SG Broadband Community

Nice

Hadear wrote:Yeah i just checked it...It was on tight. How could you tell if its bad or not.

Cannot check it visually. If all else have been checked and found problem free, we just get a new splitter to see if that will solve the problem..

trogers wrote:Cannot check it visually. If all else have been checked and found problem free, we just get a new splitter to see if that will solve the problem..

well....I cant find another splitter right now...I'll check tommorrow...im about to go. What if the Splitter is not the problem...is there anything else?

I used Winsockxpfix to resett everything. And this is my Nitro test now.


WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 486.0kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 5.37Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Full Duplex mode
No network congestion discovered.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 90.79 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 9.58% of the time
C2S throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 1.35%
S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 0.71%
This connection is receiver limited 89.86% of the time.
This connection is network limited 9.98% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF

Server 'nitro.ucsc.edu' is not behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port was successful]
Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [24.208.xxx.xxx] but Client says [192.168.1.101]

This is with no tweaks...I used Winsockxpfix.

After using WinSockFix, your Windows registry will revert to default and your RWIN will be 65535. This is why the test reports "This connection is receiver limited 89.86% of the time".

Do some speedtests to check your latency and also a tracert to http://www.yahoo.com to compare with previous results.

Speakeasy-Speed Test
Download Speed: 6755 kbps (844.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 488 kbps (61 KB/sec transfer rate)

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 02.12.2007 14:53
IP address: 24.208.xxx.xxx

TCP options string: 020405b401010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 65535 (NOT multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 65535
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 2621kbps (328KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 1049kbps (131KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 113
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)


Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\HaDeAr MiKhO>Tracert http://www.yahooo.com

Tracing route to rc.yahoo.akadns.net [216.109.112.135]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 6 ms 7 ms 7 ms 10.68.192.1
3 8 ms 7 ms 10 ms gig5-3.fmhlmi1-rtr2.twmi.rr.com [24.169.224.17]

4 6 ms 7 ms 8 ms gig3-2.lvnami1-rtr2.twmi.rr.com [24.169.224.133]

5 20 ms 19 ms 17 ms son1-0-2.mtgmoh1-rtr0.columbus.rr.com [24.95.81.
205]
6 31 ms 29 ms 29 ms son6-0-3.ncntoh1-rtr0.neo.rr.com [24.95.81.181]

7 30 ms 31 ms 30 ms te-3-1.car1.Cleveland1.Level3.net [64.156.66.49]

8 54 ms 53 ms 53 ms ae-4-4.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.132.194
]
9 44 ms 42 ms 41 ms ae-11-51.car1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.68.121.1
8]
10 * 43 ms 40 ms 4.79.228.2
11 41 ms 43 ms 41 ms ge-0-0-0-p100.msr1.dcn.yahoo.com [216.115.108.1]

12 42 ms 53 ms 42 ms ge7-2.bas1-m.dcn.yahoo.com [216.109.120.201]
13 43 ms 42 ms 53 ms w2.rc.vip.dcn.yahoo.com [216.109.112.135]

Trace complete.

WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 486.0kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 5.38Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Full Duplex mode
No network congestion discovered.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 90.57 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 10.33% of the time
C2S throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 1.20%
S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 0.91%
This connection is receiver limited 89.99% of the time.
This connection is network limited 9.83% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF

Server 'nitro.ucsc.edu' is not behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port was successful]
Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [24.208.xxx.xxx] but Client says [192.168.1.101]

My download speeds are the same as when i had my settings tweaked. Its still averaging around 40 to 60Kb/s.

Hadear wrote:My download speeds are the same as when i had my settings tweaked. Its still averaging around 40 to 60Kb/s.

Your speedtests showed download speed at over 800KB/s (>6.5 mbps)

How do you measure to get 40 to 60 KB/s? Which site do you download from?

Read this thread and see if you are having a similar problem:

https://www.speedguide.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=216473

I have no idea why im getting 40 to 60Kb/s download. Im downloading from Downloads.com. I'll try other websites, if i can think of anything thats a medium sized download to try.

Hadear wrote:I have no idea why im getting 40 to 60Kb/s download. Im downloading from Downloads.com. I'll try other websites, if i can think of anything thats a medium sized download to try.

You can try downloading from these:

ftp://ftp1.optonline.net/pub/test64

ftp://ftp.newaol.com/aol6.0/179902/setupaol60.exe

ftp://test.tampabay.rr.com/ftp.50m.sav

Im getting close to a 1000kb/s from each (3rd link doesnt work)....I'll try using the TCP settings you gave me and try downloading them again.

