Annoying Questions

Get help and discuss anything related to tweaking your internet connection, as well as the different tools and registry patches on the site. TCP Optimizer settings and Analyzer results should be posted here.
Post Reply
ColPeters
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:24 am

Annoying Questions

Post by ColPeters »

Hi All,
Yet another newbie to try your patience, just discovered all this stuff and trying to learn....

I've downloaded the TCP Optimiser, but haven't yet asked it to make any changes, just looking it over so far.
I've tried various speed tests around the place at various times and some say i'm going full blast, others not.
My son says we were going really slowly this morning, he occasionally complains like this, so maybe we have intermittent congestion ?

My Info:
OS: '98SE
ISP: AANET.com.au 512/128kbps
Modem: D-Link DSL-502T
Connection: ADSL PPPoE LLC
MRU: 1492bytes (user settable)
(no apparent setting/value for MTU)

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 12.26.2006 22:56
IP address: 203.171.xx.xxx(proxy:203.171.xx.xxx)
{Note: My ISP uses a 'transparent' web proxy}
TCP options string: 0204058601010402
MSS: 1414
MTU: 1454
TCP Window: 8484 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 8484
Reccomended RWINs: 65044, 130088, 260176, 520352
BDP limit (200ms): 339kbps (42KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 136kbps (17KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 115
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

So here are my questions:
1)TCP optimiser (current settings) reports no (registry?)
entries for MTU or RWIN yet TCP Analyser reports
MTU=1454 and RWIN=8484
So where are these values coming from ?
2)TCP analyser/optimiser suggest I set MTU to 1492 (pppoe)
but when I run "Largest MTU" tab in Optimiser I get:
Pinging [66.230.207.58] with 1453 bytes ->bytes=1453
time=482ms TTL=51
Pinging [66.230.207.58] with 1476 bytes -> ..fragmented
So then if I set MTU to 1492 wouldn't I be getting
fragmented packets a lot ?
(AND (bearing in mind that I know nothing about MTU
Discovery), wouldn't my current setting of 1454
(which happens to be 1453+1) indicate that
"MTU Discovery" is working ???)

Thanks for your patience ;)
Col
User avatar
trogers
SG VIP
Posts: 12323
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: Bangkok, Thailand

Post by trogers »

You can maintain your MTU at 1454. Mine is also set at this value.

Here is a link that explains in simple terms why we need to increase TCP Receive Window (RWIN) to suit bandwidth and latency:

http://www.askmarvin.ca/finetuning.html

Try these settings with TCP Optimizer to optimize your connection:

General Settings tab:
Custom settings - check
Modify All Network Adapters - check
network adapter selection - your NIC
MTU - 1454
TTL - 64
TCP Receive Window - 33936
MTU Discovery - Yes
Black Hole Detect - No
Selective Acks - Yes
Max Duplicate ACKs - 2
TCP 1323 Options:
Windows Scaling - uncheck
Timestamps - uncheck

Advanced Settings tab:
Max Connections per Server - 4
Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 4
LocalPriority - 1
Host Priority - 1
DNSPriority - 1
NetbtPriority - 1
Lan Browsing speedup - optimized
QoS: NonBestEffortLimit - 0
ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting - 0
ToS: DefaultTOSValue - 136
MaxNegativeCacheTtl - 0
NetFailureCacheTime - 0
NegativeSOACache Time - 0
LAN Request Buffer Size - 16384
Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect

To test speed, use the few Aussie test servers at this link.Your aim is to try to achieve 90% of 512 kbps (460 kbps):

http://www.speedtest.net/
ColPeters
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:24 am

Post by ColPeters »

Thanks for replying trogers, I'll give those settings a go soon.

>To test speed, use the few Aussie test servers at this
>http://www.speedtest.net/[/QUOTE]

That's one of the ones i've been trying, the first time it said i was going at 524/78, but 4 subsequent tests are all around 425/56-103

Should I also apply the tweaks/patches from the download section or does Optimiser supercede them ?

Cheers

edit: Oops ignore that last question, I just found you answered it somewhere else ;)
Post Reply