1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Please Help...Warning Long Post

Discussion in 'Hardware, Software & Troubleshooting' started by sfxwe, Jun 14, 2001.

  1. Zaphrod

    Zaphrod President of the Universe

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand how large window scaling works. That doesnt mean its a good idea. If it were good to have the largest window possible then everyone should set it to 1Gig and forget it. His connection requires at most a recieve window of 65535 and so doesnt need to use window scaling.

    Also you do Understand that scaling is always done in multiples of the largest non scaled window or 65535, so your calculation of 1460*32*8=373760 is not going to work, the closest you can get to that is 65535*2^3=524280. If you did set it to 373760 in the registry then you would actually be setting it to 524280 anyway.

    Still the fact remains that he doesnt need to set window scaling, he will never benefit from it and it may actually make his gaming poorer.
     
  2. rprestenback

    rprestenback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    To SFXwe: Give Cox another call, and ask them to do their online route trace check. I don't know if that's what they call it, but when I first got my cable modem, everything was fine, and then after a couple of days, my transfer rates went down the drain. I called Cox, and they did this online thing where I started the program called "Support Diagnostics" or something, and then he after about 10 minutes, he told me to tracert a bunch of different IP addresses (he specified the addresses, although they were completely unrelated). I never heard back from them, but the next day, my connection was back up to regular speed. I assume there was a routing problem somewhere. Let us know what they tell you. That software, BTW, is part of the @home software suite, so you might want to dig that CD out and have a look!


    Now, to Zaphrod:
    Ok, you say you understand how window scaling works, but there are a couple of things about what you wrote that are wrong. Firstly, it is better to have a larger window, but you saying that "[if that were the case,] everyone should set it 1 Gig and forget it..." is a little extreme, and is not going to help anyone. That is the same logic as saying that if going faster in a car gets you there in a short amount of time, everyone should go a million miles an hour, which is of course ridiculous. I never said that he should have the largest window possible. I noted a specific window size, which is no where near the largest window possible. Yes, a larger window is usually better, but there are of course other factors that one will need to consider in order to find the right size.

    The next sentence is blatantly and absolutely wrong. Scaling is NOT always done in multiples of the largest non-scaled window, or 65353. If you specifiy a larger than default window size in the registry, then Windows will try to acheive THAT EXACT size by finding a number, that is a multiple of MSS-40, (or MSS-52, of TCP1323Opts is set to 2 or 3, as a good many of the cable teak programs will do), less *or* equal to 65353 that can be scaled to create that number, and Windows will use that size as the initial default packet size, sending the scale bit with that initial packet. So, for the setting that I have in my registry, which is also the setting that SFXWE has in his registry, you would get this:
    46720*2^3=373760, which will and DOES work. I don't "actually" get anything other than 373760. If I had set my window size to 373780, then Windows would try to find the best number below 65353 than could be scaled to ensure you are getting at least that window size, which would be an initial window of 48180, with a scale factor of 2^3, and I would end up with a window size of 385440, not 524280.

    Next, you go on to say that he doesn't need and will never benefit from window sizing. Hmmm, all I can say to that is Did you even *look* at the links I provided? The MSKB page doesn't say everything about window scaling, so, even though you already understand how large window scaling works, here are some quotes from the W2K Server Resource Kit, TCP/IP Core Networking Guide, Appendix B, Network Protocols, TCP/IP:

    Large Window Support
    Large window support improves performance of TCP/IP when there are large amounts of data in transit or unacknowledged between two connected hosts. In TCP-based communication, the window size is the maximum number of packets that can be sent in a streamed sequence before the first packet must be acknowledged. Large window support allows for more data packets to be in transit on the network at one time and increases effective bandwidth.

    And this, from RFC-1323, the white paper that introduces Scaling:

    There is no one-line answer to the question: "How fast can TCP go?". There are two separate kinds of issues, performance and reliability, and each depends upon different parameters. We discuss each in turn.

