Wifi -- Will this work on it?

[ildamos]

Hello.

Does TCP Optimizer work on wifi?

Here is the site of my provider: http://www.smart.com.ph/SMART/Services/SmartBro/FAQ/#a2


It says there: "which is up to 7x faster than dial-up, or 384kbps" is this in kilobits per second or kilobytes per second?

----------------000

My system specs are:

P4vp-mx motherboard
P4 2.4 Ghz
512 RAM
128MB 6600 GT OC

It says in this site: http://www.superwarehouse.com/Asus_P4VP ... X/p/388509 that I have an "Integrated 10/100 Mbps LAN MAC + VT6103 PHY"

Will buying a separate LAN card improve my connection?

------------000

My TCP Analyzer results:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 04.11.2007 06:34


TCP options string: 020405b401010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 65535 (NOT multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 65535
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 2621kbps (328KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 1049kbps (131KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 106
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

My Speedtest result:



-----------------00

So will your program work for my system? Also I understand that increasing Net connection speed WON'T do anything for your gaming ping or have I misunderstood? (I'm playing Tribes: Vengeance and my ping is horrible as I live in Asia.)

Thanks for any helpful replies because I really want to use this software and recommend it to my friends if it will work for me.

More power!

[YARDofSTUF]

Wireless itself is worse than a hardline connection for ping.

384kbps is in kilobits, kbps means kilobits per second.

The program will work for wifi.

[ildamos]

"Wireless itself is worse than a hardline connection for ping." >>>> this is good to hear; means I can still do something about my horrendous ping.

Thanks for the reply!

[YARDofSTUF]

this is good to hear; means I can still do something about my horrendous ping.

Potentially, but the farther you are from the servers the less likely you are to get a good ping.

[ildamos]

Yes, sadly, that is true.

Your product alters registy settings right? So if I save a copy of my registry with ERUNT or the program's built in "registry-saver", theoretically, I could undo the changes by loading the saved file I will have made if anything goes wrong right?

[YARDofSTUF]

Yes, sadly, that is true.

Your product alters registy settings right? So if I save a copy of my registry with ERUNT or the program's built in "registry-saver", theoretically, I could undo the changes by loading the saved file I will have made if anything goes wrong right?

Yes, and as soon as you run it, it makes a backup file of your settings too.

[ildamos]

Okay! That is good to hear!

Though I read here some of the users had problems undoing the changes. What went wrong? Their cases make me apprehensive. (but I WILL use your product! =))

[YARDofSTUF]

I have no idea. Not my product


If your worried then make your own backup of the registry, nothign wrong with that.

[ildamos]

0.....kay.





That is terrible. I suspect it's because of this:



Why did TCP Optimizer register my TCP Receive Window as 24820? Now my results are:


« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 05.19.2007 23:30


TCP options string: 020405b40103030001010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 24820 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 24820
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 993kbps (124KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 397kbps (50KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 41
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)


Why is my RWIN now so low? Is this a glitch? Because I didn't manually set the values.

So I'll try this instead:


[FORMER RWIN]/1460 >>> this will give me a number that if rounded up/down and multiplied by 1460, will yield another number that is a multiple of 1460.

So

65535/1460 = 44.89

Rounding this off to the nearest even number gives me 44 (a forum thread did give instructions that you have to round off to the nearest EVEN number). So

44 * 1460 = 64240

Surprisingly (for me) I got a number that is one of the figures in the "Other RWIN values that might work well with your current MTU/MSS: " list given by TCP analyzer and is nearer than my former RWIN, which was relatively optimal than the one made by this freeware. I'm going to try this figure now.....

[ildamos]

No edit button? Sorry for the double post.

I applied the recommended number:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 05.19.2007 23:52


TCP options string: 020405b40103030001010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 64240 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 64240
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 2570kbps (321KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 1028kbps (128KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 41
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

Here is what I got:




Should I apply the higher recommended RWINs? Why are there so many? I hope someone will reply to this as I really have 0 knowledge in this field. (I read the documentation but it's all gobbledygook to me. Sorry.)

