Just modified my other machine, which does MBs only and it d/l'ed 81 tasks in 10 minutes. Went to get a drink and when I came back it was all gone!!!.

[edit] You guys must realize that we just may have created a MONSTER, that we may not be able to control once everybody gets on board.

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

And to partitally answer my own question about possible downsides.....
I did a few speedtest runs on my Win 7 daily driver.
First, 3 runs with 1323 set to 3.
Avg. 4.8Mbs down, .60Mbs up.
Set 1323 to 0, rebooted, 3 more runs.
Avg. 4.6Mbs down, .57Mbs up.
Set 1323 back to 3, rebooted, 3 more runs.
Avg. 4.86Mbs down, .596Mbs up.

Now this was hardly a scientific test, as the results could have been skewed by the activity of the other 8 rigs sharing my DSL at the time of the test.

But, it would appear that if anything, having 1323 active helps my bandwidth usage.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Just modified my other machine, which does MBs only and it d/l'ed 81 tasks in 10 minutes. Went to get a drink and when I came back it was all gone!!!.

The landlord of my local pub commented that my drink did that last night, too. Cheers!

Just modified my other machine, which does MBs only and it d/l'ed 81 tasks in 10 minutes. Went to get a drink and when I came back it was all gone!!!.

[edit] You guys must realize that we just may have created a MONSTER, that we may not be able to control once everybody gets on board.

And it might be a very GOOD thing.
It has been commented many times by many people how much of the Seti bandwidth is actually wasted by retries and lost packets, etc.. If the hosts are achieving better transfers without the wasted back and forth negotiating lost packets and such, this could end up being very much a win win for the servers, not an additional load.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

I just wanted to point out that the download site does not mention Win8.....I tried it on my Win8 computer and it does not work there.

---

SETI@home classic workunits 4,019
SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours

I just wanted to point out that the download site does not mention Win8.....I tried it on my Win8 computer and it does not work there.

Which download site, which "it"?

OK, now we've had a good laugh, can we keep this thread clear for serious, hard, technical appraisal and constructive feedback, please?

[edit: sorry, not referring to you, Cliff - unfortunate timing there]

Well, I am sure that the option shall not be pushed in the next MS update...LOL.

But, one has to be curious why it was chosen not to enable it by default.
Does anybody know of a downside?
For example, does it limit transmission speeds when one is NOT dealing with a congested network connection?

The TimeStamp information adds two 4 byte tags for 8 bytes total in each 64k packet. So technically yes it actually does reduce the amount of data sent per packet.
However, if you are having data transmission issues it is advantageous to have a slight reduction in speed for data accuracy.

It is sort of like enabling Jumbo Packets. If you need to enable it then it is a gain. Otherwise it just slows things down.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

I've done some dl testing without knowing of this thread.
And I've noticed increased speed and less stalled transfers the last couple of days.

I have not ran the optimizer.

I thought someone changed some setting on the servers....

I don't think there's likely to be any way in which SETI, as a project, can access the client registry on Windows machines and make changes at that low level - and it would probably be roundly criticised as a security risk or a hacking exploit if it attempted any such thing. The one possibility might be to ask BOINC to include it into the BOINC installer, when the user is present and is explicitly giving permission for system changes to be made.

Could updating the Libcurl version supplied with Boinc do the same thing?

Libcurl Changelog

Claggy

I don't think there's likely to be any way in which SETI, as a project, can access the client registry on Windows machines and make changes at that low level - and it would probably be roundly criticised as a security risk or a hacking exploit if it attempted any such thing. The one possibility might be to ask BOINC to include it into the BOINC installer, when the user is present and is explicitly giving permission for system changes to be made.

Could updating the Libcurl version supplied with Boinc do the same thing?

Libcurl Changelog

Claggy

Hmmm. I doubt it - I think RFC 1323 operates at a deeper level in the network protocol stack than libcurl, but there's no harm in asking. I'll run them past Rom sometime - I think these are more his thing that David's.

I just wanted to point out that the download site does not mention Win8.....I tried it on my Win8 computer and it does not work there.

According to Speedguide.net Forums (TCP Optimizer): It doesn't yet work for Win8 :(

How about the command line that Richard posted earlier to add the value to the registry without using the Optimizer program?

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

I just wanted to point out that the download site does not mention Win8.....I tried it on my Win8 computer and it does not work there.

According to Speedguide.net Forums (TCP Optimizer): It doesn't yet work for Win8 :(

Does anyone have Win8, and a spirit of adventure enough to try one of the other deployment mechanisms? Does Win8 have regedit? Or a command prompt?