    1.1 TCP Performance

    TCP performance depends not upon the transfer rate itself, but rather upon the product of the transfer rate and the round-trip delay. This "bandwidth*delay product" measures the amount of data that would "fill the pipe"; it is the buffer space required at sender and receiver to obtain maximum throughput on the TCP connection over the path, i.e., the amount of unacknowledged data that TCP must handle in order to keep the pipeline full. TCP performance problems arise when the bandwidth*delay product is large. We refer to an Internet path operating in this region is a "long, fat pipe", and a network containing this path as an "LFN" (pronounced "elephan(t)").

    High-capacity packet satellite channels (e.g., DARPA's Wideband Net) are LFN's. For example, a DS1-speed satellite channel has a bandwidth*delay product of 10**6 bits or more; this corresponds to 100 outstanding TCP segments of 1200 bytes each. Terrestrial fiber-optical paths will also fall into the LFN class; for example, a cross-country delay of 30 ms at a DS3 bandwidth (45Mbps) also exceeds 10**6 bits.

    There are three fundamental performance problems with the current TCP over LFN paths:


    (1) Window Size Limit

    The TCP header uses a 16 bit field to report the receive window size to the sender. Therefore, the largest window that can be used is 2**16 = 65K bytes.

    To circumvent this problem, Section 2 of this memo defines a new TCP option, "Window Scale", to allow windows larger than 2**16. This option defines an implicit scale factor, which is used to multiply the window size value found in a TCP header to obtain the true window size.

    (2) Recovery from Losses

    Packet losses in an LFN can have a catastrophic effect on throughput. Until recently, properly-operating TCP implementations would cause the data pipeline to drain with every packet loss, and require a slow-start action to recover. Recently, the Fast Retransmit and Fast Recovery algorithms [Jacobson90c] have been introduced. Their combined effect is to recover from one packet loss per window, without draining the pipeline. However, more than one packet loss per window typically results in are transmission timeout and the resulting pipeline drain and slow start.

    Expanding the window size to match the capacity of an LFN results in a corresponding increase of the probability of more than one packet per window being dropped. This could have a devastating effect upon the throughput of TCP over an LFN. In addition, if a congestion control mechanism based upon some form of random dropping were introduced into gateways, randomly spaced packet drops would become common, possible increasing the probability of dropping more than one packet per window.

    To generalize the Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery mechanism to handle multiple packets dropped per window, selective acknowledgments are required.
     
  3. GerbilJammer

    GerbilJammer Resident NOOb :D

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    did you try setting the maximum net tick rate to 1? i know this made a big difference in ma 56 k performance, also i you are running a non dedicated server... in the setyup menu click optimize for lan :D
     
  4. sfxwe

    sfxwe New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I am not running a server, the problem I have, is playing over the Internet :(.
     
  5. Mana

    Mana Aloha!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2000
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks to all of you for your attempts to help our bud WE.

    His problem has stumped all of us in our clan, and we have several knowledgable computer people in our rank and file. We just do not understand why a relatively low-powered PC/laptop will work, but the high-end ones don't. He even swapped the NIC out from one of his "cheap" PCs that worked, to no avail. Hardware, software, you name it, he's done it.

    WE, I know this is of no help, but we are pulling for ya bud. :(
     
  6. GerbilJammer

    GerbilJammer Resident NOOb :D

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    still try the suggestions i made, they will help :D if it doesnt... try playing online, tell us the symptoms, we WILL get ya up and runnin normal :D
     
  7. GerbilJammer

    GerbilJammer Resident NOOb :D

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    did he check for new drivers for everything and make sure no irq's were being shared, sharing irq's = problems waiting to happen :D
     
  8. Zaphrod

    Zaphrod President of the Universe

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    0
    From your own source

    It's important to note that the window size used in the actual 3-way handshake is NOT the window size that is scaled. This is per RFC 1323 section 2.2, "The Window field in a SYN (for example, a [SYN] or [SYN,ACK]) segment itself is never scaled."

