I think that I may have found out what has changed my settings on my rigs and that maybe the weather station software that I run here. I've been running it for over 8yrs now.

maybe... I'll know soon enough though.

Cheers.

---

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...! :)

I did notice that TCPOptimiser makes a backups of your previous settings and stores them in its home directory.

There must be a way to restore the original settings from this backup. However I can't look it up now as I'm 2000kM from home.

T.A.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters]
"Tcp1323Opts"=dword:00000003

Made that change and ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!! 8MB AP WUs now download if a few minutes rather than a few days!! :-) :-) :-)

---

I incresed my recieve buffer size on my NIC to max.
And I use Jumbo packets on it (9000).
It helped just a litle bit...

problem still occours but after some more time...

Amazing
Installed this fix on March 9 and left for convention that evening.
Came back a week later and found that the downloads and uploads had worked without a problem.
Thank You.

OK... So this is a basic but obscure beneficial feature that has been in use as a default in other operating systems for years, and it appears to be available in Windows but not normally used...

Anyone know why?... Why might it be 'bad' for Windows to have that as a default?...


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

OK... So this is a basic but obscure beneficial feature that has been in use as a default in other operating systems for years, and it appears to be available in Windows but not normally used...

Anyone know why?... Why might it be 'bad' for Windows to have that as a default?...


Happy crunchin',
Martin

By default Windows does use this feature. However only if the other end initiates the request.
In a previous message I posted a link where Microsoft suggests changing this value to 1 or 3 (if high packet loss / retransmits are occurring) to "Improve Network Performance".

Improved performance does not necessarily mean a speed increase. However there are enough errors to cause transfers to timeout or go very slowly then adding the extra data for timestamps is a speed increase. Sort of like driving a little bit slower along a road to catch all of the greed lights instead of speeding to each red light & waiting.

---

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

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

Have you, or anyone reported it to Microsoft?

Claggy

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

It's already there, you just have to set it, and I very much doubt that M$ will turn it on for you.

Cheers.

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

No & there is no reason for the majority of the computers on the planet to enable the setting.
If you need to use it.
Then turn it on.
Else if leave it alone.

---

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

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

Have you, or anyone reported it to Microsoft?

Claggy

I have now.

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

No & there is no reason for the majority of the computers on the planet to enable the setting.
If you need to use it.
Then turn it on.
Else if leave it alone.

How many windows clients suffer from this and how many knows how to fix it?
I doubt 1%

So, will it be in the next update from Microsoft??

No & there is no reason for the majority of the computers on the planet to enable the setting.
If you need to use it.
Then turn it on.
Else if leave it alone.

How many windows clients suffer from this and how many knows how to fix it?
I doubt 1%

It's a complex scenario. My networking courses, days gone by, dictate running hardware & other resources no more than 75% utilisation. In today's age of underbudgeted infrastructure (here and elsewhere) it's easy to point the finger and say congestion management protocols should have been enabled as a matter of course, however these were never designed to be normal (default) operation, but to catch deficiencies elsewhere. Having floaties does not mean you should not learn to swim.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

How many windows clients suffer from this and how many knows how to fix it?
I doubt 1%

There are, what, something like a billion copies of Windows in the world?

The vast majority will be on the default networking setting, and will still be working just fine.

A few hundred thousand will be running SETI, and guess what - the vast majority of them will be working just fine, too. My little server downstairs always has enough work for its single CPU core, because it only needs about one WU per day alongside the other projects it crunches.

The only clients you could remotely describe as 'suffering' are the few thousand, possibly a few tens of thousands, who can potentially crunch SETI faster than they can download with the default settings. OK, we can attempt to do something about that - which is what this thread has been about. But don't kid yourself that Microsoft is going to facepalm and recall every copy of Windows sold in the last 15 years.

This modification works great for updating the SETI work units, but I've noticed that my upload speed has greatly diminished with it. The ISP limits my uploads to 125kB, but now I'm only getting just under 20 kB, and my FTP server isn't accessible at all. I guess I'll have to undo the mods. If anyone has any ideas what other setting change may correct this, I'd appreciate it.

