Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: SG TCP Optimizer BETA 3

  1. #1
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    10,446
    Blog Entries
    6

    Exclamation SG TCP Optimizer BETA 3

    SG TCP Optimizer BETA 3 has been released for testing, here is a direct link:

    SG TCP Optimizer BETA 3

    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.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Fixes from v.2
    1. Tcp1323Opts changed to string for Win 9x/ME
    2. Algorithm for MaxMTU Tab.
    3. GlobalMaxTcpWindowSize typo in Windows2000/XP
    4. Dialup Optimal Settings
    5. Registry Display Tab fixes
    ....


    Additions:
    1. ToolTips (under Custom Settings)
    2. Latency / PING testing of multiple sites, another Tab added.


    Not yet implemented:
    1. Multiple Protocols on the same NIC might cause MaxMTU to be added to the wrong 000n key under Win9x/ME
    2. Max Duplicate ACKs for Win2000/XP not implemented yet
    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
    Nov 2000
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    6,471
    seems to be very cool so far. I like the new changes, and the MaxMTU thing is really neat.

    Dont know if this is a bug or not, but the Latency (PING) test froze up in Windows XP...after it got done with bbplanet.com pinging, it froze, and says (not responding.)

    ...ok, I tried it again, and a box popped up saying "please set MaxMTU to 1500 to continue. Do you want to do this? Yes/No?"
    I clicked Yes...and it worked.

    But I"m on dial up as well...isn't 1500 Max MTU bad for dial up?? if so, I dont like how it forces you to change to 1500, even for dial up users.

    I set it to dial up...but each time I close and reopen the program, its always set back to Cable Modem....is that ok? or does my settings get changed to the cable modem ones each time? I clicked on the Apply Changes for Optimal Dial Up settings.....so I assume I'm safe, as long as I dont apply changes for the Cable modem

    seems pretty cool otherwise...keep up the good work!!

  3. #3
    TCP/IP Dude rmrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    896
    I'm in a rush -- tough time of year! Quick look on a Win98 box:

    1) All MSTCP entries work well -- and are now 'simple' string entries instead of 'expanded'. (Asthetically nice).

    2) MaxDupAcks is correct. Also, the display is in a logical format on the registry tab (in decimal).

    3) Registry tab works well!!!!

    4) The MaxMTU tab uses impossible numbers still (MTU=4000) -- but NO big deal. It seems to work well regardless.

    5) I like the Ping (latency) tab!
    You might want to consider increasing the size of the buffer on this so the packets are closer to maximum. Given some of the weird configurations out there, perhaps a buffer size around 1300 is useful. The larger size packet MAY better approximate TCP/IP "RTT".

    6) You also seem to have modified the Max Connections -- it now uses the HKCU hive and also the numbers appear to work in decimal, correct?

    7) The "optimal" RWIN remains specific for cable connections.

    8) I gotta check out those ToolTips! That's a nice gesture.

  4. #4
    Auto Tech joecool169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    805
    It told me to set my MTU to 8224 in windows xp pro
    Joe

  5. #5
    TCP/IP Dude rmrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    896
    Could you give us (Philip) a little more information? Do you mean the MaxMTU tab? Or do you mean that by selecting the "Optimal settings" button you were told to use an MTU of 8224?

    Both of these seem unlikely...

  6. #6
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    10,446
    Blog Entries
    6
    Yes, please provide some more info, this does sound strange.

  7. #7
    Auto Tech joecool169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    805
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 40 bytes -> time=170ms TTL=242
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 4100 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 6148 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 7172 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 7684 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 7940 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8068 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8132 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8164 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8180 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8188 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8192 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8194 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8195 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 8196 bytes ->sendto() - WSAError: 10040 ..passed
    The largest possible non-fragmented packet is 8196 (8224 - 28 ICMP & IP headers).
    You can set your MTU to 8224



    Does his help
    Joe

  8. #8
    TCP/IP Dude rmrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    896
    Most definitely strange! THANKS.

    Why is send to() there?

    This is what it is supposed to look like:


    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 40 bytes -> time=76ms TTL=241
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 4100 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 2053 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1029 bytes -> time=39ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1541 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1285 bytes -> time=46ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1413 bytes -> time=52ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1477 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1445 bytes -> time=89ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1461 bytes -> time=51ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1469 bytes -> time=51ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1473 bytes -> ..fragmented
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1471 bytes -> time=55ms TTL=241 ..passed
    Pinging [192.150.14.120] with 1472 bytes -> time=57ms TTL=241 ..passed
    The largest possible non-fragmented packet is 1472 (1500 - 28 ICMP & IP headers).
    You can set your MTU to 1500
    _____________________

    I don't understand the algorithm, so I can only speculate. I don't understand why it uses a buffer size over 1472 anyway...

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Funkytown
    Posts
    4,122
    I wouldn't really called 513920 "Extreme", but hey, the train is yours. I would suggest putting in a list of Rwin numbers that have worked particularly well in the past like 373760.
    Live to chase your dream...

  10. #10
    Super Good Guy! dannjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,233
    Hey Philip WuS up.. Long time.

    The tool looks good but I have a couple of suggestions probably might be meet with some confusion.
    You know I support Speedguide.

    How can you justify pinging other sites in the program, its there bandwidth. You can tell people how to enter the site or IP address, but to set the value to ping a set few is gonna be a problem in the long run. How would you like it if everyone pinged Speedguide all day long you know how many users you have.. Its just a simple word of warning / Advise I guess it’s a matter of Liability and if you have permission to do that.

    The Rwins not needed unless you put yours in, with your math, that we know work as a standard do we need to get that thread open again on Rwin (Ouch longer than a RFC). There’s no real need for extremism especially since you know what really works, and that Excite as we knew it is gone. Maybe the word extremism is to hard but I think you know what I mean -->do you need that also.

    The program looks good can’t complain. Its better laid out than that other places.(****)

    Will it be free after the smoke clears? (The Beta tests) ?

    MTU 8224 hehehe don’t want to touch that one, got me. Has someone been playing in ATM settings Look in the interfaces of that one I think..

    Anyway great to see it. gonna go mess wit it a little more see if I canget it to puke a big MTU

    By the way wus up rmrucker

  11. #11
    TCP/IP Dude rmrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    896
    I think we can all forget about further detailed RWIN discussions!

    Hi, dannjr. I am fine.

    I wondered about the legalities of pinging other sites as well. I guess in the big scheme of things, the amount of bandwidth used to run the ping tests is small incomparison to the size of even a single web page.

    For any given test, it is no big deal. And how many users will be using the Optimizer at any given minute? If the number is large, then there might be a problem. But it is not likely everyone would be pinging at the same time.

    If a site is up for business and they allow pings, perhaps they should be considered 'free game'. They have the option to not be pingable...

  12. #12
    Super Good Guy! dannjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,233
    Originally posted by rmrucker
    I think we can all forget about further detailed RWIN discussions!

    hahahaha ahh common looks like somebody wanted to start that wasent me..


    Hi, dannjr. I am fine.
    Good to here it happy holiday's

    I wondered about the legalities of pinging other sites as well. I guess in the big scheme of things, the amount of bandwidth used to run the ping tests is small incomparison to the size of even a single web page.

    For any given test, it is no big deal. And how many users will be using the Optimizer at any given minute? If the number is large, then there might be a problem. But it is not likely everyone would be pinging at the same time.


    You missed my point I dont really care that they ping, or who.(well maybe a little) I'm pointing out that if you set in the program to who gets pinged all the time. your leaving it open for the company that is being pinged to want to get back.<--(keeping it simple) Just trying to cover the Liable issue. If you download a ping utility they usually dont come with specific places to ping.

    Personally I could care less if it was aol.com heheeh <-- (think about it I just left myself open on that..I cant promote that but?)... Getting back on subject When we do software we have to look at it from all ends. Like with ours we include all or just about all the settings that can be made according to the MS white papers do we fill all of them in. Not gonna..


    If a site is up for business and they allow pings, perhaps they should be considered 'free game'. They have the option to not be pingable...


    This could be another Rwin discussion. Part of the reason for not shutting it down is a speed issue. Developers of sites want speed as well. A few have tryed that and there speed went into the toilet That said who has more money corperate america or us.
    That all said.. The last place in the world I want to "see" have a problem is here. Otherwise I could have just sat back and watched..

    I guess I'll have to wait and see about weather or not it will be free after beta test are done..

    Nope couldnt duplicate the High MTU.. "The info on that needs to be in addition than what was read from the tool like

    network card and drivers that were installed
    what other tweaks have been installed or programs
    Was the driver installed by the Certificate or the
    software that came with network componants

    No dont go crazy feeding me the info its just a suggestion

    Have a great holiday

  13. #13
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    10,446
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks for the concern dannjr, however the URLs are just examples of what it can do, besides they're all large networks with multiple servers so the impact would be negligible. Still I'll check the legality pinging them Now, if we were pinging them all with larger packets just to find latency that might be overdoing it, but simple ICMP ping for the benefit of the broadband society shouldn't be too much trouble

    As far as the program being free, it's going to be at no cost to the user, as everything at SG is... At a later point we might have to make it an "Optionware" where users could donate for further development if they want, but for the time being it's going to be completely free.

  14. #14
    Advanced Member piranha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Laval, Québec, Canada
    Posts
    513

    no help ?

    I tried the beta Tcp/ip test. Interesting but no help ! When english is not first language it is not easy to understand how to set this new utility. Well..... after some tries, i think i did it well but i am not sure.

    So... more instructions will be useful.

    By the way, the current tcp/ip test report my rwin to be at 2904 !!! CableNut adjuster reported 63888 and tcp/ip beta version too ....!! What is the problem ???

  15. #15
    resident plumber Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    .
    Posts
    13,148
    how does this look road runner cable extreme settings.

    TCP options string = 020405b40103030301010402

    MTU = 1500
    MTU is fully optimized for broadband.

    MSS = 1460
    Maximum useful data in each packet = 1460, which is equal to MSS.

    Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 513920
    RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 3 bits
    Unscaled Receive Window = 64240
    RWIN is a multiple of MSS
    Other values for RWIN that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
    256960 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 4)
    128480 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 2)
    64240 (MSS x 44)

    bandwidth * delay product:
    Your RcvWindow limits you to: 20556.8 kbps (2569.6 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
    Your RcvWindow limits you to: 8222.72 kbps (1027.84 KBytes/s) @ 500ms

    MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON

    Time to live left = 46 hops
    TTL value is ok.

    Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF

    Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON

    IP type of service field (RFC1349)= 00000000



    4930K@4.3~32GBGskill~asusX79deluxe~r9-280x~240GB-SSD-OS drive~500GB-SSD-scratch~240GB-SSD-thrash~2TB storage~Windows 7 pro
    *~ SG stats ~my stats

  16. #16
    Advanced Member piranha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Laval, Québec, Canada
    Posts
    513
    The snake

    If you want to be sure to have help start a new thread please

    Here we discuss about tcp/ip beta version.

  17. #17
    resident plumber Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    .
    Posts
    13,148
    Originally posted by piranha
    The snake

    If you want to be sure to have help start a new thread please

    Here we discuss about tcp/ip beta version.
    i was talking about the beta version on XP

    these are my results so how does this look ?
    4930K@4.3~32GBGskill~asusX79deluxe~r9-280x~240GB-SSD-OS drive~500GB-SSD-scratch~240GB-SSD-thrash~2TB storage~Windows 7 pro
    *~ SG stats ~my stats

  18. #18
    Senior Member earthmofo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Providence, RI USA
    Posts
    1,128
    Philip, I'm going to start recommending that people use the Optimizer. I have been getting excellent results with it and the program seems to be running very stable.

    One thing I would like to see however is a feature where the registry could be set back to the Windows Default settings. Usally when I help people some of them have made some registry tweaks already. It would be nice to be able to remove those tweaks and return the TCP/IP settings to default.

    They would then be able to test their speeds with the default settings and from there we would be able to recommend what changes really need to be made based on the defaults and not on some other unknown setting.

    I usally recommend they download the Cablenut Adjuster because it will remove those prior tweaks when it is installed and then install the SG Patch. If the default feature was in the Optimizer there would be no need to do both.
    "A never ending quest for knowledge as with knowledge comes wisdom"

    Main System running Windows XP Pro: Intel Celeron 2.4 Ghz, 1 Gig Ram, 2 80 gig WD 7200 rpm HD's, Radeon 9200 Pro, Envision EN9110 19" LCD Display, HP 9500 CD-RW, D-Link DFE-530TX+ PCI Adapter, D-Link DI-704P Router, Motorola SB5100 Cable Modem with Cox HSI

  19. #19
    Administrator Philip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    10,446
    Blog Entries
    6
    You can simply go into the "File" menu at the top of the Optmizer to backup / restre settings or even revert to the Windows defaults.

  20. #20
    Senior Member earthmofo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Providence, RI USA
    Posts
    1,128
    I didn't realize that Philip. Thanks!
    "A never ending quest for knowledge as with knowledge comes wisdom"

    Main System running Windows XP Pro: Intel Celeron 2.4 Ghz, 1 Gig Ram, 2 80 gig WD 7200 rpm HD's, Radeon 9200 Pro, Envision EN9110 19" LCD Display, HP 9500 CD-RW, D-Link DFE-530TX+ PCI Adapter, D-Link DI-704P Router, Motorola SB5100 Cable Modem with Cox HSI

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
  •