Anybody on wireless or sat look here

xbit · Post by **xbit** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 1:06 am

I found this rwin on a warez forum. The guys there were saying that they got really good speeds with it. You guys can try 32767. You guys can download Drctp in my sig, it edits your settings.

m4a2t0t · Post by **m4a2t0t** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 1:27 am

ill try it

m4a2t0t · Post by **m4a2t0t** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 1:33 am

not bad
Text Block Size 5000 KB
Download Time 13460 ms
Receive Buffer 32767 bytes
Transmission Speed 2972 Kb/s

TCP options string = 020405b40103030001010402

MTU = 1500
MTU is fully optimized for broadband.

MSS = 1460
Maximum useful data in each packet = 1460, which is equal to MSS.

Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 32767
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 0 bits
Unscaled Receive Window = 32767
For optimum performance, consider changing RWIN to 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: 1310.68 kbps (163.835 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your RcvWindow limits you to: 524.272 kbps (65.534 KBytes/s) @ 500ms

MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON

Time to live left = 43 hops
TTL value is ok.

Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF

Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON

IP type of service field (RFC1349)= 00000000

pages seem to be loading lots faster than b4

NotFastEnough · Post by **NotFastEnough** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 1:35 am

That is what Im using for my RWIN with cable... 32767. It seems to be the fastest for my connection. Everybody give it a try, your mileage may vary, as may your caps! Mine is 2Mb down

m4a2t0t · Post by **m4a2t0t** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 8:18 pm

SEEMS TO WORK BETTER THAN 256960

xbit · Post by **xbit** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 8:28 pm

anybody else wanna try.

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 8:51 pm

Okay... give me a sec to reboot

RWIN=522680

Test running..........
** Speed 3767(down)/73(up) kbps **
(At least 75 times faster than a 56k modem)
Finish.

RWIN=32767

Test running..........
** Speed 3706(down)/120(up) kbps **
(At least 74 times faster than a 56k modem)
Finish.

Stable download of 201KB/Sec

Test Number: 1
Test Type: Download 1 Megabyte
Bytes Downloaded: 1048576 bytes
Download time: 21851 milliseconds.
Throughput: 0.366 Mbps

Test Number: 2
Test Type: Upload 1 Megabyte
Bytes Uploaded: 1048576 bytes
Upload time: 33898 milliseconds.
Throughput: 0.236 Mbps

Ick......

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 10:58 pm

Caps/speed wont matter for rwin.

Lower ones seem to work very nicely.

Sting · Post by **Sting** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 11:22 pm

I not sure, but I think you've talked about this Rwin in an earlier post, that people were getting extremely fast speeds with it.
Well, I'm on cable and my provider's package isn't great at all;
500 kbps down/ 250 kbps up.
With the larger Rwin's, I had been getting download speeds of 230/270 tops.
I've tried the Rwin that you have mentioned; "32767" for about a week now, and I have to say that my speeds have "doubled".
Over at dslreports and a few other places, my speeds now are
around 565 kbps down/ and 260 kbps up, so I'm pushing the limit and then some.
Thanks for passing it on.

John!

NotFastEnough · Post by **NotFastEnough** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 11:54 pm

HalfLifer you are WRONG again... download speed, RWIN, and latency are all inter-related. A lower-latency or slower connection needs a smaller RWIN than a higher-latency or faster connection.

For example... an RWIN of 10000 is the minimum RWIN needed to achieve 2Mb per second with a 50ms ping. An RWIN of 49000 would be necessary to achieve the same 2Mb per second with a 250ms ping.

Instead of spending your time ATTACKING people, do some homework.

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 12:31 am

NotFastEnough,

I know..most of the sites we download from are under 100ms...so I use 64240 and get over 5mbps.

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 12:31 am

Originally posted by NotFastEnough

Instead of spending your time ATTACKING people, do some homework.

And dont say I attack, I didnt....and I do do my homework, I got all A's in school =\

xbit · Post by **xbit** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 12:33 am

I have tried sevral rwins since lobo and halflifer began fighting about rwins. I think Halfifer is right. The lower rwins are working better.

Idiot Savant · Post by **Idiot Savant** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 4:00 am

For unknown reasons, some people recommend Rwins that are up to 5x larger than necessary

My comp far and away can handle an incredible Rwin, but why do my speeds max out (7mbps, see signature) with this miniscule Rwin? Hmm

Also, why does everyone else perform better with a small Rwin?

System Load.

And besides, having an Rwin that allows for over 10mbps at 200ms is the stupidest thing I've come across. Especially since cable modems cannot transmit faster than 10mbps.

My absolute fastest Rwins are those based on unscaled windows that are smaller than 55k. Like this one for example, or 186880.
These usually work great on other machines as well.

Have fun kiddies

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 8:41 am

If it takes a larger RWIN to get you going faster use it, if it takes small one use it, whatever works, just because small ones work for some does not mean they will for all, see what works best on your system

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:22 am

K Dr. Spam

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:26 am

Hey DQ, I call what you do following me around spam

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:51 am

Lobo I cant even read what you just said your grammar is so bad....

And if you think I spam....geesh...check the General forum...

Look how many people said "Lobo is the king of spam".

Why? You havent learned how to edit your post! You put a 2nd sentence in a second post...you're just wasting space on the server.

NotFastEnough · Post by **NotFastEnough** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 11:32 am

Lobo has helped more people in this forum that probably every other poster here put together. Why don't you give him a break?

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 11:42 am

I was trying to reach out to teach him, to help others better, but he ignores me...

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 11:45 am

You can't seem to get it through your little head, I need no help from you

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 1:18 pm

Lobo,

You say you dont, but you look like a fool to amateurs who know their stuff

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 1:55 pm

Hey DQ General Forum, all you have to do is use search function above, type in Lobo or HalfLifer and see who helped who and how many

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 2:39 pm

Sure you help out, but some of your knowledge is wrong, and I was trying to help.

Now you are just bragging, and doing the immature stuff again...

Your 12 year old age shows quite well lobo

m4a2t0t · Post by **m4a2t0t** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 9:03 pm

Originally posted by HalfLifer
Sure you help out, but some of your knowledge is wrong, and I was trying to help.

Now you are just bragging, and doing the immature stuff again...

Your 12 year old age shows quite well lobo

DQ why do u pick on lobo so much he helps alot

Kastel86 · Post by **Kastel86** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:36 pm

Lobo also accusted me of something that wasnt true. And found out that it wasnt true. See this guy is all full of ****!!

xbit · Post by **xbit** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:40 pm

Originally posted by Kastel86
Lobo also accusted me of something that wasnt true. And found out that it wasnt true. See this guy is all full of ****!!

What did he acuse you of?

Kastel86 · Post by **Kastel86** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:42 pm

He accused me of having more than one screen name on here? And made everyone look at me as a cheater?

TakeruKobayashi · Post by **TakeruKobayashi** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 12:45 am

Lobo, check your post count there... scary...

Anyways, I don't think we need this arguing here, right? Why can't we just get along?? Come on, even if Lobo has the wrong infomations( not saying that he has), don't get so picky over it. I got great speeds using higher Rwins, other people got higher speeds using low Rwins, so there really isn't anything to argue, right?

Idiot Savant · Post by **Idiot Savant** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 4:05 am

d00d, its Dr. TCP.
NOT CTP.

xbit · Post by **xbit** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 10:57 am

ok, thanks i'll go fix that.

SG Broadband Community

Anybody on wireless or sat look here

Anybody on wireless or sat look here

32767

Halflifer,

Re: Halflifer,

HalfLifer...

LOL Xbit