    This means that the first data packet sent after the 3-way handshake is the actual window size. If there is a scaling factor, the initial window size of 65,535 bytes is always used. The window size is then multiplied by the scaling factor identified in the 3-way handshake. The table below represents the scaling factor boundaries for various window sizes.

    <table>

    For Example:

    If the window size in the registry is entered as 269000000 (269M) in decimal, the scaling factor during the 3-way handshake is 13, because a scaling factor of 12 only allows a window size up to 268,431,360 bytes (268M).

    The initial window size in this example would be calculated as follows:
    65,535 bytes with a window scale factor of 13.
    True window size = 65535*2^13
    True window size = 536,862,720
    When the value for window size is added to the registry and it's size is larger than the default value, Windows 2000 attempts to use a scale value that accommodates the new window size.


    Although I will admit that there may be some things that have changed since I got my MSCE. If the facts above from the link you provided have changed recently I would appreciate an update.
     
  9. Dormslut

    Dormslut New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    WE do you live in Arizona? How much more is the @work service? And also, I too had a problem kinda like this, where my cable modem blew out, and they gave me a new one, and my speeds got cut in half. But your prob sounds severe.....I'd go back to regular @home. At @home seems to kinda be trying to help you tho, gotta give em that :mad:
     
  10. Dormslut

    Dormslut New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh ya one more thing (prob won't be much help) but I'm wondering if the light on your modem (the one that shows data being sent) is on or flickering when your pc is OFF. I get this sometimes, and I unplug my modem for a minute, and plug it back in and that light turns off and my pings improve, but like I said, your problem seems pretty damn severe :mad:
     
  11. GerbilJammer

    GerbilJammer Resident NOOb :D

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. sfxwe

    sfxwe New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Na, my mode light stays off, when my PC is off or not connected...

    As for the @Work, the cost in AZ is $75.00 for the standard, which is suppose to be 256k up and 1.0 - 4.0 Mbps down. It also gives you 3 email addys, that you can point a WWW addy at. For the next service up from standard, called, the @Work Professional, it is around $350.00 and goes up from there. This service gives u 512k up and 4.0-1.0 Mbps down, with 3 Emils addys. I must say I really really liked @Home and @Work, but why I am now having this problem blows me away......I just don't get it, it has to be something on their end!!!!!!!!
     
  13. Dormslut

    Dormslut New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I also live in AZ, and I know there's a few of the Zenkai servers where I can ping 25 one day and 400 the next. So yes there's something wrong with @homes ****. But it shouldn't make you lag on every single server unless they really got some messed up lines going to your house.
     
  14. Ruin

    Ruin New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    i noticed a couple posts about this problem were just silly, like the PCI bus hogging the resources, on 700mhz machines, this is going to mean little to nothing about ping times, only performance, if this was the case then the game would run choppy and graphics would probably be screwed most of the time, and if that were a problem just collapse the PCI bridge and restart the computer that will reassign IRQ's to the devices, but more than likely it will put everything back on the same channel it was before.
    Also, IRQ sharing probably wouldnt have and effect, because my video card shares a channel with the onboard audio and 2 other things, and i dont have a problem, and most system devices (ie Mathco,) get a reserved channel and the only way to share the IRQ is to force it there, which COULD impede performance.
    Also, pinging yourself from your internal network wont tell you a thing about your connection because you are pinging a secure INTERNAL IP range, and even if you ping you cables up you still are pretty much pinging yourself because you jump to your ISP then straight back,
    A buddy should be the one pinging you if you want to do this test, but i doubt it will tell you anything.
    Does everything else internet wise work ok?
    Are you on 1 way or 2 way cable?
    Does your isp share the bandwidth with people near you that have cable modems? (most ISP's have gotten around to giving people dedicated lines now like DSL so this might now be an issue)
    What are you using to share internet?
    NAT?
    ICS?
    3rd Party software?
    Do you have any programs running in the background that have internet activity all the time, like something thats constantly updating to a server somewhere else like ICQ?
    If your ISP block the ports UT looks for more than likely you wouldnt be able to connect to the master server anyways so i doubt thats an issue.