[trogers]

Try the following custom settings with TCP Optimizer:

General Settings tab:
Custom settings - check
Modify All Network Adapters - check
network adapter selection - your NIC
MTU 1500
TTL - 64
TCP Receive Window - 32120
MTU Discovery - Yes
Black Hole Detect - No
Selective Acks - Yes
Max Duplicate ACKs - 2
TCP 1323 Options:
Windows Scaling - uncheck
Timestamps - uncheck

Advanced Settings tab:
Max Connections per Server - 10
Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 20
LocalPriority - 1
Host Priority - 1
DNSPriority - 1
NetbtPriority - 1
Lan Browsing speedup - optimized
QoS: NonBestEffortLimit - 0
ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting - 0
ToS: DefaultTOSValue - 136
MaxNegativeCacheTtl - 0
NetFailureCacheTime - 0
NegativeSOACache Time - 0
LAN Request Buffer Size - 32768
Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect

[ildamos]

Ok, I will.

I noticed you put in a lower number. What is wrong with the recommended higher ones?

[trogers]

Ok, I will.

I noticed you put in a lower number. What is wrong with the recommended higher ones?

This link explains why RWIN set too high slows you down:

http://www.askmarvin.ca/finetuning.html

[ildamos]

Using higher recommended numbers and leaving alone the other fields:











W/ Recommendations:




The lower numbers I think is caused by busier traffic; it's nearing midday here in our country and it's Sunday --- lots of chatters, etc.

[trogers]

The high RWIN of 64240 gives you better speed because your latency values are very high, all above 800ms.

Normal land lines would have small latencies of just about 100ms to Quezon City.

Your gaming will face high ping times due to the nature of your WiFi lines.

[ildamos]

Yes, sadly.

I'll revert to your mentioned value. I read the article you gave. I think gaming data are very small so I think I won't be subject much to the penalties of a high RWIN value.

[ildamos]

Yep, this proves it:



Higher RWIN is better for my wifi connection. Thanks Trogers!

I'll put this up in my blogsite and recommend it to my friends.

[mnosteele52]

This link explains why RWIN set too high slows you down:

http://www.askmarvin.ca/finetuning.html

That description is incorrect. You aren't sent smaller or larger packets depending on your RWIN, you are sent more or less packets depending on the size of your RWIN. The packet size is determined by your MTU, it will always be 40 less than the size of your MTU known as your MSS (Maximum Send Segment), this is why you want your MSS to be an even multiple of your RWIN, so you have the best chance of the maximum amount of data being recieved without dropping any packets.

When a TCP/IP connection is created, the machines on either end agree upon RWIN's for both directions. The upstream RWIN can never exceed the RWIN of the distant machine, and the downstream RWIN can never exceed the RWIN of the local machine.

Once the connection is negotiated, data transfer starts. The remote machnie (which I will call the server) sends enough data to fill the RWIN of the local machine, which I will call the user.

If the RWIN is at least as large as the modem cap times the round trip time (latency), no increase in the RWIN will produce a faster speed. Period.

If the RWIN is larger than the modem cap times the latency, then data will accumulate at the router that is the choke point in the system, in this case the Cable Modem Termination System. If the CMTS is configured to retain the data, then there will be no packet loss. If the ISP elects to configure the CMTS to discard the data, then there will be continued packet loss. Moreover, if there is more than one TCP/IP connection as a result of more than one program being open or the use of a router, the latency will increase because the other data has to wait for the queue to be emptied. If you use an RWIN of 500k on a domestic cable connection, subsequent connections by the user or by other machines sharing the router will have latencies of 2 seconds!

Why does it seem as though large RWIN's help? If you start a download, the server sends an RWIN of data to the user, and that data stays in the TCP/IP RWIN buffer until the user tells the computer where to put it, in the case of a file download. The downloading program then reports the speed at whcih the data was transferred FROM THE BUFFER TO THE DRIVE, not the speed at which the data is transferred over the net.

Lastly, when you ping or traceroute a connection, the lost packets that appear have NOTHING to do with packet loss during a TCP/IP connection. Ping and traceroute do not use TCP/IP.

[trogers]

That description is incorrect. You aren't sent smaller or larger packets depending on your RWIN, you are sent more or less packets depending on the size of your RWIN. The packet size is determined by your MTU, it will always be 40 less than the size of your MTU known as your MSS (Maximum Send Segment), this is why you want your MSS to be an even multiple of your RWIN, so you have the best chance of the maximum amount of data being recieved without dropping any packets.

When a TCP/IP connection is created, the machines on either end agree upon RWIN's for both directions. The upstream RWIN can never exceed the RWIN of the distant machine, and the downstream RWIN can never exceed the RWIN of the local machine.

Once the connection is negotiated, data transfer starts. The remote machnie (which I will call the server) sends enough data to fill the RWIN of the local machine, which I will call the user.