Joseph Davies TechNet article on TCP Receive Window Auto-Tuning as implemented in Win Vista and later also describes how XP (and Win2k) handled RWIN. That's useful for deciding whether the window scaling option is needed. I'm on dial up so I'll never need RWIN larger than 65536 bytes, but I did enable the timestamps feature on the theory that the sooner the download servers know I have a slow connection the better. None of my few downloads since have broken, though even before the change the majority completed in one attempt.

The additional timestamps header is 10 bytes, but headers are always padded to a mutiple of 4 bytes so the cost is 12 bytes. The tradeoff is that when a download breaks for an HTTP error, BOINC backs off 5k bytes when resuming the transfer to wipe any HTML error information which would otherwise corrupt the download. So doing what we can to ensure no breaks is well worthwhile IMO.

                                                                   Joe

It didn't seem to make much difference at work, on a W7 desktop and laptop. However, when I brought the laptop home to my own wireless network, it slid smoothly through its download backlog. But then, our work network/firewall is highly micro-managed by an obsessive manager who has "tuned" it to near unusability. When we were getting lots of "ghost" WUs it was almost always my work machines, and they also got lots of download failure errors.

On my home XP machine a stalled download completed smoothly but to soon to say if there's any effect. Now to go see if this can be tweaked on Linux...

---

Joseph Davies TechNet article on TCP Receive Window Auto-Tuning as implemented in Win Vista and later also describes how XP (and Win2k) handled RWIN. That's useful for deciding whether the window scaling option is needed. I'm on dial up so I'll never need RWIN larger than 65536 bytes, but I did enable the timestamps feature on the theory that the sooner the download servers know I have a slow connection the better. None of my few downloads since have broken, though even before the change the majority completed in one attempt.

The additional timestamps header is 10 bytes, but headers are always padded to a mutiple of 4 bytes so the cost is 12 bytes. The tradeoff is that when a download breaks for an HTTP error, BOINC backs off 5k bytes when resuming the transfer to wipe any HTML error information which would otherwise corrupt the download. So doing what we can to ensure no breaks is well worthwhile IMO.

                                                                   Joe

And data is encapsulated in a package within each layer according to the settings for that layer... OSI.model....
The articel forgot that....

Now to go see if this can be tweaked on Linux...

We think Linux has it enabled by default, but an actual observation would be interesting.

Your obsessive network micro-manager at work could probably push RFC 1323 to all Windows workstations via Group Policy. That would be fun.

Guys sounds like a lot of people have dedicated systms for running seti tasks. However I use my everyday desktop to run tasks, and do day to day stuff. After I made this change to TCP1323 my downloads from all other website seem to be affected. My downloads begin at a normal pace compared to what I am use to with my ISP but after 2 or three minutes my download drops from 1.2MB per second to 23k/per second. Has anyone seen this as a side affect in making the change to fix the SETI downlaod problem?

Guys sounds like a lot of people have dedicated systms for running seti tasks. However I use my everyday desktop to run tasks, and do day to day stuff. After I made this change to TCP1323 my downloads from all other website seem to be affected. My downloads begin at a normal pace compared to what I am use to with my ISP but after 2 or three minutes my download drops from 1.2MB per second to 23k/per second. Has anyone seen this as a side affect in making the change to fix the SETI downlaod problem?

I haven't, but that's exactly the sort of side effect that we ought to be watching out for.

Can you give any examples of the sort of download (and some source websites) that we can use to try and replicate that observation?

I just wanted to point out that the download site does not mention Win8.....I tried it on my Win8 computer and it does not work there.

According to Speedguide.net Forums (TCP Optimizer): It doesn't yet work for Win8 :(

Does anyone have Win8, and a spirit of adventure enough to try one of the other deployment mechanisms? Does Win8 have regedit? Or a command prompt?

Seems to work fine on my Win8 Pro machine with v3.08, if you need me to test anything let me know what

I just wanted to point out that the download site does not mention Win8.....I tried it on my Win8 computer and it does not work there.

According to Speedguide.net Forums (TCP Optimizer): It doesn't yet work for Win8 :(

Does anyone have Win8, and a spirit of adventure enough to try one of the other deployment mechanisms? Does Win8 have regedit? Or a command prompt?

Seems to work fine on my Win8 Pro machine with v3.08, if you need me to test anything let me know what

Again, please - what works fine? What did you do?