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 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 14 · Next
Author Message
Profile Mark Wyzenbeek
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Jun 99
Posts: 84
Credit: 1,567,545
RAC: 160
United States
Message 1343883 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 23:11:19 UTC - in response to Message 1343880.


I would say you would need to wait a week or so before attributing ANY fluctuation in RAC to this. RAC is not an instant yardstick and of course there is no way of knowing the total number of machines that have had this setting applied.

This thread has been read 1200+ times. That's an incredibly small number of machines for this project.
____________
The Universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine.

SETI@home classic workunits 1,405 CPU time 57,318 hours

aad
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 93
Credit: 158,032,356
RAC: 31,848
Netherlands
Message 1343884 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 23:15:49 UTC

Thanks Cdemers, for looking into this (and sharing!)
This really helps a lot!
On this Win7 machine the AP wu's won't download for ages.....
But with these new settings they will without interuptions.
Only 83 to go..............
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 859
Credit: 22,307,481
RAC: 19,139
United States
Message 1343885 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 23:16:26 UTC - in response to Message 1343876.

And here I was just thinking about having a RAC
of less than 6000 a few weeks ago.

aad
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 93
Credit: 158,032,356
RAC: 31,848
Netherlands
Message 1343886 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 23:21:02 UTC - in response to Message 1343883.

This thread has been read 1200+ times. That's an incredibly small number of machines for this project.


I posted a link to this thread on my own teampage.
I suggest you guys do the same to spread the news.
____________

Voyager
Send message
Joined: 11 Aug 00
Posts: 34
Credit: 15,218,132
RAC: 8,294
Netherlands
Message 1343895 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 23:38:29 UTC

Did the regedit before going to work this afternoon and came back this evening to see a nice empty transfer field..........
Great advise guys.

Rob
____________

__W__
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 110
Credit: 3,034,895
RAC: 1,384
Germany
Message 1343911 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 0:26:23 UTC - in response to Message 1343883.

This thread has been read 1200+ times. That's an incredibly small number of machines for this project.
..., but most of of this readers use more than 1 cruncher - except me ;-)

__W__

____________
_______________________________________________________________________________

cdemers
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 29
Credit: 15,967,108
RAC: 1,456
Canada
Message 1343920 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 1:34:51 UTC

@Richard - Maybe as a note at the end of the sticky...

For those people that do not want to run TCPoptimizer and only want to enable only RFC1323 can do so by the following.

Windows Vista/7/8 Machines can use the following commands in an administator command window to active RFC1323 Window Scaling and Timestamps.

netsh int tcp set heuristics enabled
netsh int tcp set global timestamps=enable

And make sure to reboot afterwards.

____________

ExchangeMan
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 00
Posts: 108
Credit: 124,142,532
RAC: 99,615
United States
Message 1343947 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 3:41:58 UTC

I just finished installing the changes on both machines and have noticed quite a difference during the last few update cycles. Looks like I might be able to retire my Seti 'helper' scripts. It's running as good or better than some of the proxy servers I've tried.

I was quite skeptical of these changes when I first read about them, but it's looking quite good for now. We'll see how it runs after Seti is brought up after an outage.

____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6465
Credit: 90,209,591
RAC: 73,794
Australia
Message 1343950 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 3:53:29 UTC - in response to Message 1343947.

Now this question has to be asked by someone so I'll step up for it, "Why are these Windows optimisations required by many now to get work downloaded?".

Sorry but I had to ask as I havn't been one of the many effected by this problem though obviously something must of change at some point in time time for this effect to have happened and cascaded like it has.

Cheers.
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 859
Credit: 22,307,481
RAC: 19,139
United States
Message 1343951 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 3:56:09 UTC - in response to Message 1343950.

Did you check your machines to see if
timestamps were already enabled?

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6465
Credit: 90,209,591
RAC: 73,794
Australia
Message 1343953 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 4:29:45 UTC - in response to Message 1343951.

Mine are, so why are mine different from anyone else?

Over the last year or so I've never suffered the problems that others suffered with this so the other question would have to be, "Why are mine different?, but then also in that time I've retired 2 PC's, XP and Vista, and neither of them suffered this problem either (I couldn't tell you whether they were or not). So now comes another question, "What am I doing that I don't know about?".

I suppose I could go on but I thought that it was still a good question to start with. ;-)

Cheers.
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 859
Credit: 22,307,481
RAC: 19,139
United States
Message 1343954 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 4:40:54 UTC - in response to Message 1343953.

Are they all the same network card/same software drivers?

Just guessing along with you. If you don't know what you did,
who would?

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6465
Credit: 90,209,591
RAC: 73,794
Australia
Message 1343961 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 4:52:50 UTC - in response to Message 1343954.

