WireGuard Windows and Mac OS Beta 1

[Support 266]

Hey guys,

We have an early beta available, everyones very eager to use it so we thought we would just release this to everyone who wishes to test it - keep in mind this is a very early beta, there will be bugs...

It would be great if you could all please report any bugs you find via this thread - we know occasionally sometimes when you connect you may see an SSL error, this is purely to do with some servers still in the process of being setup, just reconnect again.

To enable Wireguard check it under more settings... --> Network tab, all locations supporting Wireguard should show the Wireguard logo.

Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.65+g730448e.test.exe

Mac OS: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.54+g4139983bd.test.dmg

Linux: 

Let us know how you go - thanks

Regards

 

[Support 266]

9 hours ago, zerotikin said:

hello, some update on the servers in Brazil with WG.  ?

 

These will be completed shortly.

[19807409 32]

If this thread is just for windows/mac, please ignore/move my post.

wireguard on android has some issues, not all apps can reach their destinations, as example chess application not being able connecting to FICS servers. After last wireguard update for android most issues are resolved, but FICS still not reachable, seems to be wireguard's issue (or android, depending how one looks at it).

It would make life easier there would be also beta release for linux, had to virtualize those for now.

[zerotikin 0]

1 hour ago, Support said:

 

Estes serão concluídos em breve.

 

ok, please advise as soon as you are ready

[19807409 32]

Do we have anywhere a list of tested services during beta phase? Here are some that I tested today

- netflix - works on all of them
- disney+ - does not work with any of them without further modification
- prime - works only on LG TV with preset LG Server and Geo location, not working on other devices without further modification ending with an error saying VPN is used
- FICS servers on android does not work (probably same issue as captcha)

Interesting was that prime worked on LG TV but on no other device. LG TV where I tested it has 2 additional options in its menu, geo location restriction as well as LG server restriction, none has US as available as a choice.

Tests above were done with wirguard on opewrt router (Archer C7) and wireguard servers available on user account page, if interested I might post more details about tests in some another thread, just wanted to let you know that netflix works and prime doesn't which was a surpirse for me as I expected none of them to work.

[uNc 4]

5 hours ago, 19807409 said:

Tests above were done with wirguard on opewrt router (Archer C7) and wireguard servers available on user account page, if interested I might post more details about tests in some another thread, just wanted to let you know that netflix works and prime doesn't which was a surpirse for me as I expected none of them to work.

What server location(s) did you test?

[19807409 32]

1 hour ago, uNc said:

What server location(s) did you test?

Wireguard servers which you can see on your account under wireguard servers when you login to torguard.net, tested all UK1-UK5, NL1-NL5, US1-US5 (did not test asian, should work too if in those countries those services are available), I do not want to write all IP's, is 159.65.251.93

[uNc 4]

42 minutes ago, 19807409 said:

Wireguard servers which you can see on your account under wireguard servers when you login to torguard.net, tested all UK1-UK5, NL1-NL5, US1-US5 (did not test asian, should work too if in those countries those services are available), I do not want to write all IP's, is 159.65.251.93

Right ok.

Curious to know WG speed test results comparing the TG desktop app to speeds on your Archer router. Any noticable differences?

[James8078 5]

6 hours ago, uNc said:

Right ok.

Curious to know WG speed test results comparing the TG desktop app to speeds on your Archer router. Any noticable differences?

In my case, faster on my router.

[uNc 4]

1 hour ago, James8078 said:

In my case, faster on my router.

What router are you using for wireguard?

[James8078 5]

27 minutes ago, uNc said:

What router are you using for wireguard?

R7800 with dd wrt

[19807409 32]

7 hours ago, uNc said:

Curious to know WG speed test results comparing the TG desktop app to speeds on your Archer router. Any noticable differences?

Archer C7 gives me full speed as long as ISP offers under 80Mbit, the place where I tested it has 80/50 LTE connection and Archer C7 gives full speed. For faster ISP's/connection I would not recommend it, I tested wireguard on Archer C7 when wireguard just released and that one gets constantly 86/50 which seems to be a max for that router with that connection.

The reason for Archer C7 is less wireguard but much more 802.11w and 802.11r with 2.4/5GHz (have a bunch of those routers, is my favourite one) which are activated together with even some weaker 1043nd (does get also 70/50, old routers with openwrt can be still quite powerful in specific tasks). Interesting with archer C7 was that it was capable of running 4 wireguard connections at every LAN port as well as opewrt is capable of having multiple SSID's and interfaces which let''s me have normal Wifi, FT one as well as different connections to different locations. Not all devices need to be in VPN and seome need to be in different, instead to manage that manually, I do it with MultiWAN.

I do use rock pi 4 as my gateway's, they give me 100% on all connections under 1Gbit. If you have slower ISP than 80/50, you can use Archer C7 or any similar device and it will give you full speed.

Comparing Desktop with Archer C7 does not make a lot sense as desktop's CPU is much faster, as I said, it really depends of what max. speed is that you get, as if it is 80/80 or lower, you will be more satisfied with running it on Archer instead of your PC, if your ISP is faster, then use some router with faster CPU or simply SoC board (like rpi4 or rock4) with PoE for under $ 40.

If speaking about stability, I have one Archer C7 running wireguard UK since wireguard released it and before it did run openconnect which got quite the same speed, (except upload was much faster, my ISP does not restrict on that protocol). Connection never broke, always on, very stable.

