Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Very high Network buffer - Netalyzr

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5

    Very high Network buffer - Netalyzr [update]

    Hi, I've tested my Internet with Netalyzr and it's saying that I've very high buffer. How to fix that? I'm using Windows XP SP3.
    Code:
    Network buffer measurements: Uplink 6000 ms, Downlink 320 ms
    We estimate your uplink as having 6000 msec of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
    We estimate your downlink as having 320 msec of buffering. This level may serve well for maximizing speed while minimizing the impact of large transfers on other traffic.
    Last edited by HanDy_man; 11-04-09 at 04:10 PM.

  2. #2
    I'm also very curious about this measurement.

    Does anyone know exactly what they're referring to? Is it supposed to be send and receive windows? Regardless, measuring your buffer size in milliseconds doesn't seem to really make sense.

    If these numbers are high, and that's bad, how does one go about making them smaller?

    It's a pretty neat tool though.

  3. #3
    XP + akbarri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Caterpillar Inc
    Posts
    938
    Blog Entries
    3
    can u share TCP/IP Analyzer result from http://www.speedguide.net:8080/
    and http://www.speedguide.net/speedtest/
    i need to see ur "IP type of service field (RFC1349)"

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5
    btw QoS is uninstalled.

    Code:
     SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results  
    Tested on: 06.16.2009 07:11 
    IP address: 95.87.xxx.xxx 
    Client OS: Windows XP 
     
    TCP options string: 020405b40103030301010402 
    MSS: 1460 
    MTU: 1500 
    TCP Window: 513920 (multiple of MSS) 
    RWIN Scaling: 3 bits (2^3=8) 
    Unscaled RWIN : 64240 
    Recommended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920, 1027840 
    BDP limit (200ms): 20557kbps (2570KBytes/s)
    BDP limit (500ms): 8223kbps (1028KBytes/s) 
    MTU Discovery: ON 
    TTL: 107 
    Timestamps: OFF 
    SACKs: ON 
    IP ToS: 00011000 (24) 
        Precedence: 000 (routine)
        Delay: 1 (low delay)
        Throughput: 1 (low throughput)
        Reliability: 0 (normal reliability)
        Cost: 0 (normal cost)
        Check bit: 0 (correct)
    DiffServ: No valid DiffServ equivalent (000110)
    Code:
     SpeedGuide.net Speed Test Results 
    2064 kbps down (~2.06 Mbps, 252 KB/s)↓ 
    315 kbps up (~0.32 Mbps, 38 KB/s)↑ 
    2048 KB downloaded in 8.128 seconds 
    1024 KB uploaded in 26.603 seconds 
    Tested on: 2009.06.16 06:11 EDT 
    Tested from: backyardengineering.com 
    Test Link: http://www.speedguide.net/speedtest/results.php?test=2460475 
    Provider: net1.bg
    Location: BG
    Last edited by HanDy_man; 06-16-09 at 06:12 AM.

  5. #5
    XP + akbarri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Caterpillar Inc
    Posts
    938
    Blog Entries
    3
    complete result of TCP/IP Analyzer will be better & helpfull

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5
    So the problem could be ToS's value? I've installed QoS again, set DefaultToSValue to 80 then to 0 also set DisableUserTOSSetting to 1 ant then 0, but SpeedGuide's TCP Analyzer gives me the same result for ToS - 00011000. Is it possible that my ISP is changing ToS?

    I've add full TCP Analyzer Results to my previous post.
    Last edited by HanDy_man; 06-16-09 at 04:52 PM.

