Another cablenut question...

[rmrucker]

OK, don't just assume I am discouraging you! http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/wink.gif

The consensus I get believes MaxDupAcks should be no less than "2" -- why did you guys choose "1"?

Also, why do you bother to put BDSUrgent in your tweak and set it to default? ("1") Do you really find that to be a needed tweak?

You know me -- I am really only trying to learn. THANK YOU. HNY.

[dannjr]

Not even sure I should post this right now but...Tell me you don't remember this and the first time we saw it. Plus the questions that went with it.. This ended up real clear [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\\Services\Afd\Parameters

"FastCopyReceiveThreshold"=dword:00000400 but higher values
"FastSendDatagramThreshold"=dword:00000400 same
"IgnorePushBitOnReceives"=dword:00000001

http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/009189-4.html

This is partly the reason MaxDupAcks are the way they are. Have you got win2k running
I'm assuming you do and that your checking your reg. It handles the MaxDupAcks by doing a push remember win2k sends info a whole bunch better...

If your talking 9x then I would rather do that in the email. Today Cablenut spent 10 hours on the program if his answers are short it because he's doing the scripting right now for the three to four other parts of the pages in the program..

As far as the BSDUrgent I got to go look it up again as to why, sorry brain dead at 5a.m.. Iv been doing the lookups as well and the time we spent on this is just "nuts".. So give me some time or just email me on this so I don't have to do a full search on this thread later. I'll set up a filter on the email to watch for yours...

Happy new year and please if you can email me


------------------
THE WORLDS THINNEST BOOK: Things I can't afford - by Bill Gates
Chicago Microsystems (http://microsyspro.com)
dannjr@microsyspro.com
Speedguide has a great search engine (http://www.speedguide.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi?action=intro&default=2)

[cablenut]

rmrucker you seem interested in the program if you really want to help then aim message me at oldskoolrick, or email me. MaxDupAcks is set the way I set it. I don't set my settings based off other peoples if you can find a viable reason to why it needs to be no less then 2 (ie posting download speeds that are much lower when using MaxDupAcks as 1) otherwise show some respect. You've got a big ego which is bad in some cases (I know I have one to).

------------------
Head webcheese and geek guru @ http://www.cablenut.com

[rmrucker]

Hey, cablenut -- I was just asking a question! I was trying to figure out how you decided on the settings -- that's it! I didn't mean any disrespect! It wasn't an attack. http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/frown.gif