[uNc 4]

On 8/3/2020 at 7:28 AM, Support said:

Hey guys,

We have an early beta available, everyones very eager to use it so we thought we would just release this to everyone who wishes to test it - keep in mind this is a very early beta, there will be bugs...

It would be great if you could all please report any bugs you find via this thread - we know occasionally sometimes when you connect you may see an SSL error, this is purely to do with some servers still in the process of being setup, just reconnect again.

To enable Wireguard check it under more settings... --> Network tab, all locations supporting Wireguard should show the Wireguard logo.

Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.65+g730448e.test.exe

Mac OS: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.54+g4139983bd.test.dmg

Linux: 

Let us know how you go - thanks

Regards

 

I live in SE Asia and connect to wireguard server in Thailand and the speed is approx. 26Mbps compared to 525Mbps to servers on the west coast USA (Seattle). Why is this and how /when can this be resolved?

My thru-put speed tests globally (USA/EUR/CAN) are MUCH higher compared to the torguard server in Thailand and I am only a short distance from it.

Not ecouraged by this scenario. Another vpn service I currently use maintains a virtual server in Thailand which is physically located in Singapore and the speeds are excellent:>400Mbps using IKEv2 and "liteway" vpn protocols. TG needs a new server in BKK!

[19807409 32]

@uNc this is strange, in most cases closest server should work best. If it has nothing to do with your ISP and ISP providing the server, then it might have several issues. Do you have any other pc where you could test it just to verify it is not something on your pc which is a problem (especially if windows)?

It is indeed very strange that so far servers give you better results, I would think that Thailand server might have some issues if you are not the only one experiencing the same.

 

[g2159687 1]

11 hours ago, uNc said:

I live in SE Asia and connect to wireguard server in Thailand and the speed is approx. 26Mbps compared to 525Mbps to servers on the west coast USA (Seattle). Why is this and how /when can this be resolved?

My thru-put speed tests globally (USA/EUR/CAN) are MUCH higher compared to the torguard server in Thailand and I am only a short distance from it.

Not ecouraged by this scenario. Another vpn service I currently use maintains a virtual server in Thailand which is physically located in Singapore and the speeds are excellent:>400Mbps using IKEv2 and "liteway" vpn protocols. TG needs a new server in BKK!

If the "closest server" is not in the same country as you, there is a chance that its performance is not the best among all the servers. Sometimes the performance can be bad even when in the same country but using different ISP. It depends on how much bandwidth is "established" between your ISP and the server's ISP.

Figuring out which server ISP is better can take some time, but it's worthy. As you live in SE Asia, I'd recommend you to try Singapore servers first. Resolve all server IPs with Torguard Singapore hostname by online hostname lookup services, then ping/traceroute each server with different IP block (even each IP if you are patient enough) and find out the server(s) has lowest ping and highest stability, then connect to that server by IP and test speed. If a satisfying server is found then keep its IP and connect with IP instead of hostname in the future.

Further discussions are welcomed, I've researched a lot about my ISP and my country's network (and I'm getting benefits from those researches for now) so I think I can help.

[uNc 4]

15 hours ago, g2159687 said:

If the "closest server" is not in the same country as you, there is a chance that its performance is not the best among all the servers. Sometimes the performance can be bad even when in the same country but using different ISP. It depends on how much bandwidth is "established" between your ISP and the server's ISP.

Figuring out which server ISP is better can take some time, but it's worthy. As you live in SE Asia, I'd recommend you to try Singapore servers first. Resolve all server IPs with Torguard Singapore hostname by online hostname lookup services, then ping/traceroute each server with different IP block (even each IP if you are patient enough) and find out the server(s) has lowest ping and highest stability, then connect to that server by IP and test speed. If a satisfying server is found then keep its IP and connect with IP instead of hostname in the future.

Further discussions are welcomed, I've researched a lot about my ISP and my country's network (and I'm getting benefits from those researches for now) so I think I can help.

Oh, okay...sounds good, thanks for the input.

 Can I resolve Wireguard IP's to a hostname? I tried nslookup, host cmd on macbook but no hostname associated with the IP endpoint..

 

 

[g2159687 1]

1 hour ago, uNc said:

Oh, okay...sounds good, thanks for the input.

 Can I resolve Wireguard IP's to a hostname? I tried nslookup, host cmd on macbook but no hostname associated with the IP endpoint..

 

 

No, I guess. Lots of servers don't have a corresponding hostname with them, and you can't get their hostnames even when they have one sometimes.

IP -> hostname is useless unless for debug purposes. The purpose of "hostname -> IP" is to select a specific server when there are multiple ones available (like I said in my previous comment), while "IP -> hostname" is to quickly detect its ISP and location. So the "IP -> hostname" you said is unrelated with your current problem I think. To clarify, all I said in my previous comment is about "hostname -> IP" process, sorry if it's misleading.

[BluePoet 1]

Are dedicated IPs supported for DD-WRT routers yet?

[James8078 5]

7 hours ago, BluePoet said:

Are dedicated IPs supported for DD-WRT routers yet?

Only for open vpn in the moment

[John Galt 0]

Is port forwarding coming soon?

Really hoping that this can happen soon.  Cramping my style even though Wireguard is WAY faster.

Don't even care about fixed IP just the ability to have an open port to whatever server I connect to.