    You've tried different cables, different computers and such and if im reading these right the laptops work and the desktops dont.
    Which is odd, and leads me to believe there are setting issues in the desktops, because if the laptops get decent ping rates in UT then thats a fairly good sign you're connection is ok.
    good god this post is longer than intended it to be sorry folks, just trying to get some things straight and see if we cant help get this fixed.

    Ok. My MCSE buddy is here and he's read over some of the posts and agrees with me alot of suggestions would make no difference, so now we're down to setting,
    Oh do yourself a favor, dont reinstall OS's anymore that sort of makes it harder to figure out what the problem is. Pick one and stick with it.
    And another thing, there was a post about problems with the win2k tcp/ip stack, i've been running win2k since beta (its good to be on MSDN hehe) and i havent had a single problem in that area.

    I did read a post about checking to see if tcp/ip was the main protocol being used, it should be the ONLY one being used, the other ones are worthless unless you have novell machines or 3.11 machines, please remove the other ones if they are installed, one less thing to troubleshoot.
    Next, check your binding order for the protocols, believe it or not that can have an effect,
    infact, lemme post the order they should be, (windows default is usually correct, but maybe during the install something changed.)

    Doh, i thats right we arent running 9x on any of the machines here anymore
    ohwell, maybe someone would be kind enough to post their protocol bindings? Win2k sets up binding differently infact, it does it automatically so theres no need to worry about that.

    Next thing i would try would be some different DNS servers, you dont have to use the ones the ISP gives your there are a ton of better ones out there,
    Penn State U has a HUGE list of them, pick a couple and swap them out for the ones you have. That may also speed up dns look-ups for surfing.

    You may also want to try (shudder) a dial up and see what kind of ping you get on that, it should be decent even tho its dialup, ( i pity people that play UT online with a dialup, i just had to download 10 megs worth of add-ons to get into the one game. Sorry off point there) If you get bad ping even on dialup then there is a possibility of interference in the line, even tho cox says its ok, most business would tell you its ok rather than spend a buck or two to remedy the problem, my old isp did that to me and i ended having to pay 180 dollars for the phone company to come out and check the lines, turns out there was something wrong and they replaced the line coming into my house and then i was cool, once again im going off subject here sorry...im tired..i also babble alot when im tired.

    I honestly dont think its a hardware issue after reading through the posts, but you can try disabling all of the other cards in your system, or better yet, remove them totally, (if using 2k, remove them from the device manager first otherwise 2k will probably freak when you put them back in. Funny how windows gets closer and closer to linux, i love the fact they actually have a mount command now, something to do with the floppy...anyway.
    remove all of your cards except for video and whatever is needed for Internet, also if your BIOS as a setting for loading performance options like my FIC board does, you may wanna do that, if nothing else you'll probably get a little bit more umph outta your machine. Im not exactly sure how cable modems work because i have DSL but i know some do have dip switchs you can change, if yours does you may wanna contact the manufacturer and see if they can give you some different settings to try, this going back to external modems for dialup, Courriers and Sportsers externals have them, alot of modems will dump a whole bunch of useless commands to help them along, most of the time they just sit there and do nothing. That may help if yours does.

    well this post is way to long but hopefully something in here will help, ill keep pounding away at it like all the others to help as i can, we're having geek night again next weekend, (all of us microsoft mcse's from work get together and play games alnight.) so ill run this by them too.

