Windows TCP Settings - Follow up - Help with server communication


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Windows TCP Settings - Follow up - Help with server communication

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 . . . 14 · Next
Author Message
Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5831
Credit: 59,400,184
RAC: 47,481
Australia
Message 1345435 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 18:09:39 UTC - in response to Message 1345277.

What firewall are you using?


COMODO Internet Security Premium...The Notice that a Program was about to make changes was staying in the background so it wasn't allowing the change.
I caught it when I looked at the Taskbar which I keep hidden.

OK, so it wasn't the firewall that needed changes, it was the security portion of the programme blocking the registry changes. Like so many othe programmes over the years, it's gone from being just one programme (in this case a firewall), to being everything.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Profile Ageless
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 12310
Credit: 2,606,644
RAC: 1,074
Netherlands
Message 1345530 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 20:45:09 UTC - in response to Message 1345297.

Can someone with Win7x64 who applied this try downloading this video driver from the dell site see what kinda of speed you get. I think it is just an isolated to the Dell.com website?

I have not applied the patch and am not going to do so either, as I don't mind waiting for my downloads to retry. :-)

I did download the video driver at an average of 1096.32KB/sec, on my 120Mbit connection. Dell's site is just slow.
____________
Jord

Fighting for the correct use of the apostrophe, together with Weird Al Yankovic

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7001
Credit: 26,689,904
RAC: 32,663
United Kingdom
Message 1345539 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 20:59:55 UTC

I have not applied the patch and am not going to do so either, as I don't mind waiting for my downloads to retry. :-)


To be fair it is not a "patch" it is setting the correct parameters for TCP, that Microsoft in their wisdom decide to leave off. Whereas Linux and Mac have the settings correct.


____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile Ageless
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 12310
Credit: 2,606,644
RAC: 1,074
Netherlands
Message 1345579 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 22:04:10 UTC - in response to Message 1345539.

Yes, TCPOptimizer wants to set my MTU to 1,500. Problem here is that I have Jumbo Frames on on my LAN, meaning that I run with an MTU of 8KB on the 1Gbit LAN. The MTU onto the internet is already 1,500, as set by my router, it can't be any greater anyway.

It has cost me a great deal to get the Jumbo Frames to work correctly on the network. It means that I can throw large files to the TV-server and not have to wait an hour for them to get there. Transfer speeds are in excess of 100MB/sec.

I am not going to throw all that away so that BOINC can download tasks at a sustained speed. It's weird though, as everyone now quoting this as if it's the New Holy Grail was before telling everyone complaining that the project never said they'd have work available 24/7, or that since the bandwidth was saturated to calm down, as everyone felt it. Apparently those notions have changed and it's now a class of important people, and the rest of the rabble. Which is sad.

But as I said, I don't mind waiting. Or my BOINC does. When it runs out of Seti work, there'll be more to do for the backup project.
____________
Jord

Fighting for the correct use of the apostrophe, together with Weird Al Yankovic

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7001
Credit: 26,689,904
RAC: 32,663
United Kingdom
Message 1345583 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 22:13:45 UTC - in response to Message 1345579.

Yes, TCPOptimizer wants to set my MTU to 1,500. Problem here is that I have Jumbo Frames on on my LAN, meaning that I run with an MTU of 8KB on the 1Gbit LAN. The MTU onto the internet is already 1,500, as set by my router, it can't be any greater anyway.

It has cost me a great deal to get the Jumbo Frames to work correctly on the network. It means that I can throw large files to the TV-server and not have to wait an hour for them to get there. Transfer speeds are in excess of 100MB/sec.

I am not going to throw all that away so that BOINC can download tasks at a sustained speed. It's weird though, as everyone now quoting this as if it's the New Holy Grail was before telling everyone complaining that the project never said they'd have work available 24/7, or that since the bandwidth was saturated to calm down, as everyone felt it. Apparently those notions have changed and it's now a class of important people, and the rest of the rabble. Which is sad.

But as I said, I don't mind waiting. Or my BOINC does. When it runs out of Seti work, there'll be more to do for the backup project.


I never mentioned TCP optmiser, you can set timestamps without altering any other settings.

I have no idea what "this class of important people means" personally I want everyone to set "timestamps" why would I not? It is the way TCP is supposed to work. All Windows users who can should set their machines this way not just for S@H but for the internet in general to deal with what will become more common, congested links.

____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5831
Credit: 59,400,184
RAC: 47,481
Australia
Message 1345740 - Posted: 12 Mar 2013, 7:01:54 UTC - in response to Message 1345579.

Yes, TCPOptimizer wants to set my MTU to 1,500.

So don't use it, use the command line commands as i did. If you don't like the result, just delete the registry entries they make.

____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2806
Credit: 211,481,389
RAC: 178,734
United States
Message 1345749 - Posted: 12 Mar 2013, 7:31:09 UTC - in response to Message 1345579.



