them to make informed decisions, as each protocol has distinct advantages and limitations. For instance, UDP prioritizes speed but may be more susceptible to packet loss, while TCP ensures reliability but can be slower. WireGuard, on the other hand, balances speed and security efficiently.

it will provide users with a more accurate understanding of their connection's performance characteristics. This will help manage expectations, as different protocols offer varying levels of speed, reliability, and security.

Scott

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/347016#Comment_347016

ProtonVPN also offers this server load information. But some of these companies are focusing on limited number of apps i.e. they do not have a AV line up of products, or of Parental Controls etc. and can tweak and customize their lesser amount of apps, as in this case, their VPNs more significantly.

In Bitdefender's case, I think at times they have to take the middle ground to offer more products with greater stability and maybe sacrifice a few bells and whistles here and there to be able to maintain (technically, engineering wise) them better.

It is always worth a shot to ask though, right, just in case and maybe even help Bitdefender know what else is out there and what else is possible?

Cheers :)

Rock.87

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/347179#Comment_347179

Thank you very much for your kind attention. Could Bitdefender Total Security provide robust security for Proton VPN? If so, Proton could be one of the most secure VPN options. Let me explain why:

Independent Operation: Unlike major VPN providers like ExpressVPN, NordVPN, and CyberGhost, Proton VPN is an independent company with no partnerships with global cybersecurity giants. This independence is crucial for privacy, as it minimizes potential vulnerabilities associated with third-party affiliations and government surveillance. Proton's servers are located in countries with strong privacy laws and limited government interference.
Direct Server Control: Proton VPN owns and operates all of its servers, ensuring complete control over hardware, software, and security configurations. This direct control allows for rigorous security measures and minimizes the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches.

I would appreciate your insights on this matter.

Regards

Micmover

Having visibility into the latency and load of each VPN server would be super helpful when trying to find the fastest connection. It's excellent that Cyberghost VPN already offers this feature; that's useful. Other providers should look into implementing something similar, as it would make selecting the optimal VPN server a lot more straightforward.

Alexandru_BD

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/347171#Comment_347171

For more context regarding the protocols, the protocol does not change dynamically depending on other things.
It is fixed, the user chooses it and the preference is kept. If one protocol fails, there are some fallback scenarios, but those are very limited.
Basically, it is not displayed like you indicated above mostly because we expect the user to know what they have selected, unless it is left on Auto in which case it will be set to Wireguard.

Rock.87

@Alexandru_BD '' it is left on Auto in which case it will be set to Wireguard '

Auto mode does not provide assurance that WireGuard was the sole protocol employed in the active connection Am i right🧐 ?

Alexandru_BD

It doesn't actually tell you that it's set on Wireguard, but this is how it works when running on Auto.

Flexx

While I wasn't initially interested in this topic, after exploring various VPN vendors and testing their VPN web browser extension, I realized the importance of displaying latency and load next to VPN servers. This information helps users understand:

Server load: A high load can slow down data transmission.
Server distance: Closer servers generally offer lower latency.

Hotspot Shield integration: Bitdefender's VPN is based on Hotspot Shield's infrastructure. Implementing this feature might depend on Hotspot Shield providing the necessary implementation in its own infrastructure first.

Testing Latency:

Until Bitdefender offers this feature, here are two alternative methods:

1. Using the ping command:

This is a classic method used by IT professionals to measure latency. Here's how to do it:

Open Bitdefender VPN and connect to a server.
Copy the server's IP address.
Press Windows key + R to open the Run dialog box.
Type "cmd" and press Ctrl + Shift + Enter to open Command Prompt as administrator.
In the Command Prompt, type ping followed by a space and the copied IP address. Press Enter.
The results will show the latency (ping) for your current VPN connection.
Note: Testing each server individually can be time-consuming.

2. Using "speedtest.net" website:

While not as efficient as the ping command, you can connect to each server and run a speed test on speedtest.net. This will provide an overall picture of latency and speed.

Remember: Lower ping numbers indicate faster connections.

I have also shared images of the speed test results and the ping command output from the Command Prompt for the VPN server I am currently connected to. These visuals provide a better understanding of the latency and connection quality.

I would also like to point out that even when using the automatic server selection option in Bitdefender VPN, which connects to the nearest VPN server location with the Hydra Catapult protocol selected, the speed dropped significantly—from my ISP-provided 200 Mbps to approximately 83 Mbps. Ideally, the nearest server with the Hydra Catapult protocol selected should not cause such a noticeable reduction in speed. Therefore, the VPN should display the latency, server load, distance from the user’s location, and the speed it provides for each particular server.

Alright, that’s a wrap on this topic! Whatever happens, I’ll be fine since I barely use a VPN—just to sneak past the internet’s bouncers and access blocked websites. 😂 I already have an ad blocker and privacy blocker extension installed on my web browser, which do a great job of keeping my data safe and blocking unwanted ads. This is Flexx signing off with a VPN joke: Why did the VPN server break up with its partner? Too much distance! 😂✌️

Regards

Rock.87

@Flexx @Alexandru_BD
i am cent percent agreed with your significant points Mr.Flex :

I would also like to point out that even when using the automatic server selection option in Bitdefender VPN, which connects to the nearest VPN server location, the speed dropped significantly—from my ISP-provided 200 Mbps to approximately 83 Mbps. Ideally, the nearest server should not cause such a noticeable reduction in speed. Therefore, the VPN should display the latency, server load, distance from the user’s location, and the speed it provides on each particular server.

My Real bandwidth :

Sharing bit.vpn's speed When Connected to auto :

Connected to a chosen server :

Speed test was unable to check even upload speed Double-Hop :

Bitdefender vpn has become almost dead since few days. I had initially hypothesized that a nation-wide firewall was the cause, however, your observations and research suggest that the problem originates from the VPN itself, i ld like to ask bitdefender team to fix this issue by keeping Pakistan's recently implemented Anti Vpn , nationwide firewall in their minds.

Rock.87

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/347450#Comment_347450

Auto can jump to any most suitable protocol, that's why it is called auto , if there is only wireguard then it's name should be changed😜

Flexx

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/347474#Comment_347474

I would also like to point out that even when using the automatic server selection option in Bitdefender VPN, which connects to the nearest VPN server location with the Hydra Catapult protocol selected, the speed dropped significantly—from my ISP-provided 200 Mbps to approximately 83 Mbps. Ideally, the nearest server with the Hydra Catapult protocol selected should not cause such a noticeable reduction in speed. Therefore, the VPN should display the latency, server load, distance from the user’s location, and the speed it provides for each particular server.

@Alexandru_BD, I might require some feedback on this.

Regards