Insane High Download + Low Ping

Pikaberdot · Post by **Pikaberdot** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:47 pm

Hey everyone, I was just messing around using some common multiples for very very high values for cablenut, and it seemed to work wonders (better than any other #'s I've tested before).

I use Road Runner Cable in Central New York with caps at 1500//384.

Here's my computer stats:

2.8ghz Pentium 4
512 DDR 2700 Ram
120 gig 7200 rpm HD
Windows XP Professional (no SP-1)
GeForce4 Ti4200 8x AGP

Now here's my experimental CableNut Values that have given me low ping in all my games, and web site tests, and even using ping in dos.

Code: Select all

DefaultReceiveWindow: 2990080 (my MSS x 2048)
DefaultSendWindow: 64240
DisableAddressSharing: 1
InitialLargeBufferCount: 1024
InitialMediumBufferCount: 2048
InitialSmallBufferCount: 3072
LargeBufferSize: 64240
MaxFastTransmit: 4096
MediumBufferSize: 16384
PriorityBoost: 0
SmallBufferSize: 64240
Transmit Worker: 32
FastSendDatagramThreshold: 8192
EnableFastRouteLookup: 1
EnablePMTUDiscovery: 1
IgnorePushBitOnReceives: 0
GlobalMaxTcpWindowSize: 2990080
MaxFreeTcbs: 8192
MaxHashTableSize: 3072

MaxNormLookupMemory: 5000000
SackOpts: 1
SynAttackProtect: 1
Tcp1323Opts: 1
TcpLogLevel: 1
TcpMaxDupAcks: 2
TcpMaxHalfOpen: 100
TcpMaxHalfOpenRetried: 96
TcpRecvSegmentSize: 1460
TcpSendSegmentSize: 1460
TcpTimedWaitDelay: 30
TcpWindowSize: 2990080
MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server: 40
MaxConnectionsPerServer: 20
DefaultTTL: 64
DisableUserTOSSetting: 0
TcpMaxDataRetransmisions: 4
DefaultTOSValue: 92

Now, I want you people with cable or with any type of service with SIMILAR caps to test my settings and tell me what you think... for me it increased actual downloads from all sites, and kazaa lite, and download tests all around. It even lowered my ping in Counter-Strike, Diablo 2, and Raven-Shield.

mccoffee · Post by **mccoffee** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 9:30 pm

I hate to burst ur buble having a high rwin has nothing to do with ping. Second having an higher rwin will give you greater download speeds, however you are just creating more retransmits. I'm reaching my capps with a way lower settings.

Alot of people think higher is faster that isn't always the case. I do agree have a somewhat higher rwin imporves kazza and winmx.

I was once like you i had adelphia I was telling steele no matter what i do the higher rwins work better then, slowly but surely when more people got cable

I was slower and slower, changed rwin to 51100 and boom back in buisness. If you want I could run the cablenut values you could try that are lower that might work the same.

neo86 · Post by **neo86** » Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:56 pm

Holy sh*t that rwin is high.

NIVO · Post by **NIVO** » Mon Jun 16, 2003 6:04 pm

This sounded interesting....hmm could you decypher this so i can understand it....the no comma/period thing was throwing me off!

nonetheless, Interesting!

"I hate to burst ur buble(<-booble) having a high rwin has nothing to do with<the>ping. Second having an(<-a) higher rwin will give you greater download speeds, however you are just creating more retransmits. I'm reaching my capps(<-caps) with a(<-delete "a")way lower settings.

Alot of people think higher is faster,(<-i added comma) that isn't always the case. I do agree have(<-having) a somewhat higher rwin imporves kazza and winmx.

I was once like you,(I added a comma) i had Adelphia,(I added a comma) I was telling steele no matter what i do the higher rwins work better then, slowly but surely when more people got cable I was slower and slower, changed rwin to 51100 and boom back in buisness. If you want I could run the cablenut values you could try that are lower that might work the same. "

you must be a fast typer....

but if edited it this way it made sense to me!

hmm, it kinda made sense to me now...the less people on cable the better someone might be by using a high RWIN at the time, but when there's more people in your neighborhood, it all goes downhill.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:12 pm

Pikaberdot those are some messed up settings, as mccoffee said......... they are doing what you think they are.

fretburn · Post by **fretburn** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 12:16 pm

LOL, booble.

I understood it.

goldeneye_bill · Post by **goldeneye_bill** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:43 pm

Well I hate to disagree with Mr. Steele...hello again sir by the way.....but if it works for him, then why argue over it? I mean mathematically I'll agree with you, but if what he did makes whatever he has on his screen pop up faster than some other way, then why change it back? Again, no disrespect intended just results are results

Kip Patterson · Post by **Kip Patterson** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:48 am

When you start a download, your software makes a connection to the site and begins, inside the tcp/ip stack, to download the data. It downloads up to one RWIN worth of data.

In the meantime, it asks you where you want it put. After you respond to the prompt, it transfers the data from the stack to that location. The progress window reports on this latter transfer. It does NOT correctly show the transfer over the internet connection.

Latency is determined by the network, not by your computer. Ping is used as a measure of latency. You may, under rare circumstances, be able to improve the pings, but there is nothing you can do about the latency.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:02 am

Thank you Kip.

That's what I meant goldeneye_bill by saying "they are doing what you think they are". I guess I should have explained my answer.