Apparently those notions have changed and it's now a class of important people, and the rest of the rabble. Which is sad.




Oh, I don't know. Do you really think there's that much ego involved?

I think what separates "us" from "them" is the amount of interest we / they show.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I have no clue what might be in the mind of anyone else unless they tell me.

I just can't imagine anyone thinking they are "important" and someone else really isn't. Well...I don't know how many politicians or people suffering from the Narcissism personality disorder there are here, but it can't be that many.

But just from an objective point of view, if the project really wants to accomplish something / anything, the project personnel should have a bias toward those who contribute the most in helping them accomplish their goals.

I've never understood anyone who (and I'm not saying YOU are "anyone who," I'm just showing a blank spot in my conscience) thinks that as long as we all share nothing equally, we're better-off than if someone else is allowed to have something.

juan BFBProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 5344
Credit: 298,559,741
RAC: 464,653
Brazil
Message 1345760 - Posted: 12 Mar 2013, 8:19:57 UTC

I realy don´t belive if they change from 100 GPU WU per host to 100 GPU WU per GPU will "crash" the DB... and that will give the fastest crunchers enought WU to pass the scheduled outages.

If the DB size is the problem, then why not simply decrease the 100 CPU WU limit to 50WU? That will give a big diference (100k users with less 50WU each = 5MM WU!) against probabily few 100´s who have 2 or 3 GPU hosts (lets say 1K x 100 =100K WU). Don´t mention, very few hosts could do 100 CPU WU in a day...

Totaly out of focus... Hi Bret, how is your kittie?



____________

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7001
Credit: 26,689,904
RAC: 32,663
United Kingdom
Message 1345920 - Posted: 12 Mar 2013, 22:08:44 UTC

Ok as one of the "important people" who has set "timestamps on" I am reporting that after the outage all three current crunchers downloaded over 80 wu's without a pause.

Any other "important people" have any comments.
____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 7096
Credit: 95,210,807
RAC: 73,788
Australia
Message 1345925 - Posted: 12 Mar 2013, 22:15:46 UTC - in response to Message 1345920.

Ok as one of the "important people" who has set "timestamps on" I am reporting that after the outage all three current crunchers downloaded over 80 wu's without a pause.

Any other "important people" have any comments.

I must be even more "important" as I have never had this problem but upon checking my registries my rigs already had it set (don't ask as I don't know why it was when many others don't).

Cheers.
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 861
Credit: 23,673,730
RAC: 22,711
United States
Message 1345971 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 1:42:15 UTC - in response to Message 1345925.

You must be Uber Important. It's a good thing
there are important people to get things done.
Otherwise we'd all be just sitting around watching TV.

Profile rebestProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 00
Posts: 1296
Credit: 32,650,056
RAC: 11,771
United States
Message 1345983 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 2:20:37 UTC

Many thanks to whomever found the TCP fix and shared it. A few days ago I had 90 downloads hung up on one machine and 147 timeout errors.

With the TCP fix, my transfer rates are still painfully slow, but the WUs are getting through. That's what matters.
____________

Join the PACK!

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5831
Credit: 59,400,184
RAC: 47,481
Australia
Message 1346027 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 6:41:39 UTC - in response to Message 1345983.


Just got home from work.

For the first time i can remember in a very long time, neither of my machines had WUs queued up to download in various stages of backoff or project backoff.
Both have as much as the limits will presently allow. All without several hours of pounding the retry button repeatedly.
Wonderfull.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8421
Credit: 57,452,979
RAC: 75,012
United Kingdom
Message 1346029 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 6:50:24 UTC

I wish to propose a vote of thanks:

"To those who uncovered, and shared, the Windows TCP settings that work without the need for a proxy"
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2806
Credit: 211,481,389
RAC: 178,734
United States
Message 1346051 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 7:48:46 UTC - in response to Message 1345760.



Totaly out of focus... Hi Bret, how is your kittie?




Thanks for asking. Mitch seems to be back to normal (not real bright, but loveable) and he's even getting hair back on his belly following his surgery.

Patrick
Send message
Joined: 1 Aug 12
Posts: 2
Credit: 28,790
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1346096 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 9:56:41 UTC

Timestamp is a good choice for Systems that are in different timezones.
Lamport clocks and Vector clocks allow to determine the events of the casual order without a synchronization of the realtimeclocks at different positions.
Such clocks are used from Network Protocols and Transaction Systems.

A Vectorclock is a software component (or protocol) to assign unique timestamps on messages. It is therefore a logical clock, which allows the events in a distributed system, based on a time stamp, to assign a causal order to determine (sequencing) and especially the concurrency of events. It represents an extension of Lamport clock, which also satisfies the strong condition Watches.

