Everything looking ok ?

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:28 am

Win 98 SE, Cable, 500mhz 192 Mb ram.

TCP options string = 020405b40103030301010402

MTU = 1500
MTU is fully optimized for broadband.

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

Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 373760
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 3 bits
Unscaled Receive Window = 46720
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: 14950.4 kbps (1868.8 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your RcvWindow limits you to: 5980.16 kbps (747.52 KBytes/s) @ 500ms

MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON

Time to live left = 50 hops
TTL value is ok.

Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF

Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON

IP type of service field (RFC1349)= 00000000

Anything i should change ?

piranha · Post by **piranha** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:19 am

rwin too low

If you have cablenut test these rwin.... 467200, 470120, 481800 one at a time, click Save to registry, close with done and reboot

Cablenut must be install before all patch

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:32 am

What are your ISPs caps? I think your RWIN is too high.

piranha · Post by **piranha** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 9:52 pm

rwin too high.......rwin too low.........

Andrew

be welcome in tweak forum, the good place to be mixed up

try the suggested number, compare and choose

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:05 pm

Send me money and I'll give you the perfect settings.

No checks... cash only.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:22 pm

piranha what is the advantage of using a TcpReceiveWindow he is currently using much less going higher? It will only cause retransmitted packets thus slowing down his connection.

joecool169 · Post by **joecool169** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:38 pm

Am I wrong or don't we need his caps and ping times to suggest an RWIN, and on certain connections a very high RWIN can mean more speed

piranha · Post by **piranha** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:26 pm

Originally posted by joecool169
Am I wrong or don't we need his caps and ping times to suggest an RWIN, and on certain connections a very high RWIN can mean more speed

joecool169, you are right

mnosteele52

I respect your work and opinion but i helped many persons with high rwin and they got high speed

High speed with low rwin seems to work but high rwin works too since many years... While i try to understand your way of tweaking i keep suggest this way

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 11:58 am

I'm tired of expalining this

. It's not my "philosophy" it is how the TCP/IP Protocols work, period. If your TcpReceiveWindow is atleast as large as 500 x your caps NO larger TcpreceiveWindow will give you more speed - read the Windows 2000 White Papers. Also your TcpRecieveWindow CANNOT exceed the TcpReceiveWindow of the remote computer you are communicating with so anything larger than the remotes Window size is a mute point. If anything a huge TcpReceiveWindow size will cause stalls and slow downs - only negative effects.

TcpReceiveWindow

If each data packet had to be acknowledged before another could be sent, then performance could suffer due to the delay time needed for the data packet to reach the receiver plus the time needed for the acknowledgment packet to get back to the sender. To avoid this delay, the sender is allowed to keep transmitting data packets prior to receiving acknowledgments up to a maximum "window" size advertised by the receiver, normally large enough for several packets. The larger the window, the more packets that can be sent before needing an acknowledgment; however, larger windows can require more packets to be retransmitted when a transmission error occurs. Hence, the receive window size needs to be large enough to keep data flowing continuously, but not excessively large.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 4:40 pm

I used to get 350kb/sec download time and 384/kbps upload.

But Now im only getting 140/kb/sec and 184kbps upload

TCP options string = 020405b40103030301010402

MTU = 1500
MTU is fully optimized for broadband.

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

Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 467200
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 3 bits
Unscaled Receive Window = 58400
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: 18688 kbps (2336 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your RcvWindow limits you to: 7475.2 kbps (934.4 KBytes/s) @ 500ms

MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON

Time to live left = 50 hops
TTL value is ok.

Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF

Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON

IP type of service field (RFC1349)= 00000000

CaptainSpeleo · Post by **CaptainSpeleo** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 4:54 pm

Andrew:

I also think your RWIN value is too high. My ISP's caps are 384/2000 and I use an RWIN value of 256960.

Frank's Windows 95/98 Tips

joecool169 · Post by **joecool169** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 10:47 pm

I'm tired of expalining this. It's not my "philosophy" it is how the TCP/IP Protocols work, period. If your TcpReceiveWindow is atleast as large as 500 x your caps NO larger TcpreceiveWindow will give you more speed - read the Windows 2000 White Papers. Also your TcpRecieveWindow CANNOT exceed the TcpReceiveWindow of the remote computer you are communicating with so anything larger than the remotes Window size is a mute point. If anything a huge TcpReceiveWindow size will cause stalls and slow downs - only negative effects.

OK you are coming across like you are God Almighty and we are crap and you have to explain everything to us, which I don't much appreciate so stop that, and SG does recomend a formula for achieving the correct RWIN and the Analyzer even says: Other values for RWIN that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
513920 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 8)

513920 is a large RWIN and does work on some connections so cut the crap, and help the man tweak

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 11:02 pm

Originally posted by joecool169
OK you are coming across like you are God Almighty and we are crap and you have to explain everything to us, which I don't much appreciate so stop that, and SG does recomend a formula for achieving the correct RWIN and the Analyzer even says: Other values for RWIN that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
513920 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 8)
513920 is a large RWIN and does work on some connections so cut the crap, and help the man tweak

The post was not aimed at you but someone else, it's frustrating as I have said before to post the explanations of things in great detail and having someone too lazy to read and understand it post a bunch of useless junk. Nobody wants to read and understand anything and that is the problem. Like when someone who has over 100 posts here just says "can somebody help me speed up my connection" and that's it.... they know good and well we need some specific information prior to helping them but they are too lazy to type it in to post it, it's not fair to them or us when making such a useless post.

joecool169 · Post by **joecool169** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 11:07 pm

The post was not aimed at you but someone else, it's frustrating as I have said before to post the explanations of things in great detail and having someone too lazy to read and understand it post a bunch of useless junk. Nobody wants to read and understand anything and that is the problem. Like when someone who has over 100 posts here just says "can somebody help me speed up my connection" and that's it.... they know good and well we need some specific information prior to helping them but they are too lazy to type it in to post it, it's not fair to them or us when making such a useless post.

I'll agree

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 8:07 am

Very easy to understand analyzer, Optimizer wrong, mnosteele52 right, lol