    Peace.
    Ruin
     
  15. sfxwe

    sfxwe New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well Ruin,

    As far as everything else working ok, yes and no, LOL, here is why I say yes and no;

    As far as my connection goes, yes I can get on the net, and download and what not. As far as my download and upload speeds, they have changed dramaticly, example; I could download a 40MB file in 2 min flat, and my speed test whould show I had a connection around 2.3Mbps - 3.2 Mbps down (Note: these test were done on multiple speed test sites, and on different day). My upload speeds have also changed a bit, example; I use to get 750Kbps - 1.0Mbps up, now I get anywhwere from 100Kbps to 300Kbps up, max :(. I have tried everything from just installing basic windows (98SE or Win2k), with no other software, other than the NIC and UT sofware, with no luck. I have tried many, diff NIC cars, example; 3Com, DLink, NetGear, Linksys....still no luck. I have tried every freak'n setting for MTU, RCV Window, etc, from all the speed test sites....still no luck. I have one way cable, and am useing a Toshiba PCX1100U.I am using a switch to share the Internet with my 3 computers, they all have seperate IP's, but I have also tried one IP with a router and no luck there either....

    Ok now as far as what OS I am using, I am now staying with Win2K, as I use to be able to play UT useing Win2K, with no problems at all, so I know it can and will work with UT. As far as different clients, I am using only Client for Microsoft Networks, all the other clients, have been and are disabled / not installed, as per Shields Up web Site, so no other client, is messing it up, and it gives me better protection. Also, I am only using the TCP/Ip protocol, and no others, so example, no IPX/SPX or NetBIOS protocols are being used.

    Thanks for the help guys....I really think it is an ISP, issue, but how the hell can I prove it????????
     
  16. Ruin

    Ruin New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not convinced its ISP but im starting to lean that way,
    did you call them and ask if they have those UT ports Open?
     
  17. Ruin

    Ruin New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, do a tracert on one of your more commonly used UT servers and see how many hops it takes to get there, i wonder if your isp routed you differently now and you going through a ****ty router,

    Im also going to post some different DNS numbers to try later on once i get to the site, im at work right now so it's kinda hard to get to it. But i will.
    Remember as well, cable speeds arent garunteed either, and you are on 1-way so those speeds make sense, the butch ass ones you said earlier dont, i cant see getting that kind of bandwidth on 1way cable. But hey, maybe you can, all the people i know that had 1way (now have 2 because the isp went over to 2way so everyone got a free upgrade Yeah them!) got about what you said for speed. I've been running this by as many people as i can find that would actually give me realistic answers and not things like yer pci bus is hogging resources. i got a ton of laughs one that particular one.

    Oh yeah, a couple people said try running UT in safe mode, disable sound everything, and run it in 640x480 and see what you get, i dont think that will do anything but a couple people think possible driver corruption. so give it a shot and let me know, lemme post my msn for you too torind_2000@hotmail.com
    gimme a buzz either by msn messenger or that email

    Ruin
     
  18. Valk

    Valk Mom, kitty's being a dildo!!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Damn, I came into this late! :D

    I would get your ISP on the horn, and demand a resolution. I had similar problems with Mediaone before they were assimilated by Comcast.

    I went from pinging 50ms with 0%PL to our clan server, to huge ping spikes and massive PL. This was also the case with general surfing, and DL/UL. I had to spend about 2 weeks fighting and demanding to speak to more knowledgeable people within their tech support. I finally got to work with someone in the local data center. He was totally knowledgeable about the problem, and was able to fix it in about an hour. It turned out that recent maintanence on the switch my segment was on caused the problem. I'm fully confident that had I not fought them on it, my connectivity would still suck today.
     
  19. sfxwe

    sfxwe New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    AW ****.....sorry bro, I am on a 2 way cable modem, meaning, the modem send and recieves all over the coax :(.....sorry if I messed you up......

    LOL, ur gonna like this....I did a trace route about 4 weeks ago or so, while UT was running and connect to a remote server.....LMFAO.....the times at all hops were all around 2400 - 3000 ms LMFAO......

    I also tried this with other servers, and they all did the same thing, I asked my ISP if the closed those ports and they told me " If we closed those ports, then u would not be able to play at all, the ports are either closed or open, and nothing in-between." I think that question kinda pissed him of a little....

    I am so lost.......DAMN IT.....lol
     
  20. Valk

    Valk Mom, kitty's being a dildo!!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0

    hehe, so is mine monkey boy..... :D Call your ISP! :D
     

Share This Page