Its about the same...with the Tweaks im getting about 1000Kb/s on the first two but the third link doesnt work.

But after the tweak

WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 486.0kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 6.22Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Full Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 152.04 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
There were 48 packets retransmitted, 149 duplicate acks received, and 141 SACK blocks received
The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time
C2S throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 1.20%
S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 1.50%
This connection is network limited 99.83% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON

Server 'nitro.ucsc.edu' is not behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port was successful]
Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [24.208.xxx.xxx] but Client says [192.168.1.101]

When i applied the tweaks with TCP the vidoes online started loading very slowly. My Podcasts on Itunes started taking forever to load. So i used Winsockxpfix again and everything went back to normal....But im still geting around 100Kb/s on most downloads. Except for the three links you gave me.

Hadear wrote:When i applied the tweaks with TCP the vidoes online started loading very slowly. My Podcasts on Itunes started taking forever to load. So i used Winsockxpfix again and everything went back to normal....But im still geting around 100Kb/s on most downloads. Except for the three links you gave me.

If you are referring to downloading from the server of http://www.download.com, then I agree speed will be slow. I just downloaded BitComet from them and my speed was only 4.8 KB/s (I am in Thailand) while my present torrents can total 100 KB/s. My guess is that the server of this website is overloaded.

trogers wrote:If you are referring to downloading from the server of http://www.download.com, then I agree speed will be slow. I just downloaded BitComet from them and my speed was only 4.8 KB/s (I am in Thailand) while my present torrents can total 100 KB/s. My guess is that the server of this website is overloaded.

this is not true, i can download from Download.com and most things go over 200+kb/s (i'm on a 2mbit connection in Egypt).

consider using a Download Manager such as Flashget to download things off Download.com and see if you can achieve 1000mb/s.

http://www.flashget.com/download.htm

try.

also dont forget......TESTING is 1 thing, downloading from international websites is another thing where pings go to the roof and ruin your download.

Now the Nitro test is saying something different..




WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 480.0kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 109.17kb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Full Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 170.45 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
There were 13 packets retransmitted, 28 duplicate acks received, and 28 SACK blocks received
The connection stalled 4 times due to packet loss
The connection was idle 1.72 seconds (17.2%) of the time
C2S throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 1.26%
S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 17.29%
This connection is network limited 99.91% of the time.
Excessive packet loss is impacting your performance, check the auto-negotiate function on your local PC and network switch

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF

Server 'nitro.ucsc.edu' is not behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port was successful]
Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [24.208.xxx.xxx] but Client says [192.168.1.101]

I didnt do anything....i just went back to do another test to see if anything changed and it did

Log into your cable modem and check its power levels and signal to noise (SNR) value. Post the log.

Frequency 555000000 Hz Locked
Signal to Noise Ratio 37 dB
Power Level -2 dBmV
The Downstream Power Level reading is a snapshot taken at the time this page was requested. Please Reload/Refresh this Page for a new reading

Upstream Value
Channel ID 4
Frequency 24208000 Hz Ranged
Power Level 48 dBmV

Right now im directly connected to the Cable Modem....for some reason now that im directly connected to the cable modem the nitro page wont load.

The nitro test shows your connection stalling due to excessive packet losses. Your modem log does not show any problem with signal quality.

Probable source of packet losses is in the cable line between your modem and the ISP's box, including the splitter.

If possible, run a direct cable from the wall jack to the modem, bypassing any splitter to see if the splitter is the problem.

I dont see an Wall Jack anywhere.

Hadear wrote:I dont see an Wall Jack anywhere.

Trace the cable from your modem to the splitter and after that to see where the cable ends.

The cable runs from the modem to a jack in the wall (which i didnt see)...the cable isnt connected directly fomr the modem to the splitter.

Hadear wrote:The cable runs from the modem to a jack in the wall (which i didnt see)...the cable isnt connected to the splitter.

If there is no splitter, then you will need to get your ISP tech to check the cable line from your modem to their box outside the house.

I can check it tommorrow and if me and my dad see anything...well call the tech. My dad is an elec as his side job...i just called him at work he said tommorrow we can check it...and if anything is wrong we'll call the tech. MY dad has a a device that checks this stuff..


Thanks for all your help...i'll get back to if anything happens