Well that's just it, all have been built by myself, all have been different platforms and generations and I only set them up for a power user (no power saving features enabled) but nothing that I know of special in networking.

But then again it maybe maybe because I'm picky with what updates that I do accept or maybe it's something to do with the one of the many programs that I use (photo/video/sound editing) but I can't see then having any effect.

I guess this just may remain a puzzle but I do wish that those AP's can be sent out in a better managed way after an outage as they do slow things down a lot still.

Cheers.
____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6465
Credit: 90,209,591
RAC: 73,794
Australia
Message 1343971 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 5:09:20 UTC - in response to Message 1343954.

Are they all the same network card/same software drivers?

Just guessing along with you. If you don't know what you did,
who would?

I can tell you that the last 3 have all had different cards, Broadcom, Intel and Via so all different in that department.

The only thing is that they all share in common is the same network and all different version of Windows even.

But I'll still complain about Vista's file transfer performance over my network compared to XP and Win7 (but then again there's still plenty more to complain about with Vista).

P.S. To my Aussie mates, I'm sorry that I doubted your problems but at least we know why I didn't have those problems, now.

Cheers.
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 859
Credit: 22,307,481
RAC: 19,139
United States
Message 1343972 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 5:11:07 UTC - in response to Message 1343961.

Maybe you used a different breed of goat for your sacrifice.

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6465
Credit: 90,209,591
RAC: 73,794
Australia
Message 1343974 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 5:17:42 UTC - in response to Message 1343972.

Either that or maybe its just one of the different M$ (that must be close to a goat these days) services that I use. :-)

Cheers.
____________

Lionel
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 00
Posts: 544
Credit: 216,274,329
RAC: 200,063
Australia
Message 1343975 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 5:25:19 UTC - in response to Message 1343950.

Now this question has to be asked by someone so I'll step up for it, "Why are these Windows optimisations required by many now to get work downloaded?".

Sorry but I had to ask as I havn't been one of the many effected by this problem though obviously something must of change at some point in time time for this effect to have happened and cascaded like it has.

Cheers.


Wiggo, I don't think anything has changed to cause a cascade like this. The issue has always been there. When the pipes weren't as clogged things probably just happened to work. Then came the weekly planned outage. On restoration there was a surge that took about a day or two to overcome and then you could see some spare capacity in the pipe for the remaining time. Over time, the surge lasted longer and now we are virtually at the point where the surge lasts almost the entire time between the weekly maintenance stops. What has happened is that more people are now caught up in the issue than before.

Whilst you may not have experienced this, I have for many months. The effective elimination of caching has made it particularly problematic and frustrating (and probably has brought the issue to the fore even more). The search for Proxies that live for a while and then cease working is just icing on top of the frustration cake for many of us.

My hope is that as more people check their systems and implement the fix (if required), that operational system integrity at Berkeley improves and we start to see the lifting of limits.

cheers




____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6465
Credit: 90,209,591
RAC: 73,794
Australia
Message 1343978 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 5:36:47 UTC - in response to Message 1343975.
Last modified: 8 Mar 2013, 5:39:29 UTC

Lionel what can I say but, at least T.A., Grant. several others plus ourselves now know why I've been getting work all these many months when you guys have been battling.

[Edit]But what I've done differently across 4 different versions of Windows I can't tell you.[/Edit]

Cheers.
____________

Profile John
Send message
Joined: 5 Jun 99
Posts: 26
Credit: 38,794,243
RAC: 34,130
United States
Message 1343987 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 5:57:23 UTC

I usually set back and just read these posts to learn what I can, but this time I would like to give credit to those who found this solution to download stalls that so many of us have experienced. WELL DONE. For myself it was the time stamp fix that got my system going. John

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5691
Credit: 56,182,708
RAC: 49,601
Australia
Message 1343999 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 6:58:14 UTC - in response to Message 1343987.
Last modified: 8 Mar 2013, 6:58:31 UTC

Just tried it on my systems- i made the change on one system, but not on the other.
I set NNT tasks till i had several WUs ready to report.
On the system with the modified registry entry, only one DL stalled; all the others had finished downloading in 1min 45 sec or so. The stalled download eventually started up again by itself, and it was finished within 2 min 20 sec.
On the unchanged machine the first of the downloads to complete took over 2min 30 seconds. 5+ minutes later there are 3 that are still stalled.
Time to make the change to that machine as well.


I ran my ISPs download speed tester before & after the changes. Over all, download speed is the same, although it takes a while to ramp up where as before it pretty much started at it's maximum speed. Upload speed is slightly slower.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 14 · Next

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California