If the RWIN is at least as large as the modem cap times the round trip time (latency), no increase in the RWIN will produce a faster speed. Period.

If the RWIN is larger than the modem cap times the latency, then data will accumulate at the router that is the choke point in the system, in this case the Cable Modem Termination System. If the CMTS is configured to retain the data, then there will be no packet loss. If the ISP elects to configure the CMTS to discard the data, then there will be continued packet loss. Moreover, if there is more than one TCP/IP connection as a result of more than one program being open or the use of a router, the latency will increase because the other data has to wait for the queue to be emptied. If you use an RWIN of 500k on a domestic cable connection, subsequent connections by the user or by other machines sharing the router will have latencies of 2 seconds!

Why does it seem as though large RWIN's help? If you start a download, the server sends an RWIN of data to the user, and that data stays in the TCP/IP RWIN buffer until the user tells the computer where to put it, in the case of a file download. The downloading program then reports the speed at whcih the data was transferred FROM THE BUFFER TO THE DRIVE, not the speed at which the data is transferred over the net.

Lastly, when you ping or traceroute a connection, the lost packets that appear have NOTHING to do with packet loss during a TCP/IP connection. Ping and traceroute do not use TCP/IP.

Thanks Mnosteele52 for a clear explanation. Suggest this passage be rewritten and posted into the Tweaking FAQ section for future reference.

[ildamos]

Superb explanation; will read it thoroughly tomorrow. It's 12am and I'm sleepy. One last thing to wrap up this thread:

The TCP Optimizer makes changes to the registry right? If so there is no more need for the exe to be in my system. I'll delete it for now and see if it leaves any traces in the registry (the exe of course). It is okay for me to do this right? I know it is, but I'm just getting things straight.

Thanks.

[mnosteele52]

No reason to delete the TCPOptimizer, it's doesn't take any space and it's an easy interface to change your settings.

[ildamos]

Ok. I'll transfer it to My Documents then. It's eating up tiny bits of RAM if it sits in the desktop.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Ok. I'll transfer it to My Documents then. It's eating up tiny bits of RAM if it sits in the desktop.

It's actually just a shortcut..the documents sit inside a different directory, C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\My Documents.

It's has to take up hard drive space somewhere. The only benefit of relocating it is for backing up..such as redirecting it to a different partition than your OS..so you can easily format C, reinstall, and keep your stuff.

[ildamos]

I downloaded it to my desktop. If it sits there, everytime I boot up, it will eat up a miniscule amount of RAM (not storage). If I store it somewhere else and not bother with it, it will eat up only hard drive space (storage).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I noticed wiping my desktop of clutter speeds up my system a bit.

[JayG30]

I downloaded it to my desktop. If it sits there, everytime I boot up, it will eat up a miniscule amount of RAM (not storage). If I store it somewhere else and not bother with it, it will eat up only hard drive space (storage).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I noticed wiping my desktop of clutter speeds up my system a bit.

Yes you are correct. Anything sitting on your desktop requires a bit of power process and with either a slower machine/many icons it can cause a slight noticeable decrease in performance, especially during startup.

[ildamos]

Question: My friend got an information re our ISP. It involves changing settings in Firefox's TOOLS > OPTIONS > ADVANCED > NETWORK > SETTINGS. There we made changes to the MANUAL PROXY CONFIGURATION.

This was my settings before:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 08.19.2007 06:54


TCP options string: 020405b401010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 24820 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 24820
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 993kbps (124KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 397kbps (50KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 43
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

My Speedtest results before:


Now it's



While the result is staggering, (it still is slow due to a passing typhoon) I notice that now my RWIN is abnormally low:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 08.19.2007 07:10


TCP options string: 020405b40402080a09984eae0000000001030300
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 5840 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 5840
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 234kbps (29KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 93kbps (12KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 45
Timestamps: ON
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

The Analyzer also reports that: "RWIN seems to be set to a very small number. If you're on a broadband connection, consider using a larger value."

But the results are ok now. May someone clarify this? And is using a proxy legal?

[trogers]

There we made changes to the MANUAL PROXY CONFIGURATION.

This was my settings before:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 08.19.2007 06:54


TCP options string: 020405b401010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 24820 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 24820

While the result is staggering, (it still is slow due to a passing typhoon) I notice that now my RWIN is abnormally low:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 08.19.2007 07:10


TCP options string: 020405b40402080a09984eae0000000001030300
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 5840 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 5840

The Analyzer also reports that: "RWIN seems to be set to a very small number. If you're on a broadband connection, consider using a larger value."

But the results are ok now. May someone clarify this? And is using a proxy legal?

Using a proxy is legal but can be dangerous as the owner of the proxy server has access to all your entries typed from your keyboard - passwords, etc.

Check the IP address shown in TCP Analyzer. The difference may be that TCP Analyzer is reading the settings of your proxy and not your computer.

[ildamos]

Using a proxy is legal but can be dangerous as the owner of the proxy server has access to all your entries typed from your keyboard - passwords, etc.

Goodgods! I'd rather have the slow speed than a breach in my security. Thanks for the warning Trogers! I have reverted back to my previous settings.

TCP Analyzer reports:

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 08.19.2007 10:16
IP address: 203.111.xxx.xx

TCP options string: 020405b401010402
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 24820 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 0
Unscaled RWIN : 24820
Reccomended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920
BDP limit (200ms): 993kbps (124KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 397kbps (50KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 43
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

My speed now:



This is horrible! What changed? It has been months using your TCP Optimizer. It has been great but now this.... Is my ISP cheating on me?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I need help!

EDIT: Maybe I should place that low RWIN in my settings?

Nope; it didn't work:



Reverting to Troger's suggestion of RWIN: 32120...

[trogers]

Try the following with TCP Optimizer:

General Settings tab:
Custom settings - check
Modify All Network Adapters - check
network adapter selection - your NIC
MTU 1500
TTL - 64
TCP Receive Window - 32120
MTU Discovery - Yes
Black Hole Detect - No
Selective Acks - Yes
Max Duplicate ACKs - 2
TCP 1323 Options:
Windows Scaling - uncheck
Timestamps - uncheck

Advanced Settings tab:
Max Connections per Server - 8
Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 8
LocalPriority - 1
Host Priority - 1
DNSPriority - 1
NetbtPriority - 1
Lan Browsing speedup - optimized
QoS: NonBestEffortLimit - 0
ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting - 0
ToS: DefaultTOSValue - 80
MaxNegativeCacheTtl - 0
NetFailureCacheTime - 0
NegativeSOACache Time - 0
LAN Request Buffer Size - 32768
Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect

[ildamos]

Is there a possibility I have been infected with bandwidth gobbling spyware? I checked yesterday under safe mode though. I ran the whole gamut:

AVG Free
Ad-aware 2007
A-squared Free
Spybot Search and Destroy

I then restarted then checked with Microsoft's and Sophos' Rootkit revealers. I even have SpywareBlaster. All turned up nothing.

Trying your settings....

[ildamos]

A bit better but still a no-go:



But maybe it's because of the typhoon?

Edit:

Oooookay......




This is 5Kbps more than my subscribed speed! Thanks Trogers!

If this goes down again? What could the reason be? My ISP cheating/having problems?

[trogers]

If you can get 389 kbps, your ISP given speed may be 512 kbps and not 384 kbps.

Try the following with TCP Optimizer:

General Settings tab:
Custom settings - check
Modify All Network Adapters - check
network adapter selection - your NIC
MTU 1500
TTL - 64
TCP Receive Window - 64240
MTU Discovery - Yes
Black Hole Detect - No
Selective Acks - Yes
Max Duplicate ACKs - 2
TCP 1323 Options:
Windows Scaling - uncheck
Timestamps - uncheck

Advanced Settings tab:
Max Connections per Server - 10
Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 10
LocalPriority - 1
Host Priority - 1
DNSPriority - 1
NetbtPriority - 1
Lan Browsing speedup - optimized
QoS: NonBestEffortLimit - 0
ToS: DisableUserTOSSetting - 0
ToS: DefaultTOSValue - 80
MaxNegativeCacheTtl - 0
NetFailureCacheTime - 0
NegativeSOACache Time - 0
LAN Request Buffer Size - 32768
Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect

[ildamos]

That's good to hear but they do advertise it to be 384: http://www.smart.com.ph/SmartBro/Products/

Though yes, if you look up several posts back in this thread, I did use that RWIN value and got 270-383Kbps speeds.

I will try this now...

I'm now averaging around the mid 200's.







I noticed though that while that proxy I mentioned several posts back had results like these (thanks again man!), it offered significantly higher upload speeds. (Though it tended to lower my DL speeds; they didnt reach the 360 mark I think.) How did the owner of the proxy do that?