One Sentence to the concurrency

On a massive parallel computer, these instructions are executed in parallel. Some modern CPUs are even able to detect such situations and individual commands the same time in different parts of the same processor.

I have this Information translated from 3 sites on wikipedia perhaps that´s the thing why timestamp works for many people much better and the servers and or routers are running more parallelized so you get more performance over the network and the connection does´nt break or held so often.

It´s just something i´ve read and thinking about that.
If someone knows more over this let us know or donate to seti if you want perhaps that can help too.

Richard HaselgroveProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8549
Credit: 50,358,619
RAC: 50,645
United Kingdom
Message 1346110 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 10:42:59 UTC - in response to Message 1346096.

The timestamps in RFC1323 are nothing to do with real time clocks or time zones. They are simply a second set of 32-bit counters which help to distinguish duplicate TCP packet sequence numbers. A 100 megabit network connection (such as Berkeley is using) can cycle round the entire sequence number space in as little as three minutes. See the section on PAWS in the RFC.

Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 5689
Credit: 4,731,206
RAC: 2,779
United States
Message 1346136 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 12:20:06 UTC

Greetings all,

We're having a problem and I need some advice on what to do about it. I pertains to what this thread is all about.

When I discovered this topic a few days ago, I decided to give it a go. I followed the instructions for using TCPOptimizer explicitly. I am running an older generation Intel i7 860 box with 8 GB of memory, blah, blah... I am not having the problem.

I use Speedtest.net to check our connection speed on the Internet on occasion. I used to have 9 to 10 Mbps DL and .7 to .9 Mbps UL. Now I have seen DLs as high as 20 Mbps and ULs as high as 2.x Mbps. What a major change! I'm loving it! :)

Our other PC is a newer generation Intel i7 3770 with 8GB of memory, blah, blah... It was having about the same speeds as my i7 was before running TCPOptimizer on it. We downloaded and ran TCPOptimizer on it and things went downhill BIG time. It is getting just over 1 Mbps DLs and .5 Mbps ULs. That's not good! :(

First of all: Can I use TCPOptimizer to go back to having the Tcp1323Opts disabled? I would much rather do it that way than manually working in the registry.

Second: Can anyone come up with something we can do with Tcp1323Opts enabled to get the speeds I'm getting on my i7 on our other one?

Any ideas / help would be GREATLY appreciated! :)

Keep on BOINCing...! :)

____________
CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr XO
USS Vre'kasht NCC-33187

Siran's website: [ ONLINE! ]

jravin
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 02
Posts: 932
Credit: 100,397,658
RAC: 85,608
United States
Message 1346147 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 12:50:37 UTC - in response to Message 1345925.

I must be even more "important" as I have never had this problem but upon checking my registries my rigs already had it set (don't ask as I don't know why it was when many others don't).

Cheers.


Maybe because you are using a version of Windows (if Windows it is) that was obtained from a bittorrent site? Some of those have performance tweaks built in, and the timestamp may have been one of them.
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4233
Credit: 115,898,400
RAC: 146,732
United States
Message 1346171 - Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 14:20:43 UTC - in response to Message 1346136.

Greetings all,

We're having a problem and I need some advice on what to do about it. I pertains to what this thread is all about.

When I discovered this topic a few days ago, I decided to give it a go. I followed the instructions for using TCPOptimizer explicitly. I am running an older generation Intel i7 860 box with 8 GB of memory, blah, blah... I am not having the problem.

I use Speedtest.net to check our connection speed on the Internet on occasion. I used to have 9 to 10 Mbps DL and .7 to .9 Mbps UL. Now I have seen DLs as high as 20 Mbps and ULs as high as 2.x Mbps. What a major change! I'm loving it! :)

Our other PC is a newer generation Intel i7 3770 with 8GB of memory, blah, blah... It was having about the same speeds as my i7 was before running TCPOptimizer on it. We downloaded and ran TCPOptimizer on it and things went downhill BIG time. It is getting just over 1 Mbps DLs and .5 Mbps ULs. That's not good! :(

First of all: Can I use TCPOptimizer to go back to having the Tcp1323Opts disabled? I would much rather do it that way than manually working in the registry.

Second: Can anyone come up with something we can do with Tcp1323Opts enabled to get the speeds I'm getting on my i7 on our other one?

Any ideas / help would be GREATLY appreciated! :)

Keep on BOINCing...! :)

The Tcp1323Opts will only give you a higher throughput benchmark if you were previously having a high rate of packet loss & then have a reduced rate of packet loss afterward.
However to change the settings back you can use the "Windows Default" button or do it manually.
http://www.hal6000.com/seti/images/Tcp1323Opts_disabled.png
http://www.hal6000.com/seti/images/Tcp1323Opts_enabled.png
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 . . . 14 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Windows TCP Settings - Follow up - Help with server communication

Copyright © 2014 University of California