  7. #7
    XP + akbarri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Caterpillar Inc
    Posts
    938
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HanDy_man View Post
    So the problem could be ToS's value? I've installed QoS again, set DefaultToSValue to 80 then to 0 also set DisableUserTOSSetting to 1 ant then 0, but SpeedGuide's TCP Analyzer gives me the same result for ToS - 00011000. Is it possible that my ISP is changing ToS?
    I've add full TCP Analyzer Results to my previous post.
    u dont need to install QOS to set the TOS value.
    it's different matter.
    read here http://www.speedguide.net/tcpoptimizer.php#advanced_qos
    u will find line that describe :
    QoS is enabled by default in Windows XP, and can limit available bandwidth in order to accommodate high-priority traffic, when present. The Optimizer only changes the QoS value if it is already present in the registry. It is in the Registry only if the QoS Packet Scheduler is installed (can be added from the Network Adapter Properties). We recommend having the QoS Packet Scheduler uninstalled, or/and setting the QoS: NonBestEffortLimit Optimizer setting to 0%
    ToS other than 0 is only available if ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting is present, and set to "0" in the Optimizer. If enabled, the ToS: DefaultTOSValue can be set to a specific number, (which is probably beyond the scope of this help file, but is somewhat explained below - feel free to read the related RFCs referenced above for more info).
    in ur case, u dont need TOS setting because ur TCP/IP Analyzer result
    DiffServ: No valid DiffServ equivalent (000110)
    Try the following with TCP Optimizer:
    General Settings tab:
    Custom settings - check
    Modify All Network Adapters - check
    network adapter selection - your NIC
    MTU - 1500
    TTL - 64
    Windows Scaling - uncheck
    TCP Receive Window - 64240
    MTU Discovery - Yes
    Black Hole Detect - No
    Selective Acks - Yes
    Max Duplicate ACKs - 2
    TCP 1323 Options:
    Timestamps - uncheck

    Advanced Settings tab:
    Max Connections per Server - 10
    Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 10
    LocalPriority - 5
    Host Priority - 6
    DNSPriority - 7
    NetbtPriority - 8
    Lan Browsing speedup - optimized
    QoS: NonBestEffortLimit - 0
    ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting - 0
    ToS: DefaultTOSValue - 0
    MaxNegativeCacheTtl - 0
    NetFailureCacheTime - 0
    NegativeSOACache Time - 0
    LAN Request Buffer Size - 32768

    *dont forget to restart after change the settings
    *let see what u've got

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5
    Yay, it werks! Thanks alot!

    Network buffer measurements: Uplink 77 ms, Downlink 220 ms

    Code:
     SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results  
    Tested on: 06.21.2009 04:34 
    IP address: 95.87.xxx.xxx 
    Client OS: Windows XP 
     
    TCP options string: 020405b40103030201010402 
    MSS: 1460 
    MTU: 1500 
    TCP Window: 256960 (multiple of MSS) 
    RWIN Scaling: 2 bits (2^2=4) 
    Unscaled RWIN : 64240 
    Recommended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920, 1027840 
    BDP limit (200ms): 10278kbps (1285KBytes/s)
    BDP limit (500ms): 4111kbps (514KBytes/s) 
    MTU Discovery: ON 
    TTL: 43 
    Timestamps: OFF 
    SACKs: ON 
    IP ToS: 00011000 (24) 
        Precedence: 000 (routine)
        Delay: 1 (low delay)
        Throughput: 1 (low throughput)
        Reliability: 0 (normal reliability)
        Cost: 0 (normal cost)
        Check bit: 0 (correct)
    DiffServ: No valid DiffServ equivalent (000110)

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5
    I have the same problem again. But this time I can't fix in the previous way. So I've installed traffic shaping software (cfosspeed). It is set to prioritize my browser over torrent client. W/o traffic shaping netalyzr says 4000ms with traffic shaping - 1100ms, w/o torrent client 1000ms. AFAIK network buffer is determined by ISP. Next I will TRY to speak with "support" team.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2

    Smile low framerates LOL online gaming

    Hi

    I am into online gaming, LOL (league of Legends) but it seems anyway i do it (video settings on Very High or Very Low) my framerates are still less than 20 and at endgames usually less than 5. I got a Pentium D 2.8GHZ Asus P5S-MX-SE
    3GB DDR2 667 RAM. HDD is not full, i have on HDD just for the OS and some applications. I hope anyone of you could help me fix this. Im using DSL connection supposedly a 1MBps. here is my Netalyzr result:


