Slow response time with DSL
-
deacon
Slow response time with DSL
I have a 400Mhz PII running W98 and recently installed DSL service with Verizon. Response time has been abysmal. As a test I took my laptop (500 Mhz and 2000 Professoinal) from work and configured it to use the Verizon DSL connection. Response time was great. Question is, what settings, or whatever, could I possibly have set on my home PC which could cause orders of magnitude (at least 20x's) slow down in response time?
Could be your DEFAULTRCVWINDOW setting in your registry. Launch REGEDIT, and go to this key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP
Add a string named DEFAULTRCVWINDOW and make the value 64240. Close, and reboot. This should improve your response time. If not, it could be your NIC.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP
Add a string named DEFAULTRCVWINDOW and make the value 64240. Close, and reboot. This should improve your response time. If not, it could be your NIC.
OMARNYC.COM - My place on the web
What is the protocol that your ISP uses to connect? If it's a PPPoE I can help you with changing you LAN settings to speed-up browsing quite a bit.
One thing that works 95% of the time is pretty basic and does wonders: Go to the IE Internet Options/Connections Tab/LAN settings and remove Auto-Detect Proxy settings.
One thing that works 95% of the time is pretty basic and does wonders: Go to the IE Internet Options/Connections Tab/LAN settings and remove Auto-Detect Proxy settings.
Nothing quite so drastic MosDef...You are right about the bindings though. What I mean is that in most cases when IE is configured to "Connect through a LAN" and the proxy settings are enabled, browsing is slowed down more than just a bit. This is because IE is looking for a proxy server. It can take up to 5 minutes to load a basic web page in that case. If the proxy settings really is the problem here, then download speed should be excellent and browsing speed on the other hand will be poor.
*** In response to Jaywin ***
IE detects proxy settings on a first-launch basis. When it doesn't detect a proxy server, it simply proceeds to make a direct TCP connection. If successful, it continues to use a direct TCP connection, instead. His browsing may be lagging because of congestion at his ISP's DNS server, or network congestion occurring on his particular circuit or OC3. Verizon is very notorious for providing broadband connections to residential users without allocating adequate bandwidth at their CO's. I just underwent a four-month long ordeal with them and Telocity DSL about this as well, being affected with similar symptoms to the ones deacon describes.
IE detects proxy settings on a first-launch basis. When it doesn't detect a proxy server, it simply proceeds to make a direct TCP connection. If successful, it continues to use a direct TCP connection, instead. His browsing may be lagging because of congestion at his ISP's DNS server, or network congestion occurring on his particular circuit or OC3. Verizon is very notorious for providing broadband connections to residential users without allocating adequate bandwidth at their CO's. I just underwent a four-month long ordeal with them and Telocity DSL about this as well, being affected with similar symptoms to the ones deacon describes.
OMARNYC.COM - My place on the web
I really don't care to argue about it MosDef...It was just a practical suggestion that I practice about 1 000 000 times a day on my customers computers and it works 
.
Besides, if it had anything to do with line congestion there is not much of a chance that Deacon's laptop would be browsing about 20x faster from the same location as his desktop PC. And I really don't know about Verizon's traffic or network configuration.
BTW Deacon...some other very small things to try: If you have a really large HD and have been surfing the net for a couple of months, try just clearing the cache; IE by default eats up 10% of your HD for cache...If you have a 30 gig hard-drive that's 3gigs of cache!
Has anyone mentionned that your DSL modem/router needs to be as close a possible to the phone jack to get a higher synchronisation rate? Check the length of your RJ-11 cable between the modem and the Jack. If you are using a cable that is longer than 6ft (on an Alcatel networks platform anyway...) you may be loosing precious bandwith. This won't make any difference between your laptop and desktop PCs but it can certainly help your speed in general.
I know these are pretty basic suggestions but sometimes the thoughest problem has a simple solution.
.Besides, if it had anything to do with line congestion there is not much of a chance that Deacon's laptop would be browsing about 20x faster from the same location as his desktop PC. And I really don't know about Verizon's traffic or network configuration.