Jeez, I have been very supportive of you -- I guess I'll just have to re-think my position. Thanks for showing your true colors...
~~~~~~~~~~`

dannjr.- thanks for the helpful answers.

[This message has been edited by rmrucker (edited 01-01-2001).]

[cablenut]

I think we both get the point

------------------
Head webcheese and geek guru @ http://www.cablenut.com

[This message has been edited by cablenut (edited 01-01-2001).]

[rmrucker]

Sorry, I don't have email access all the time. Right now I am at work and these computers don't have email access... I have no control over these.

I usually like to post things to the boards so that *everyone* can benefit from the discussion. I know I have learned a lot reading other people's discussions. I have not meant these questions to be disrespectful to you at all. I am sorry if that is the way it came across.

You have slammed me as much as I have slammed you in the past -- I never took it personally and I didn't think you did. I don't know what I did recently to change this situation. You can ignore these questions if you like. You have my email address in your Archives if you would prefer to answer them there. OR just blow them off -- it's your choice. Take care.

[This message has been edited by rmrucker (edited 01-01-2001).]

[cablenut]

rmrucker I don't recall slamming you? I have lost your email address due to a format of the hard disk. I'm pretty sure you know mine http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Head webcheese and geek guru @ http://www.cablenut.com

[rmrucker]

Just minor banter I guess -- I get slammed by everyone so maybe I'm just remembering it differently. http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif

I know I asked my questions very pointly -- I guess that is what you took exception to? Well, I have to get back to work. I'll try to remember to email you later.

[shaft01]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cablenut:
rmrucker I don't recall slamming you? I have lost your email address due to a format of the hard disk. I'm pretty sure you know mine http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/wink.gif

</font>

Regardless of what ANYONE says......I never had sustained speeds of over 375 KB/sec regardless of whose settings I ran. I am on @Home and after installing your cablenut mod I just got a sustained 510+KB/sec 82.4 meg download from cnet.com......It started out at about 400KB/sec and climbed quickly to over 500.....then held between 510 and 514.....

I could KISS you right on the lips http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif

[shaft01]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by shaft01:
Regardless of what ANYONE says......I never had sustained speeds of over 375 KB/sec regardless of whose settings I ran. I am on @Home and after installing your cablenut mod I just got a sustained 510+KB/sec 82.4 meg download from cnet.com......It started out at about 400KB/sec and climbed quickly to over 500.....then held between 510 and 514.....

I could KISS you right on the lips http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif</font>

Consider yourself KISSED cablenut......I just downloaded the same file from Interplay's site 82.4 meg MDK2 demo. It download started out at *1.2 MB/sec* and quickly dropped down to 600 KB/sec where it slowly dropped off to 587 KB/sec and held there varying from 586 to 588 until the last 2 megs where it dropped a bit to 576 KB/sec. I call this MAJOR improvement when 375 KB/sec was my usual average. http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif http://www.speedguide.net/ubb/smile.gif

[cablenut]

im glad you liked it!

------------------
Head webcheese and geek guru @ http://www.cablenut.com

[Lex Luthor]

shaft01,

read prev threads. You NEVER EVER got even a burst at 1.2MB/s. With both the way your browser rounds in the beginning and the huge rwin of the patch, the early readings are misleading. If you had dumeter or something like that open, you'd see you never get a real bust at that speed.

But, if the end reading is higher..thats great.

Lex

[donald_k]

Heck I did about 40 1.2MB/s bursts in the last 7 hours and I measured it with AnalogX Netstat Live, MSIE is only good for measuring at the end of a download. Unfortunately the FTP server quickly throttled my download to 444KB/s, they have a maximum rate limit set but I have gotten 5Mbps consistent and on Napster when doing multiple songs I max my 10BaseT port at 1.27MB/s according to Netstat. This little tool is nice to have when MSIE does not not its head from its ___ .

[shaft01]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lex Luthor:
shaft01,

read prev threads. You NEVER EVER got even a burst at 1.2MB/s. With both the way your browser rounds in the beginning and the huge rwin of the patch, the early readings are misleading. If you had dumeter or something like that open, you'd see you never get a real bust at that speed.

But, if the end reading is higher..thats great.

Lex</font>

If you go back and read what I said......not once will you find me claiming it to be an accurate reading......The bottom line is the readings I do get now are roughly 35% faster than ever before.......

[Lex Luthor]

That's basically what I said in the end, shaft, as long as you are seeing faster than before, that's great. I wasen't trying to get on you. Just seen over and over posts by other people that said they actually got that transfer speed, yet no one has been able to show that they did (I don't mean a screenshot 1 second in).

Donald_k, are you saying that netstat live is showing actual bursts of 1.2MB in the middle of a d/l? How exactly do you see that? I'm not familiar with that program.

Thanks!
Lex

[cablenut]

Lex im not sure if you want to come off as a egotistical ass on the forums. Frankly im getting tired of your flames. I was wrong when I said rmucker was disrespectful you have no RESPECT for other people. Rmucker is much smarter, nicer, and better then you will ever be.

With both the way your browser rounds in the beginning and the huge rwin of the patch

Oh yes this HUGE HUGE humengous rwin works wonderful in my testing. Performed the same in ping tests, and greatly beat out all other rwins in download speeds. Im done with this thread and you. Continue to post your crap I don't care I won't even give attention to it as I have better things to do then to petty a fool like you.

------------------
Head webcheese and geek guru @ http://www.cablenut.com

[This message has been edited by cablenut (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Lex Luthor]

Thanks for the kind words cablenut, I won't stoop to name calling. All I see you do is post how great your patch is. Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but you have done nothing to substantiate it. I frankly think all of the posts you make are pretty close to spamming this board and I have a feeling that's why a lot of these threads mysteriously get deleted.

From my view, you don't look to smart when you post a pic one second into a download. If you were so smart, you'd know that's worthless information. If you really did know what you were talking about you wouldn't keep posting meaningless screenshots. Why can't you or someone else just show a dumeter or netstat live graph showing these 1.2MB peaks you are getting?

I've never even said that it's not possible to get those speeds, all I have said is that you have never shown that you do get those peaks. I'm just trying to keep you guys honest and keep you from spewing out innacurate information (which again you have yet to show that you aren't doing). I never even said I'm the techincal expert here, but I am smart enough to know that you haven't shown any info to back up your claims.

Lex


[This message has been edited by Lex Luthor (edited 01-02-2001).]

[martialcomp]

I also want to apologize for doubting you in the past Cablenut. I still wonder about those 1 megabyte per second downloads, but, I must admit to a small increase in download speeds from your patch. Many thanks...very few (besides the Speedguide patches when I had Windows 98) patches have proven themselves before yours. I would not be afraid to recommend your patch to others on this board. I added the patch after a fresh install of Windows ME (I believe in installing the OS often because I feel that Windows is self corrupting, the registry takes a beating and the .DLL's get changed with every install of a program).