    The ICSI Netalyzr
    Introduction Analysis Results
    Result Summary +/ (expand/collapse)
    112.201.93.156.pldt.net / 112.201.93.156
    Recorded at 21:55 EST (02:55 UTC next day) on Fri, January 29 2010. Permalink. Client/server transcript.
    Summary of Noteworthy Events
    Minor Aberrations
    Certain TCP protocols are blocked in outbound traffic
    The measured network latency and packet loss were somewhat high
    The measured time to set up a TCP connection was somewhat high
    The network measured bursts of packet loss
    Network packet buffering may be excessive
    Virus filtering appears to be present on your host or network
    Your computer's clock is substantially fast
    Address-based Tests +
    NAT detection (?): No NAT Detected
    DNS-based host information (?): OK
    Reachability Tests
    TCP connectivity (?): Note
    Direct TCP access to remote FTP servers (port 21) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote SSH servers (port 22) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote SMTP servers (port 25) is prohibited.
    This means you cannot send email via SMTP to arbitrary mail servers. Such blocking is a common countermeasure against malware abusing infected machines for generating spam. Your ISP likely provides a specific mail server that is permitted. Also, webmail services remain unaffected.
    Direct TCP access to remote DNS servers (port 53) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote HTTP servers (port 80) is allowed.
    Direct TCP connections to remote POP3 servers (port 110) succeed, but do not receive the expected content.

    The applet received the following reply instead of our expected header:
    "-ERR AVG POP3 Proxy Server: Cannot connect to the mail server! "
    Direct TCP access to remote RPC servers (port 135) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote NetBIOS servers (port 139) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote IMAP servers (port 143) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote SNMP servers (port 161) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote HTTPS servers (port 443) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote SMB servers (port 445) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote SMTP/SSL servers (port 465) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote secure IMAP servers (port 585) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote authenticated SMTP servers (port 587) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote IMAP/SSL servers (port 993) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote POP/SSL servers (port 995) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote OpenVPN servers (port 1194) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote PPTP Control servers (port 1723) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote SIP servers (port 5060) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote BitTorrent servers (port 6881) is allowed.
    Direct TCP access to remote TOR servers (port 9001) is allowed.
    UDP connectivity (?): OK
    Basic UDP access is available.
    The applet was able to send fragmented UDP traffic.
    The applet was able to receive fragmented UDP traffic.
    Direct UDP access to remote DNS servers (port 53) is allowed.
    Direct UDP access to remote OpenVPN servers (port 1194) is allowed.
    Direct UDP access to remote MSSQL servers (port 1434) is allowed.
    Path MTU (?): OK
    The path between your network and our system supports an MTU of at least 1500 bytes, and the path between our system and your network has an MTU of 1500 bytes.
    Network Access Link Properties
    Network latency measurements (?): Latency: 770ms Loss: 5.0%
    The round-trip time (RTT) between your computer and our server is 770 msec, which is quite high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including a significant distance between your computer and our server, a particularly slow or poor network link, or problems in your network.
    We recorded a packet loss of 5.0%. This loss rate can result in noticeable performance problems. It could be due either to significant load on our servers due to a large number of visitors, or problems with your network. Of the packet loss, at least 5.0% of the packets appear to have been lost on the path from your computer to our servers.
    TCP connection setup latency (?): 690ms
    The time it takes for your computer to set up a TCP connection with our server is 690 msec, which is quite high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including a significant distance between your computer and our server, a particularly slow or poor network link, or problems in your network.
    Network background health measurement (?): 2 transient outages, longest: 0.8 seconds
    During most of Netalyzr's execution, the applet continuously measures the state of the network in the background, looking for short outages. During testing, the applet observed 2 such outages. The longest outage lasted for 0.8 seconds. This suggests a general problem with the network where connectivity is intermittent. This loss might also cause some of Netalyzr's other tests to produce incorrect results.
    Network bandwidth measurements (?): Upload 260 Kbit/sec, Download 770 Kbit/sec
    Your Uplink: We measured your uplink's sending bandwidth at 260 Kbit/sec. This level of bandwidth works well for many users.
    Your Downlink: We measured your downlink's receiving bandwidth at 770 Kbit/sec. This level of bandwidth works well for many users.
    Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink 1500 ms, Downlink is good
    We estimate your uplink as having 1500 msec of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
    We were not able to produce enough traffic to load the downlink buffer, or the downlink buffer is particularly small. You probably have excellent behavior when downloading files and attempting to do other tasks.
    HTTP Tests
    Address-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK
    There is no explicit sign of HTTP proxy use based on IP address.
    Header-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK
    No HTTP header or content changes hint at the presence of a proxy.
    HTTP proxy detection via malformed requests (?): OK
    Deliberately malformed HTTP requests arrive at our server unchanged. We are not able to detect a proxy along the path to our server using this method.
    Filetype-based filtering (?): Note
    Files of type exe remain unmodified by the network.
    Files of type mp3 remain unmodified by the network.
    Files of type torrent remain unmodified by the network.
    A test "virus" (the benign EICAR test file that antivirus vendors recognize as a test) was blocked or modified in transit.
    HTTP caching behavior (?): Failed to complete
    The test failed to execute completely.
    JavaScript-based tests (?): OK
    The applet was not run from within a frame.
    Your web browser reports the following cookies for our web page:
    netAlizEd = BaR (set by our server)
    netalyzrComplete = True (set by our server)
    Your web browser was unable to fetch an image using IPv6.
    DNS Tests +
    Restricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK
    Unrestricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK
    Direct EDNS support (?): OK
    DNS resolver address (?): OK
    DNS resolver properties (?): Lookup latency: 370ms
    DNS glue policy (?): OK
    DNS resolver port randomization (?): OK
    DNS lookups of popular domains (?): OK
    DNS external proxy (?): OK
    DNS results wildcarding (?): OK
    Host Properties
    System clock accuracy (?): Warning
    Your computer's clock is 57782 seconds fast.
    Browser properties (?): OK
    The following parameters are sent by your web browser to all web sites you visit:
    User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.38 Safari/532.0
    Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html; q=0.9,text/plain; q=0.8,image/png,*/*; q=0.5
    Accept Language: en-GB,en-US;q=0.8,en;q=0.6
    Accept Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch
    Accept Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3
    Java identifies your operating system as Windows XP.