How many windows clients suffer from this and how many knows how to fix it?
I doubt 1%

There are, what, something like a billion copies of Windows in the world?

The vast majority will be on the default networking setting, and will still be working just fine.

A few hundred thousand will be running SETI, and guess what - the vast majority of them will be working just fine, too. My little server downstairs always has enough work for its single CPU core, because it only needs about one WU per day alongside the other projects it crunches.

The only clients you could remotely describe as 'suffering' are the few thousand, possibly a few tens of thousands, who can potentially crunch SETI faster than they can download with the default settings. OK, we can attempt to do something about that - which is what this thread has been about. But don't kid yourself that Microsoft is going to facepalm and recall every copy of Windows sold in the last 15 years.

I guess it's me living in Sweden.
I expect things to work.
I flew a support note to MS, maybe they can make use of this. Mac and Linux has it default you said, right?

I think that as the time stamps in fact add more data to the packets, then M$ did a good thing adding the feature but keeping it disabled...

What's the point on overloading the whole global network sending extra data from all the windows computers when only a few of them will really need that, and worst, when it may lead to some incompatibilities and/or bandwith reductions in some cases?

---

I guess it's me living in Sweden.
I expect things to work.
I flew a support note to MS, maybe they can make use of this. Mac and Linux has it default you said, right?

Not every network administrator, and not everyone with responsibility for a secure server, thinks that RFC1323 is universally a good thing: see http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/TCP_timestamps.

Would you like your bank's IT manager to reveal their security status on the web?

Each internet server, and each user-server interaction, will have its own needs and sweet spot. As it happens, SETI has a "scientific data integrity" security requirement: that probably comes rather lower than privacy/financial/military/espionage in most people's security ranking. So SETI have - whether consciously or not, I don't know - permitted visitors to use RFC1323 timestamps. And it turns out that SETI also has the particular type of over-congested link where timestamps are useful - so it's a winner for us.

A company like Microsoft will probably make decisions like this in its server division (where most money is made), rather than the consumer division. And they'll know that many of their server products are installed in small businesses by people (like me) who aren't, and don't want to be, security specialists. So, it makes sense for them to ship the products with the fancy and potentially risky features turned off: a company which grows enough to generate enough web traffic to justify optimising the network connection, is likely also to have grown enough to warrant hiring some professional network skills.

From my experience of working with charities in the UK, I'd say that a s501(c) (3) hanging off an academic institution is unlikely to be high up Microsoft's target customer list.

I guess it's me living in Sweden.
I expect things to work.
I flew a support note to MS, maybe they can make use of this. Mac and Linux has it default you said, right?

Not every network administrator, and not everyone with responsibility for a secure server, thinks that RFC1323 is universally a good thing: see http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/TCP_timestamps.

Would you like your bank's IT manager to reveal their security status on the web?

Each internet server, and each user-server interaction, will have its own needs and sweet spot. As it happens, SETI has a "scientific data integrity" security requirement: that probably comes rather lower than privacy/financial/military/espionage in most people's security ranking. So SETI have - whether consciously or not, I don't know - permitted visitors to use RFC1323 timestamps. And it turns out that SETI also has the particular type of over-congested link where timestamps are useful - so it's a winner for us.

A company like Microsoft will probably make decisions like this in its server division (where most money is made), rather than the consumer division. And they'll know that many of their server products are installed in small businesses by people (like me) who aren't, and don't want to be, security specialists. So, it makes sense for them to ship the products with the fancy and potentially risky features turned off: a company which grows enough to generate enough web traffic to justify optimising the network connection, is likely also to have grown enough to warrant hiring some professional network skills.

From my experience of working with charities in the UK, I'd say that a s501(c) (3) hanging off an academic institution is unlikely to be high up Microsoft's target customer list.

Well, my Internet Security classes started with "want to be safe?, don't connect to the internet".

Well, I got the question, if I or anyone else have asked MS for a solution.
So I sent them a question. I have no clue if the right person reads the note though.
With a little luck they will halp out make the next RFC for this and implement it.