Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: SG TCP Optimizer BETA 2

  1. #1
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6

    SG TCP Optimizer BETA 2

    We're testing the second version of our new tweaking utility, which can be downloaded here:

    SG TCP Optimizer BETA 2

    Please keep in mind this is BETA software, and only test it if you are confident you know what you are doing.

    Report all bugs you encounter and please include your Operating System and the settings you applied ( Optimal, Custom, Cable / DSL / PPPoE, etc. ).

    Thanks in advance for any suggestions and feedback.
    Linux is user friendly, it's just picky about its friends...
    Disclaimer: Please use caution when opening messages, my grasp on reality may have shaken loose during transmission (going on rusty memory circuits).
    ๑۩۞۩๑

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Funkytown
    Posts
    4,122
    It says that I should modify my MTU to 1501.
    Live to chase your dream...

  3. #3
    Reigning Genious aagiants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    5,941
    Pinging [216.115.102.81] with 40 bytes -> time=109ms TTL=240
    Pinging [216.115.102.81] with 4100 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Ping terminated by user

    always say i terminated it, but i didn't. Happens with all sites
    .....

  4. #4
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6
    Originally posted by Eugene4Pres
    It says that I should modify my MTU to 1501.
    Strange, works fine for me.

    If you go to DOS Prompt and try ping www.adobe.com -f -l 1473 does it pass ?

    What's your MaxMTU set to, if anything ?

  5. #5
    ****** HalfLifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan Internet: Comcast Narrowband
    Posts
    7,086
    Says MTU of 1501 for me too.
    Work: DQ
    Comp: AXP 1600+, MSI K7T266a Pro2 RU, 512MB PC2100, GF3 Ti200 128MB

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Funkytown
    Posts
    4,122
    The largest possible non-fragmented packet is 1473 (1500 - 29 ICMP & IP headers).
    You can set your MTU to 1501

    1500 is my MTU..

    Yeah I know, just posting this to keep you busy.. wouldn't want to confuse other people, do we now?
    Live to chase your dream...

  7. #7
    Canadian, eh... you hoser lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    480
    The Optimizer states my TCP is 256960 but the Speedguide analyzer says its 65535. I installed the Vtcp386 fix but did not change anything.

    Running win98se on shaw cable.

    Do I need to delete cookies between testing with the analyzer? Any ideas?

  8. #8
    ACEmeaniSPANKER EvilAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Garden Grove
    Posts
    18,950
    Pent 3 500, WinXP, 384mb ram, kingston ethernet , PPPoE but have my two comps networked on a linksys 4 port if that matters.. I get this error when I try to ping... I did not terminate the connection... could it be because my ISP runs through ICMP?



    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 40 bytes -> time=80ms TTL=241
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 4100 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Ping terminated by user

    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 40 bytes -> time=70ms TTL=241
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 4100 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Ping terminated by user

    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 40 bytes -> time=70ms TTL=241
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 4100 bytes -> ..passedsendto() - WSAError: 10040
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 6148 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Ping terminated by user
    Quote Originally Posted by The Devil
    Tolerance is a virtue, not a requirement.
    SG Theme Song

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    375
    My MTU came out alright, but my connection said it was terminated as well, without a firewall, etc. when I was trying to determine MTU size. Besides the User Interface, what other changes/tweaks are there from your standard tweak?

  10. #10
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6
    Originally posted by Lee_Nover
    My MTU came out alright, but my connection said it was terminated as well, without a firewall, etc. when I was trying to determine MTU size. Besides the User Interface, what other changes/tweaks are there from your standard tweak?
    In the "Other Settings" tab, the LAN speedup is not in our original patches, this interface also works on all Windows versions, has the ability to backup your current settings, revert to the Windows defaults, make custom changes, find the largest MTU, etc.

  11. #11
    TCP/IP Dude rmrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    896
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1473 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1471 bytes -> time=47ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1472 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1471 bytes -> time=45ms TTL=241 ..passed
    The largest possible non-fragmented packet is 1471 (1499 - 28 ICMP & IP headers).
    You can set your MTU to 1499
    __________________________

    I got that the first time I run the MaxMTU test. So I decided to sniff the packets and test this. Every other time I ran the MaxMTU test I got 1500. So the above test was an outlier. I never got 1501.

    I still do not understand why the ping test uses packets that it KNOWS are too large -- no Ethernet connection is going to pass ICMP packets that have a payload of 4100, 2053, 1541, 1477, or even 1473. The maximum ICMP Ethernet packet data field is 1472.

    So, as I packet sniffed I quickly realized -- the MaxMTU test is NOT really trying to send out those large packets -- regardless of what the screen says. My packet sniffer saw the following packets sent out -- listed in the exact sequence:

    Data Field Size:

    40
    1029
    1285
    1413
    1445
    1461
    1469
    1471
    1472
    1472

    Which is the exact sequence the MaxMTU test shows -- excluding any numbers that are larger than 1472.

    So it does not appear to me that the MaxMTU test IS really sending out those large packets -- it must somehow know better. Yet the results screen makes it appear as if the packets are being "fragmented". They are not. They were not even sent.

    The registry tab still lacks the MSTCP parent key on this Win98 system.

    The "Optimal" RWIN values are correct now for non-PPPoE DSL and Dialup. Dialup still has the Window Scale option set yet the Window is not scaled (yes, I realize this is no big deal).

    I am still not sure how I would use the first and second tabs. The radio buttons and the Apply button work for BOTH of these and ONLY these. Should this all be on one tab? If so, the form's size would have to be increased.

    Furthermore, if you do add the TOS/QoS settings, for space reasons you might need to use the second tab for these. There is room on the first tab -- at the present size -- for the ICS MTU setting.

    Just rambling comments that I hope give a different and helpful perspective.

    Good work, Philip.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    375
    What I meant to ask, is there any tweaks additions/revisions from the original tweak? ie. changing values for different reg keys, etc., or, if I know what I am doing, will I get the same spped tweaks as the original tweak program for Cable 2k?

  13. #13
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6
    There are no other tweaks currently, except the last one in the second TAB.

    We'll look into the MaxMTU algoritm again.

    Any other bugs ? Experiences ? Any feedback at all ?

    Feel free to tell us if it works well too, at least we'll know someone tried it and our effort is not a waste of time

  14. #14
    R.I.P. 2013-11-22 blebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    North Canton, Ohio
    Posts
    12,819
    Philip, there appears to be a conflict with Dr.TCP and the SG TCP Optimizer. I'm running Win 98se and had Dr.TCP installed then installed SG.
    When reading the current settings in the SG, It showed windows scaling and timestamps enabled and no max dup acks. I allowed the changes recommended by SG, and then I had no scaling or timestamps, even though it was detected as such.
    Both programs are installed in My Documents.

    I'll have to play around with it and see what happens.

  15. #15
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6
    Please test and provide me with more info, you might want to check the settings in the Registry as well... TIA

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    375
    Hi Philip.

    I have it installed on my personal and office machine, and I do not have any problems. I have a T1 line at work and the Extreme setting of 513290 for the TCP Receive Windows is causing a slowdown on the web page browsing, but that's something I can fix. Is there any NIC tweaks you are going to add to it? Are these all the setting that needs to be changed on Win 2k/XP to maximize Internet speeds?

  17. #17
    TCP/IP Dude rmrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    896
    Philip - there are a few errors:

    1) The MaxDupsAcks entry uses the wrong key. The Optimizer puts it in the MSTCP key while it belongs in the MSTCP\Parameters sub-key.

    2) TCP1323Opts has been reverted to a dword -- didn't we go through this a year ago? The TCP1323Opts entry needs to be a String value in Win98. This explains why some users are not seeing their RWIN over 65535.

    3) Which OS's is this going to cover? The Form's Caption (Window Title) says "SG TCP Optimizer (Windows 95/98)". Does that mean that it will not work in WinME/NT/2K/XP? I would suspect it will work incorrectly in Win95 without the Winsock2 upgrade anyway... And from what I can tell, it DOES work in other OS's.

    4) The "Custom settings" text boxes default to the "Optimal settings" instead of the "Current settings". I personally would prefer it the other way around.

    5) The presentation of data on the Registry tab is confusing -- although it may be technically correct. To me, the tab appears to list the dword values in the opposite style than we are normally used to viewng them. I believe it has to do with Little vs. Big Endian Dwords.

    For example, when the Registry tab shows the correct MaxDupAcks entry, it displays the value as 3 0 0 0. Most of us are used to seeing that as 0003.

    6) I believe the SG Optimizer is setting the MaxConnections in the incorrect key as well. The SpeedGuide "Advanced Tweak" pages say the MaxConnections tweak should be applied here:
    HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\

    However, the Optimizer applies the changes in HKLocalMachine -- instead of HKCurrentUser. One of these must be incorrect.

    7) The Optimizer has chosen to set DefaultRcvWindow, TTL, PMTUD, PMTUBHD, and SackOpts to "Expanded" String values (REG_EXPAND_SZ). This is not necessary and I am not sure why this decision was made. I do not think these need to have "Environmental Variables" -- but if you could educate me on this, I would be most obliged. Most "tweaks" set these to "regular" String values (REG_SZ)

    8) Lastly, the MTU setting is not correct on my machine. The Optimizer is changing the MaxMTU entry in the wrong NetTrans sub-key. I have 3 NetTrans sub-keys: 0000, 0004, and 0005. The first is my Dialup Adapter. The Optimizer correctly sets that. However, the 0004 is my NetBEUI protocol (LAN) and the 0005 is my TCP/IP. The Optimizer is setting the MaxMTU in my NetBEUI key and not my TCP/IP key.

    I hope this is not overwhelming... Good luck.
    Last edited by rmrucker; 11-29-01 at 02:57 PM.

  18. #18
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks rmrucker, you've been a great help.

    1. Confirmed, will be fixed.
    2. confirmed
    3. It works in all 9x/me/2k/XP versions of Windows. The OS in the parentheses changes accordingly when the OS is detected.
    4. I'm not sure what we'll do with this one, it's not a high-priority and it was done on purpose.
    5. confirmed
    6. confirmed
    7. confirmed, it doesn't matter, but there is no benefit of using REG_EXPAND_SZ

    8. I'll have to test this one...

  19. #19
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    11,082
    Blog Entries
    6
    Originally posted by Lee_Nover
    Hi Philip.

    I have it installed on my personal and office machine, and I do not have any problems. I have a T1 line at work and the Extreme setting of 513290 for the TCP Receive Windows is causing a slowdown on the web page browsing, but that's something I can fix. Is there any NIC tweaks you are going to add to it? Are these all the setting that needs to be changed on Win 2k/XP to maximize Internet speeds?
    We need to work on fixing all the bugs before introducing any other tweaks. We've covered the most important settings.

  20. #20
    R.I.P. 2013-11-22 blebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    North Canton, Ohio
    Posts
    12,819
    Sorry it took so long. Everything that rmrucker pointed out is what I'm seeing. It has nothing to do with DrTCP. I deleted that program to be sure. Get the bugs worked out a bit more and I'll try it again. It's getting there, it's just not quite there yet.

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
  •