    Thank you and hope you could help me out.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2
    here are my results from speedguide.net's speedtest



    SpeedGuide.net Speed Test Results
    47 kbps down (~0.05 Mbps, 6 KB/s)↓
    215 kbps up (~0.22 Mbps, 26 KB/s)↑
    100 KB downloaded in 17.398 seconds
    100 KB uploaded in 3.816 seconds
    Tested on: 2010.01.29 22:14 EST
    Tested from: clowder.ca
    Test Link: http://www.speedguide.net/speedtest/...p?test=2770419
    Latency: 333ms
    Provider: pldt.net
    Location: US

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1
    Hi I also have high network buffer according to the ICSI. I'm currently using Vista 64bit

    TCP connection setup latency (?): 380ms
    The time it takes your computer to set up a TCP connection with our server is 380 msec, which is somewhat high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including distance between your computer and our server, a slow network link, or other network traffic.
    Network background health measurement (?): no transient outages
    During most of Netalyzr's execution, the applet continuously measures the state of the network in the background, looking for short outages. During testing, the applet observed no such outages.
    Network bandwidth measurements (?): Upload 280 Kbit/sec, Download 1.1 Mbit/sec
    Your Uplink: We measured your uplink's sending bandwidth at 280 Kbit/sec. This level of bandwidth works well for many users.
    Your Downlink: We measured your downlink's receiving bandwidth at 1.1 Mbit/sec. This level of bandwidth works well for many users.
    Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink 1900 ms, Downlink 470 ms
    We estimate your uplink as having 1900 msec of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
    We estimate your downlink as having 470 msec of buffering. This level can in some situations prove somewhat high, and you may experience degraded performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large downloads. Real-time applications, such as games or audio chat, may also work poorly when conducting large downloads at the same time.

Similar Threads

  1. Rule the Seas! Browser game, REAL time waster!
    By YARDofSTUF in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 2445
    Last Post: 05-11-08, 08:02 AM
  2. few questions about my internet...
    By charlieC in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-08, 08:06 PM
  3. What is the best High gain Wireless network card ?
    By DAVE in forum Wireless Networks & Routers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-31-07, 12:06 AM

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
  •