BTW Deacon...some other very small things to try: If you have a really large HD and have been surfing the net for a couple of months, try just clearing the cache; IE by default eats up 10% of your HD for cache...If you have a 30 gig hard-drive that's 3gigs of cache!
Has anyone mentionned that your DSL modem/router needs to be as close a possible to the phone jack to get a higher synchronisation rate? Check the length of your RJ-11 cable between the modem and the Jack. If you are using a cable that is longer than 6ft (on an Alcatel networks platform anyway...) you may be loosing precious bandwith. This won't make any difference between your laptop and desktop PCs but it can certainly help your speed in general.
I know these are pretty basic suggestions but sometimes the thoughest problem has a simple solution.
*** In response to Jaywin ***
PPPoE can only bind to IP as far as I know, unless you're suggesting to unbind all other protocols bound to his NIC in his Network control panel.
PPPoE can only bind to IP as far as I know, unless you're suggesting to unbind all other protocols bound to his NIC in his Network control panel.
OMARNYC.COM - My place on the web
You did the best troubleshoot possible when you tried a different computer. You found the Verizon network to be just fine. The issue is within your computer. Not the cords, not the modem, not the DLS service. Remove and reinstall your tcp/ip stack and configure it properly. Check the NIC card for any issues as well. Configure your browser correctly so there are no check marks in the Tools/Internet Options/Connections/Lan Settings window. Nothing needs checked there, not auto detect, not proxy...nothing. The other good tip is simple. Clear all browser cache and cookies. Re set the allocation size for the cache to about 1 meg if possible. Smaller is better. Just start with basic stuff and dont be tweaking the registry till you are sure the basics are correct.
Born Redneck
Can you be more specific about which Verizon CO or RSU is operating this way? I could use a little more information. City, State...etc? Where did you glean the information about allocation of bandwidth? DSL runs over copper from the CO to customers. His "circuit" as you refer to it is not the source of congestion if any even exists at all. He clearly stated he took a second computer and it worked very well. How that equates to your description of Verizon as being notorious for dishing out service that does not comply with PUC and FCC regulated standards baffles me. Obviously you have "insider info"?Verizon is very notorious for providing broadband connections to residential users without allocating adequate bandwidth at their CO's.
This is from your own website, Omar, your own words: (I highlighted one particular part here)
[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: InHere ]Things I dislike: Dishonesty, disrespect, disregard for others, people who are loud and like to bad mouth others for their amusement. Well, that's it about me. Thanks for reading.
Born Redneck
I just want to share my experience that may relate to your problem.
After 5 weeks of testing/searching on my slow DSL problem, I finally narrowed down to the Kingston Ethernet adapter card/driver (model #: KNE111Tx). It appeared to hold back a partial send/receive from its buffer and never let my browser (both IE and Netscape) to complete loading a page or download. Try another NIC brand or model. That's pretty easy, if you can find one. I think patches may help, but will not offer that dramatic speed difference.
Good luck!
After 5 weeks of testing/searching on my slow DSL problem, I finally narrowed down to the Kingston Ethernet adapter card/driver (model #: KNE111Tx). It appeared to hold back a partial send/receive from its buffer and never let my browser (both IE and Netscape) to complete loading a page or download. Try another NIC brand or model. That's pretty easy, if you can find one. I think patches may help, but will not offer that dramatic speed difference.
Good luck!
Stalls and freezes Slow downsOriginally posted by deacon:
I have a 400Mhz PII running W98 and recently installed DSL service with Verizon. Response time has been abysmal. As a test I took my laptop (500 Mhz and 2000 Professoinal) from work and configured it to use the Verizon DSL connection. Response time was great. Question is, what settings, or whatever, could I possibly have set on my home PC which could cause orders of magnitude (at least 20x's) slow down in response time?
Are caused by DHCP time in Windohs esp in win98 & SE/ME
Do this
Open control panel
Open Network
Look for the first entry in the scroll box marked TCP/IP, that is associated with a hardware ethernet card (ignore dialup, AOL and VPN type bindings).
Select it and press properties
Select IP address from the tab
Is Obtain IP address automatically checked? if so, change that to Define IP address and enter 196.54.1.10, and 255.255.255.0, into IP address and subnet mask fields respectively
This assignment of a harmless local IP address to the TCP/IP settings bound (connected) to your network adaptor, will stop the built in DHCP services from waking up every 10 minutes to look for a DHCP server so that it can "fill in the blanks".
Also if this is Win98SE do this
Microsofts NDIS fix for Windows 98SE
Plus install the speedguide web tweak for faster loading of web pages
While you at it do the tweak test
heres the tweak test save you some time.
Tweak test right here
Copy and paste it back in the BB
Leave out your IP address from the test..
*** In response to InHere ***
I have no reason to post false statements on this site, even though I do appreciate your pointing out the bio info I placed on my site. The CO I referred to, my own, NYCXNYTR, was undisputably one of the CO's with capacity issues a couple of months ago when Verizon made the announcement about putting a hold on pending DSL install orders due to network capacity issues. I experienced this problem since my DSL provider leases capacity from their DS3's, as opposed to a CLEC like Covad or former NorthPoint that provide their own. Whether they're complying with the PUC's standards for providing adequate service for all, that's an issue I don't even care to elaborate on. There are too many politics involved in an issue that should be technical to begin with. When I say the problem might be with his particular circuit, I imply saying that his particular PVC may be connected to a T1 or DS3 that is heavily congested. There is a Hawaii-based ISP, FlexNet, that clearly admits that Verizon has a tendency of overcrowding their backhaul circuits maintaining that several studies by engineers confirm that the way their DS3's are populated abide by the theoretically limit set forth by these engineers. Who in the right mind may think that 92 DSL subscribers leasing a DSL circuit trained at 768KBps are getting adequate bandwidth by attaching their PVC's to a T1? If you do the math, 92 PVC's trained at 768KBps connected to a backhaul circuit will get the bandwidth they're supposed to get if the circuit the PVC's are attached to has a rated capacity of 70MB/sec. Theoretically, to allocate proper bandwidth for these PVC's, you'd need at least two DS3's. Why isn't this done? You guessed it, it's cheaper not to do so. If you knew some of the technical aspects of DSL, you'd understand my argument. My argument has nothing to do with bad-mouthing them, or disliking them at all. You tell me something I don't know, and maybe I may be wrong.
I have no reason to post false statements on this site, even though I do appreciate your pointing out the bio info I placed on my site. The CO I referred to, my own, NYCXNYTR, was undisputably one of the CO's with capacity issues a couple of months ago when Verizon made the announcement about putting a hold on pending DSL install orders due to network capacity issues. I experienced this problem since my DSL provider leases capacity from their DS3's, as opposed to a CLEC like Covad or former NorthPoint that provide their own. Whether they're complying with the PUC's standards for providing adequate service for all, that's an issue I don't even care to elaborate on. There are too many politics involved in an issue that should be technical to begin with. When I say the problem might be with his particular circuit, I imply saying that his particular PVC may be connected to a T1 or DS3 that is heavily congested. There is a Hawaii-based ISP, FlexNet, that clearly admits that Verizon has a tendency of overcrowding their backhaul circuits maintaining that several studies by engineers confirm that the way their DS3's are populated abide by the theoretically limit set forth by these engineers. Who in the right mind may think that 92 DSL subscribers leasing a DSL circuit trained at 768KBps are getting adequate bandwidth by attaching their PVC's to a T1? If you do the math, 92 PVC's trained at 768KBps connected to a backhaul circuit will get the bandwidth they're supposed to get if the circuit the PVC's are attached to has a rated capacity of 70MB/sec. Theoretically, to allocate proper bandwidth for these PVC's, you'd need at least two DS3's. Why isn't this done? You guessed it, it's cheaper not to do so. If you knew some of the technical aspects of DSL, you'd understand my argument. My argument has nothing to do with bad-mouthing them, or disliking them at all. You tell me something I don't know, and maybe I may be wrong.
OMARNYC.COM - My place on the web
*** In response to Jaywin ***
I didn't mean to argue your point, sorry if you took it that way. You are right, it may be as simple as unchecking the setting you talked about, or clearing the cache. Whatever works, as long as it fixes it.
I didn't mean to argue your point, sorry if you took it that way. You are right, it may be as simple as unchecking the setting you talked about, or clearing the cache. Whatever works, as long as it fixes it.
OMARNYC.COM - My place on the web
Well, I can see that patience grew thin. Like I wrote before, I never suspected Ethernet NIC/driver was the problem until I went through ALL the process of elimination - using my notebook (with Ethernet PCMCIA card) on the same DSL modem and phone jack, same browser (both Netscape and MS-IE, same DHCP setting ... In comparison, my desktop NEVER could finish any download. Pacbell tech support Pinged my modem IP address while I am on line (because of using DHCP). There was no lost packet or error. Further, these sessions almost NEVER got timed out by the server that was downloading a particular web page element or downloading a FTP file. It was just simply waiting, for hours, until I clicked "stop" or "reload" on the browser. That led me to suspect the Ethernet NIC/driver - the ONLY thing that is DIFFERENT between my desktop and notebook setups.
With my background in this area, NIC/driver interacts with its counterpart in the DSL modem box. If the driver held back a partial transmit/receive in its buffer, DSL modem firmware does not know, therefore, the remote servers "think" it is just talking to a slow link, therefore, patiently waiting. This is further confirmed when I clicked on the "stop" button on the browser. Usually, that action forces a termination that in turn forces the NIC driver to flush its partial buffer. That made the remote server know that a session had ended and took action after that...
I don't know if you experienced the same symptom. I just want to offer my 2 cents.
The bottom line is that after replacing my Ethernet NIC, EVERYTHING worked. I am now getting about 1.3Mbps down very consistently. If a server was busy in down loading my page or file, I also got notified, in stead of never completing.
I am not debating if any registry tweaks or network stack changes will improve or not. It is my lesson learned after 5+ weeks of searching. To me, I have collected quite a few adapter cards over the last 10 years working in Ethernet LAN business. Old solder never die. In my case, my old NIC worked much better than its newer cost-down counterpart.
With my background in this area, NIC/driver interacts with its counterpart in the DSL modem box. If the driver held back a partial transmit/receive in its buffer, DSL modem firmware does not know, therefore, the remote servers "think" it is just talking to a slow link, therefore, patiently waiting. This is further confirmed when I clicked on the "stop" button on the browser. Usually, that action forces a termination that in turn forces the NIC driver to flush its partial buffer. That made the remote server know that a session had ended and took action after that...
I don't know if you experienced the same symptom. I just want to offer my 2 cents.
The bottom line is that after replacing my Ethernet NIC, EVERYTHING worked. I am now getting about 1.3Mbps down very consistently. If a server was busy in down loading my page or file, I also got notified, in stead of never completing.
I am not debating if any registry tweaks or network stack changes will improve or not. It is my lesson learned after 5+ weeks of searching. To me, I have collected quite a few adapter cards over the last 10 years working in Ethernet LAN business. Old solder never die. In my case, my old NIC worked much better than its newer cost-down counterpart.
*** In response to Denny ***
That actually makes sense, I have come across piece of sh** desktop NIC's that breaks hell loose on newer systems. Glad it now works though.
That actually makes sense, I have come across piece of sh** desktop NIC's that breaks hell loose on newer systems. Glad it now works though.
OMARNYC.COM - My place on the web
-
hmoobvaj
Man, I thought I had problems. My FU**** usb dsl modem is like that too. Slow response, dead connection, keep getting disconnected. All I know is that we all have close to the same problems. I wonder how good is Satalite connection???Originally posted by deacon:
I have a 400Mhz PII running W98 and recently installed DSL service with Verizon. Response time has been abysmal. As a test I took my laptop (500 Mhz and 2000 Professoinal) from work and configured it to use the Verizon DSL connection. Response time was great. Question is, what settings, or whatever, could I possibly have set on my home PC which could cause orders of magnitude (at least 20x's) slow down in response time?
-
crazyjw1971
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Clinton MD, USA
Ummm...Verizon sucks! Period.
Check these things---
Go to Control Panel>>Network
Under your NIC adapter, make sure its obtaining its own IP address automatically, the DNS configuration is disabled, and the WINS Resolution is disabled. Do the same for the Dial Up Adapter and Dial Up Adapter #2.
After restarting, if the computer takes really long to reboot, go back to the NIC card configuration and assign the following IP address...
IP address 192.168.10.21
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
After you restart, apply the speedguide WIN98 tweak that says "PPPoE" at the end. Also download and intall the MS Vtcp.386 fix for Windows 98.
I got the best performance with these changes. But Verizon still sucks. Any problems after that will be on their end. I had the same problem and it turned out to be a problem at the C/O.
I hope this helps...
[ 05-19-2001: Message edited by: crazyjw1971 ]
Check these things---
Go to Control Panel>>Network
Under your NIC adapter, make sure its obtaining its own IP address automatically, the DNS configuration is disabled, and the WINS Resolution is disabled. Do the same for the Dial Up Adapter and Dial Up Adapter #2.
After restarting, if the computer takes really long to reboot, go back to the NIC card configuration and assign the following IP address...
IP address 192.168.10.21
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
After you restart, apply the speedguide WIN98 tweak that says "PPPoE" at the end. Also download and intall the MS Vtcp.386 fix for Windows 98.
I got the best performance with these changes. But Verizon still sucks. Any problems after that will be on their end. I had the same problem and it turned out to be a problem at the C/O.
I hope this helps...
[ 05-19-2001: Message edited by: crazyjw1971 ]
U.S. Department of Agriculture I.T. Specialist
Ducks, chickens, pigs, and mad cows need computers too!
A+, Net+, MCDST 
Ducks, chickens, pigs, and mad cows need computers too!
A+, Net+, MCDST
Said basically the same thing on the first pageOriginally posted by crazyjw1971:
Ummm...Verizon sucks! Period.
Check these things---
Go to Control Panel>>Network
Under your NIC adapter, make sure its obtaining its own IP address automatically, the DNS configuration is disabled, and the WINS Resolution is disabled. Do the same for the Dial Up Adapter and Dial Up Adapter #2.
After restarting, if the computer takes really long to reboot, go back to the NIC card configuration and assign the following IP address...
IP address 192.168.10.21
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
After you restart, apply the speedguide WIN98 tweak that says "PPPoE" at the end. Also download and intall the MS Vtcp.386 fix for Windows 98.
I got the best performance with these changes. But Verizon still sucks. Any problems after that will be on their end. I had the same problem and it turned out to be a problem at the C/O.
I hope this helps...
[ 05-19-2001: Message edited by: crazyjw1971 ]
Plus Verizon has a lot of problems they have brought on themselfs esp. last week when they kept causing connection problems in the east when Covad pulled out..
Keep it simple and the reason some of the older NIC's have problems is that they can't off load Tx/Rx so you can end up with a headache in the respect to the card..
Theres still allot of PCI cards out there with older values in them where they can load up a signal by setting the IP addy this just keeps the card from haveing to go through DHCP every 10 minutes per Microchokes OS this is also in the FAQ at DSLR here... http://www.dslreports.com/faq/faq#156
If I could get you the technet thing on DHCP you could also read about DHCP there
not trying to start something knowing how tempers are kinda thin but.......
All this was verified by me and my current ISP in level 2 and upper managment at Mindspring.
theres also numerous threads here with this peroblem where setting the IP addyon the network card fix's 95% of the problem.
The other thing to look close at is the SG Web page tweak there are times you may have to adjust the numbers in it my settings are 22 a peice I have a 1.5Mb DSL connection.
I download at 214KB/sec tweaked my way using the above settings. without mentioning the rest.
Hope you get it fixed
I'll be around for a while
Dan
[ 05-19-2001: Message edited by: dannjr ]