Post Reply 
Proxomitron reduces RWIN to 32768
Oct. 24, 2005, 09:59 PM
Post: #31
 
Hi all

My config: XP Sp2 --> 8 port switch --> LinkSys BEFSR41 Cable Router --> Toshiba PCX2200 Cable Modem

Using Jetico Firewall, XP built in firewall disabled.

I ran the speedguide TcpOptimizer app and set my RWIN to 256960 then rebooted.

Checked my RWIN at http://www.speedguide.net:8117/ thru proxo and it reported:
Quote:Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 32768
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 0 bits

Fired up AnalogX's Proxy and set proxo to use remote proxy at localhost:6588

So Browser -->Proxomitron-->AnalogX Proxy-->

Cleared the browsers cache & checked my RWIN again at speedguide and it reported:
Quote:Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 256960
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 2 bits (scale factor of 4)

I'm going to browse around like this for awhile and see if I notice speed differences.

Heres a link to AnlogX's Proxy: http://www.analogx.com/contents/download.../proxy.htm


Mike
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 24, 2005, 10:24 PM
Post: #32
 
hpguru Wrote:
Peakaboo Wrote:How many of those reporting this problem are using winXP sp2?

Can you point to any authoritative documentation which would suggest such a link?

Fwiw both Speedguide and the tweak test at DSLR record my rwin as 65535, with or without Proxo. I am running WinXP SP2.

If there is no authoritative documentation does that mean you believe the problem does not exist or cannot be a config. dependent bug?

Nope.

________________

Good info. Z on analogx proxychanger & port switch.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 24, 2005, 10:30 PM
Post: #33
 
Pro. Windows Firewall makes no difference on or off, filtering or not filtering (I am running 8Signs FW).

Get hpHOSTS!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 24, 2005, 10:35 PM
Post: #34
 
Anonymous Wrote:I believe ICS is separate from the firewall.
Did you have it disabled when you tested without the fiewall?

Thanks,
--
JJoe

ICS is always disabled.
Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 24, 2005, 10:38 PM
Post: #35
 
hpguru Wrote:
Peakaboo Wrote:How many of those reporting this problem are using winXP sp2?

Can you point to any authoritative documentation which would suggest such a link?

Fwiw both Speedguide and the tweak test at DSLR record my rwin as 65535, with or without Proxo. I am running WinXP SP2.

Your question and any answer given to same does not negate the possibility of a link.

Can you point to any documentation you would bet your life on that says there is no link?

______________

Anyway, good info. z12 I was looking at analogx proxy changer this afternoon after seeing this post by Ashe and googling on proxy changer to find alternatives to the one he ref'd:

http://castlecops.com/t135729-Proxomitro...peeds.html
Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 04:11 AM
Post: #36
 
So then it appears that only XP/Home/SP2 users with Proxomitron directly connected to the net are experiencing this (good idea Mike).

Does anybody with another OS see it?

Thanks,
--
JJoe
Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 04:22 AM
Post: #37
 
Also,
does anybody with XP/Home/SP2 and Proxomitron directly connected to the net not see it?

Thanks again,
--
JJoe
Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 07:47 AM
Post: #38
 
Anonymous Wrote:Can you point to any documentation you would bet your life on that says there is no link?
LOL! Next question.

Get hpHOSTS!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 12:38 PM
Post: #39
 
JJoe Wrote:So then it appears that only XP/Home/SP2 users with Proxomitron directly connected to the net are experiencing this (good idea Mike).

Not Exactly.

I'm seeing the wrong RWIN reported at speedguide as long as I'm connecting directly via proxo.

proxo-->speedguide = wrong RWIN reported

proxo-->AnalogX Proxy-->speedguide = correct RWIN reported*

As a side note, I am seeing alot of 4xx Response codes in proxo's log window when I'm chaining thru AnalogX proxy especially at (CastleCops.com).


My thought right now is proxo doesn't support "TCP 1323 Options". This would limit RWIN to 65535 (2^16).


To test this, I set my RWIN to 38272 and disabled the "TCP 1323 Options" in speedguides TcpOptimizer program.

After rebooting, I tested again and speedguide did not report the RWIN that I had entered (it reported 39xxx, I don't remember exactly).

So now I wonder about the validity of the speedguides results.

At this point, I think I'm going to download a packet sniffer and look for myself.


Mike
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 12:38 PM
Post: #40
 
alright, I've been ignoring this highly active thread for DAYS now...
what's the big freakin' deal? "who cares?" is what I kept asking myself...

so now, be gentle, but why not tell us WHY we should care IF (which seems to NOT have been proven yet) this RWIN thingy is at 32768 versus 2 raised to the power of 42 (or whatever the heck it's 'quote-unquote' "supposed to be") ???
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 01:01 PM
Post: #41
 
ProxRocks Wrote:WHY we should care IF (which seems to NOT have been proven yet) this RWIN thingy

RWIN impacts throughput. Not really an issue for dialup, but for broadband it can have a huge effect.

Heres a link http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks

In the "Jump to topic :" form select "RWIN" hit the "Show" button then scroll down to "Why does tuning TCP Receive Window improve throughput?"

HTH

Mike
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 01:17 PM
Post: #42
 
not to be the skeptic, but sounds like a bunch of hocus-pocus to me...

I say "butterfly" three times, ask you to repeat, then I show you an ink blot of a BAT and ask you what you see - then you tell me you see a BUTTERFLY, not a BAT...

I tell you to increase your RWIN, tell you it increases your throughput by 300% - then whoala, you PERCEIVE a 300% increase, whether it is "there" or not...
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 01:21 PM
Post: #43
 
ProxRocks Wrote:"who cares?" is what I kept asking myself...

so now, be gentle, but why not tell us WHY we should care IF (which seems to NOT have been proven yet) this RWIN thingy is at 32768 versus 2 raised to the power of 42 (or whatever the heck it's 'quote-unquote' "supposed to be") ???


As I said in my first post:
I'm from Europe and have a 6 Mbit DSL line.
With activated proxomitron on localhost:8080 I get about 120 KB/s from a http server with about 215 ms latency (US west coast) with one connection downloading a very large rar or zip file.
Without the local proxy 8080 I get 550 KB/s with one connection.
With BFilter I also get 550 KB/s.

If I connect to a server located in Australia or East Asia the latency is about 350 to 400 ms and then with a RWIN of 32768 the download goes far below 50 KB/s with one connection. So I would need more than 15 parallel connections to max up my line.

Because of all these problems I finally switched to BFilter.
Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 01:43 PM
Post: #44
 
Tony Tough Wrote:Because of all these problems I finally switched to BFilter.

Just out of curiosity, have you tried chaining proxo to BFilter & checked your download speeds.

proxo-->BFilter-->web

I haven't tried BFilter, so I'm not sure you can even do that.

Mike
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 25, 2005, 02:06 PM
Post: #45
 
Tony Tough Wrote:Because of all these problems I finally switched to BFilter.

Wise decision as stated here. http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.ph...ostcount=7

5MpstweakR Wrote:if it is a real slow down the choice is obvious, if perceived (i.e. not real) it wouldn't bother me if I had the issue - which I don't.

Stay tuned here though just in case this can be sorted out. Bfilter is @ 0.1

Beta is better than seeing your broadband underutilized signif. with proxo. and bfilter appears stable.

Also you may want to try that port change z tried with proxo using either proxychanger or analogx proxy

Ask how the surfing went before you dip your toe in that water.

GL
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: