Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: ADSL wifi: mac @ 2 mbps, windows @ 640 kbps

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6

    ADSL wifi: mac @ 2 mbps, windows @ 640 kbps

    Hi all.
    First of all excuse me for my bad english.

    I'm an italian boy, I have an ASDL with the most important ISP in my country: Telecom Italia.
    I use this router wireless: Netgear DG834GIT.
    My adsl has been recently upgraded from 640 kbps to 2 mbps.
    My macbook pro connects wifi (IEEE 802.11g) @ 2 mbps and download @ 250 kb/s.
    My pc with Windows Pro SP2 conntects @ 640 kbps and download @ 80 kb/s.

    My results:

    - macbookpro: 2000 kbps @ 250 kb/s (WI-FI IEEE 802.11g)


    - pc winxp pro sp2 + netgear WG111 v2: 600-700 kbps @ 80 kb/s (WI-FI IEEE 802.11g)


    - pc winxp pro sp2 + zyxel zyair b200: 350-400 kbps @ 40 kb/s (WI-FI IEEE 802.11b)


    - sony vaio winxp home: 600-700 kbps @ 80 kb/s (WI-FI IEEE 802.11b)

    - pc winxp pro sp2 ethernet: 2000 kbps @ 250 kb/s (ETHERNET, connected directly to router)


    How can I oprimize my Windows connections with TCP Optimizer?
    I hope someone can help me.
    Thanks, peppomcr.
    Last edited by peppomcr; 11-05-06 at 05:11 AM.

  2. #2
    Elite Member trogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Posts
    12,323
    Your first need to know what maximum speed you have paid your ISP to give you.

    Then do the TCP Analyzer test for each of your computers to check their MTU and RWIN settings.

    Then we use the TCP Optimizer to adjust MTU and RWIN settings to suit your ISP given Bandwidth and max. latency.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    Thank you for your reply.

    I pay my ISP for 2 mbps, my contratc is ADSL 2 mpbs.

    pc winxp pro sp2 + netgear WG111 v2: 600-700 kbps @ 80 kb/s (WI-FI IEEE 802.11g)
    Code:
    TCP options string = 020405ac0103030e01010402
    MTU = 1492
    MTU is optimized for PPoE DSL broadband. If not, consider raising MTU to 1500 for optimal throughput.
    MSS = 1452
    MSS is optimized for PPPoE DSL broadband. If not, consider raising your MTU value.
    Default TCP Receive Window (RWIN) = 1073725440
    RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 14 bits (scale factor of 28)
    Unscaled TCP Receive Window = 65535
    
    RWIN seems to be an excessively large number. If you're on a line lower than 20 Mbps (that is not satellite), consider using a smaller value.
    For optimum performance, consider changing RWIN to a multiple of MSS.
    Other RWIN values that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
    511104 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 8)
    255552 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 4)
    127776 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 2)
     63888 (MSS x 44)
    bandwidth * delay product (Note this is not a speed test):
    
    Your TCP Window limits you to: 42949017.6 kbps (5368627.2 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
    Your TCP Window limits you to: 17179607.04 kbps (2147450.88 KBytes/s) @ 500ms
    MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON
    Time to live left = 56 hops
    TTL value is ok.
    Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF
    Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON
    IP type of service field (RFC1349) = 01010000 (80)
    Precedence (priority) = 010 (immediate)
    Delay = 1 (low delay)
    Throughput = 0 (normal throughput)
    Reliability = 0 (normal reliability)
    Cost = 0 (normal cost)
    Check bit = 0 (correct, 8th checking bit must be zero)
     
    DiffServ (RFC 2474) = AF22 010100 (20) - Assured Forwarding class 2, medium drop precedence (RFC 2597).
    Let's start with a single pc, is it a problem for you?
    Thanks.

  4. #4
    Elite Member trogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Posts
    12,323
    Do the following with TCP Optimizer:

    General Settings tab:
    Custom settings - check
    Modify All Network Adapters - check
    network adapter selection - your NIC
    MTU - 1492
    TTL - 64
    TCP Receive Window - 63888
    MTU Discovery - Yes
    Black Hole Detect - No
    Selective Acks - Yes
    Max Duplicate ACKs - 2
    TCP 1323 Options:
    Windows Scaling - uncheck
    Timestamps - uncheck
    Advanced Settings tab:
    Max Connections per Server - 10
    Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 20
    LocalPriority - 5
    Host Priority - 6
    DNSPriority - 7
    NetbtPriority - 8
    Lan Browsing speedup - optimized
    QoS: NonBestEffortLimit - 0
    ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting - 0
    ToS: DefaultTOSValue - 80
    MaxNegativeCacheTtl - 0
    NetFailureCacheTime - 0
    NegativeSOACache Time - 0
    LAN Request Buffer Size - 32768
    Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    Done. Connection at 640.

  6. #6
    Elite Member trogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Posts
    12,323
    Do the nitro test and post the results under the 'Statistics' button:

    http://nitro.ucsc.edu/

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    Code:
    WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
    Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Done
    checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Done
    running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 236.0kb/s
    running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 470.39kb/s
    
    	------  Client System Details  ------
    OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1
    Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.5.0_06
    
    	------  Web100 Detailed Analysis  ------
    Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
    Link set to Full Duplex mode
    No network congestion discovered.
    Good network cable(s) found
    Normal duplex operation found.
    
    Web100 reports the Round trip time = 716.94 msec; the Packet size = 1452 Bytes; and 
    There were 1 packets retransmitted, 69 duplicate acks received, and 43 SACK blocks received
    The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time
    C2S throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 2.21%
    S2C throughput test: Excessive packet queuing detected: 10.91%
    This connection is receiver limited 44.24% of the time.
      Increasing the the client's receive buffer (62.0 KB) will improve performance
    This connection is network limited 55.58% of the time.
    
    Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to: 
    RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
    RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
    RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
    RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
    RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF
    
    Server 'nitro.ucsc.edu' is not behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port was successful]
    Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
    Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable
    Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
    Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
    	Server says [87.8.219.92] but Client says [192.168.1.2]

  8. #8
    Elite Member trogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Posts
    12,323
    The nitro test shows your latency (Round trip time) to the US test site at 717ms.

    This is way too high. Which country are you in?

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    Today test:
    Code:
    WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
    Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Done
    checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Done
    running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 273.0kb/s
    running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 343.52kb/s
    
    	------  Client System Details  ------
    OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1
    Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.5.0_06
    
    	------  Web100 Detailed Analysis  ------
    Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
    Link set to Full Duplex mode
    Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
    Good network cable(s) found
    Normal duplex operation found.
    
    Web100 reports the Round trip time = 242.76 msec; the Packet size = 1452 Bytes; and 
    There were 6 packets retransmitted, 92 duplicate acks received, and 82 SACK blocks received
    The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time
    C2S throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 1.91%
    S2C throughput test: Excessive packet queuing detected: 10.53%
    This connection is network limited 99.83% of the time.
    Excessive packet loss is impacting your performance, check the auto-negotiate function on your local PC and network switch
    
    Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to: 
    RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
    RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
    RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
    RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
    RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF
    
    Server 'nitro.ucsc.edu' is not behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port was successful]
    Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
    Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable
    Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
    Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
    	Server says [87.8.219.92] but Client says [192.168.1.2]
    I'm in Italy.

  10. #10
    Elite Member trogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Posts
    12,323
    Do the nitro test 6 times, at 5 minutes interval between tests and note down your latency values.

    What you want to check is how much your latency varies over this 25-30 mins time span.

    If the variation is wide 80-100% between lowest and highest values, it is a symptom of electromagnetic interference acting on your modem or signal cables.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    TIME (GMT) ||| PC RESULTS ||| MAC RESULTS
    16:00 (GMT) ||| 271.33 msec ||| 218.58 msec
    16:05 (GMT) ||| 241.74 msec ||| 212.51 msec
    16:10 (GMT) ||| 243.22 msec ||| 217.62 msec
    16:15 (GMT) ||| 244.38 msec ||| 207.84 msec
    16:20 (GMT) ||| 252.20 msec ||| 219.29 msec
    16:25 (GMT) ||| 346.85 msec ||| 208.10 msec

  12. #12
    Elite Member trogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Posts
    12,323
    Quote Originally Posted by peppomcr
    TIME (GMT) ||| PC RESULTS ||| MAC RESULTS
    16:00 (GMT) ||| 271.33 msec ||| 218.58 msec
    16:05 (GMT) ||| 241.74 msec ||| 212.51 msec
    16:10 (GMT) ||| 243.22 msec ||| 217.62 msec
    16:15 (GMT) ||| 244.38 msec ||| 207.84 msec
    16:20 (GMT) ||| 252.20 msec ||| 219.29 msec
    16:25 (GMT) ||| 346.85 msec ||| 208.10 msec
    Your MAC has only a 11ms (219.29-207.84) variation between highest and lowest latency but your PC has 115ms (346.85-241.74).

    Check and eliminate the cause for the high latency variation of the PC. Connect the PC directly to your modem and test your latency and speed. If both are normal, the cause would probably be in the Nic, since the MAC is sharing the same WIFI router.
    Last edited by trogers; 11-07-06 at 02:05 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-06, 04:57 AM
  2. Help on optimizing ADSL 512 Kbps
    By DeVile in forum Broadband Tweaks Help
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-02-05, 07:19 AM
  3. older pc win95 Please help review my tweaks
    By 5MpstweakR in forum Broadband Tweaks Help
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-25-05, 04:09 AM
  4. 5.0 Mbps (down) / 800 kbps (up)
    By rfairweather in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-24-05, 06:26 AM
  5. upgraded to 1280 kbps but is going lower than 640 kbps
    By graziano in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-16-05, 12:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •