Help on tweaking.

[Tio-Fu]

I don't know very much about tweaking, so I'm here for a little help...
My PC sucks, it's a AMD 350 with 192 RAM.
My connection is 256k/128k Cable, MotorolaSB4200.

What I have to do? And, if someone can help me uncapping, please do it at my ICQ:
68040171

Thanks.

[mnosteele52]

Download Cablenut from my signature and try the following settings:

BcastNameQueryCount - 1
BcastQueryTimeout - 100
BSDUrgent - 1
CacheTimeout - 600000
DefaultRecvWindow - 17520
DefaultTTL - 128
EnableDNS - 0
GlobalMaxTcpWindoSize - 17520
KeepAliveInterval - 500
KeepAliveTime - 14400000
Lanabase - 0
LocalCopyMade - 1
MaxConnections - 99
MaxConnectRetries - 5
MaxDataRetries - 64
NameTableSize - 255
NameSrvQueryTimeout - 100
PMTUBlackHoleDetect - 0
PMTUDiscovery - 1
RoutingBufSize - 146432
RoutingPackets - 100
SackOpts - 1
SessionKeepAlive - 7200
SessionTableSize - 255
Size/Small/Medium/Large - 3
Tcp1323Opts - 0
TcpTimedWaitDelay - 30
MaxDupAcks - 2
DefaultTOS - 92
IGMPLevel - 2
MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server - 10
MaxConnectionsPerServer - 8

[Tio-Fu]

Thanks man

[Mohan-san]

Originally posted by Tio-Fu
I don't know very much about tweaking, so I'm here for a little help...
My PC sucks, it's a AMD 350 with 192 RAM.
My connection is 256k/128k Cable, MotorolaSB4200.

What I have to do? And, if someone can help me uncapping, please do it at my ICQ:
68040171

Thanks.

You do know uncapping is illegal right? and that if you get caught....well we'll see.

[JawZ]

I see you are using Win98...if so you need this patch:

http://www.speedguide.net/files/vtcp386/236926USA8.EXE

Microsoft Vtcp.386 Update ( read before installation)
The following program directly from Microsoft supposedly fixes a bug in Vtcp.386. It should be installed on Windows 95, 98 or 98SE only. Windows ME already has this fix installed.

According to Microsoft, because of a math error, the Windows 9x TCP/IP stack incorrectly computes a timer used to retransmit packets (based on round trip time to a server). When you are transmitting packets over high-speed/high-delay networks, such as any broadband Internet connection, this can result in unnecessary retransmissions and lower throughput... This fix helps reduce retransmission of packets, therefore improving the overall performance of the TCP/IP stack. While It achieves that, in some systems it might also reduce throughput a bit, since it increases the wait before a packet is retransmitted. If you decide to install this fix, backup, or rename Vtcp.386, located in the \Windows\System directory, so you will have a way of going back to your original setting. You can download the Microsoft fix directly from here, please get the one corresponding to your version of Windows :

http://www.speedguide.net/files/vtcp386/236926USA8.EXE

[mnosteele52]

That is only required to enable large window support (RWINs of 65535 or higher), with his caps there is no point in raising his RWIN anywhere near that.

[JawZ]

Originally posted by mnosteele52
That is only required to enable large window support (RWINs of 65535 or higher), with his caps there is no point in raising his RWIN anywhere near that.

I don't believe that this fix is just for large window support. Maybe Phillip will correct me if I'm wrong. From what I have read, this is a timer issue as it relates to retransmits. If you look at his other thread where he said he is getting packet loss and the high ping...i just thought it may be worth a shot.

Tio-Fu,

Goto a DOS prompt and type this in exactly:

netstat -s>netstat.txt

you should get an output like this:


IP Statistics

Packets Received = 37072
Received Header Errors = 0
Received Address Errors = 0
Datagrams Forwarded = 0
Unknown Protocols Received = 0
Received Packets Discarded = 0
Received Packets Delivered = 37072
Output Requests = 34167
Routing Discards = 0
Discarded Output Packets = 0
Output Packet No Route = 0
Reassembly Required = 0
Reassembly Successful = 0
Reassembly Failures = 0
Datagrams Successfully Fragmented = 0
Datagrams Failing Fragmentation = 0
Fragments Created = 0

ICMP Statistics

Received Sent
Messages 3 5
Errors 0 0
Destination Unreachable 0 2
Time Exceeded 0 0
Parameter Problems 0 0
Source Quenchs 0 0
Redirects 0 0
Echos 0 3
Echo Replies 3 0
Timestamps 0 0
Timestamp Replies 0 0
Address Masks 0 0
Address Mask Replies 0 0

TCP Statistics

Active Opens = 2057
Passive Opens = 1
Failed Connection Attempts = 3
Reset Connections = 1348
Current Connections = 1
Segments Received = 30330
Segments Sent = 27392
Segments Retransmitted = 20

UDP Statistics

Datagrams Received = 6736
No Ports = 6
Receive Errors = 0
Datagrams Sent = 6749


Do this now and post back here the results which will be in your root directory called netstat.txt.

Copy and paste here:

Then we'll see what we need to do.

[mnosteele52]

You are exactly right again UOD, I guess it pays to fully read something rather than brush right through it - no excuse on my part.

[JawZ]

Originally posted by mnosteele52
You are exactly right again UOD, I guess it pays to fully read something rather than brush right through it - no excuse on my part.

Yeah...it's like putting pieces of a puzzle together. Sometimes the user doesn't give us the whole picture until we prompt them to do so. In this particular case...I'm beginning to see a trend which is beginning to fit a common cause...and this is what we are after...the root cause.

[Tio-Fu]

Estat¡sticas de IP

Pacotes recebidos = 261774
Erros de cabe‡alho recebidos = 15438
Erros de endere‡o recebidos = 3920
Datagramas encaminhados = 0
Protocolos desconhecidos recebidos = 0
Pacotes recebidos descartados = 0
Pacotes recebidos entregues = 243126
Solicita‡äes de sa¡da = 261422
Descartes de roteamento = 0
Pacotes de sa¡da descartados = 0
Pacote de sa¡da sem rota = 0
Reagrupamento requerido = 0
Reagrupamento bem-sucedido = 0
Falhas de reagrupamento = 0
Datagramas fragmentados c/ ˆxito = 0
Falhas/ fragmenta‡Æo de datagramas = 0
Fragmentos criados = 0

Estat¡sticas de ICMP

Recebidos Enviados
Mensagens 556 174
Erros 0 0
Destino inating¡vel 3 8
Tempo excedido 1 0
Problemas de parƒmetro 0 0
Retardamentos de origem 0 0
Redirecionamentos 0 0
Ecos 10 153
Respostas de eco 127 10
Datadores 0 0
Respostas de datadores 0 0
M_scaras de endere‡o 0 0
Respostas m_scaras end. 0 0

Estat¡sticas de TCP

Abertos ativos = 3185
Abertos passivos = 3
Falha em tentativas de conexÆo = 189
Conexäes redefinidas = 795
Conexäes atuais = 6
Segmentos recebidos = 111362
Segmentos enviados = 116284
Segmentos retransmitidos = 5927

Estat¡sticas de UDP

Datagramas recebidos = 126765
Nenhuma porta = 4991
Erros de recebimento = 0
Datagramas enviados = 139136

Well, my windows is brazilian, but the order is the same. For you is good, you'll learn a bit of my language =P

[Tio-Fu]

You do know uncapping is illegal right? and that if you get caught....well we'll see.

I don't care. My country is not serious... =(

[Tio-Fu]

Heyyyy!!!!

TCP options string = 020405b401010402

MTU = 1500
MTU is fully optimized for broadband.

MSS = 1460
Maximum useful data in each packet = 1460, which equals MSS.

Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 1460
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 0 bits
Unscaled Receive Window = 1460
RWIN is a multiple of MSS
Other values for RWIN that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
513920 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 8)
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: 58.4 kbps (7.3 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your RcvWindow limits you to: 23.36 kbps (2.92 KBytes/s) @ 500ms
Consider increasing your RWIN value to optimize TCP/IP for broadband.

MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON

Time to live left = 112 hops
TTL value is ok.

Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF

Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON

IP type of service field (RFC1349)= 01011100
Precedence (priority) = 010 (immediate)
Delay = 1 (low delay)
Throughput = 1 (high throughput)
Reliability = 1 (high reliability)
Cost = 0 (normal cost)




1 connections tested since 03.10.2001.

My RcvWindow value is right??? IS TOO SLOW...
I posted a wrong information, my cable is 256/256, not 256/128...
sorry, correct the values for me please! Sorry about being so nasty

[vicoman]

Originally posted by Tio-Fu

I don't care. My country is not serious... =(

I wish the US wasn't serious in regards to uncapping

[Tio-Fu]

I wish the US wasn't serious in regards to uncapping

Hum, I don't know...
Yeah, I'm SURE that no one will process my by uncapping.
But if a car pass by my, probably no one will do anything.
Last year some guys BURNED an indian ALIVE! Do you believe that?
And now they are in good jobs because theirs fathers are from the govern, while good working people are starving every day.
What you think about that?

[jeff8874]

Im not sure I get the analogy. But then again, I can't really understand what the hell your talking about.
What I said was not meant to be taken seriously. I do not support stealing other peoples bandwidth.