Faster Downloads - Windoze Registery Addition

[neomaine]

Ok ok. I know that nobody realy has to download anything very large these days so being able to download at 200+kps from a regular 50+kps probably won't interest you. So...don't read on.

My access to the internet is via cable modem on a 10/100 D-link DFE-530TX, very uneventfull. Well, I stumbled along this tidbit while a consultant a year or so ago and thought that I'd share it with everyone. I did some speed tests via a couple of sights with the settings on and off. In EVERY case I saw a huge increase. I'm still surprised, that when the conditions allow it, I can see 300+k/sec downloads. I've tested it on 95SE/98/ME/2000 and seems to work just fine everywhere.

Here's what you do:

- Backup your registry
- Run 'regedit'and get to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
CONFIG
SYSTEM
CurrentControlSet
Services
VxD
MSTCP

- Right click on MSTCP
NEW
String Value
Enter 'DefaultRcvWindow'
- Right click on new entry
Modify
Enter '32768'
- Save and reboot.

That's IT!!! I've tried higher values but saw no appreciable difference, but did see some difference between setting it to 32768 and 16384. So I figured that 32768 would do...and I can't be happier.

What I'm going to work on next is to see if there is a 'DefaultSndWindow' as well. This could help for anyone who would like to share of my machine. I'll let you know how it goes. (Could make some Morpheus users happy!!)

Config:
Biostar M7MIA DDR (Needed the ISA slot)
1.2 Athlon
256mg DDR
ATI AIW Radeon 32DDR
2-20gb Maxtor 5400
Creative Soundblaster 64AWE (the ISA slot)
Creative PC-DVD 12x
Creative CDRW 8x4x32
D-Link 10/100 Internet
Netgear 10/100 Home Network
(All drives have DMA enabled)

[SpacexOddity]

does this pertain to phone-line modems like the 56.6k ones???? im a douche so im kid of ignorant to these things

[kinneera]

For a more involved discussion of the TCP/IP receive window setting, go here:

http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks

and select "RWIN" from the dropdown.

Every connection speed has an optimal RWIN. For Win98, it is set by default to a value that is better for dial-up. For NT/2K, it is set by default to a value that is better for broadband (reflecting the intended LAN application of that OS).

Incidentally, 32768 is actually fairly high, and might be beyond the optimal speed point for the connection.

[neomaine]

ooooooooo that was fun. My test to LinkLine was clocked at 1287k down and 77k up!!!

SpacexOddity, the max you'll ever see with the modem is 53k...good luck getting past 10k...

[nfl2k2]

I have the wierdest modem. I was downloading a morpheus on a 56k and it went bouncing around from 6k/s to 147.2 k/s. then another day, it went from 5.9k/s to 142 k/s. the 100+k/s only sayed for a few seconds, but it was cool.

[kinneera]

Heh, that would be your software glitching in the speed calculation. You can be sure your 56K is never getting much beyond 6K/sec.

[Greg12]

so that explains by 256kps download.

[nfl2k2]

lol, I know it was a glitch, just cool to see it on my screen

[pacmania_2001]

I did this and tested this but it went slower. My registry value was set at 256960 already. I have a cable modem on the @home network in Australia run by Optus. Is this tweaked or was it just a fluke that my downloads went faster with this registry setting?

[TIbrO]

I am on Windows XP and I tried to edit it manually like the first post intructs, and that registry path does not exist in XP. So I went to that DSLReports.com place to download the registry files they have, and I tried the Large setting one. I rebooted like it says to, and I went to go download a Dreamcast boot CD image to test out the speed... It seems the same to me, but I will report back here later after I do more testing. I bet since XP uses a different registry path for all of this, it didn't even change anything.

[kinneera]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-16 00:19:41, pacmania_2001 wrote:
I did this and tested this but it went slower. My registry value was set at 256960 already.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Good lord, that is definitely tweaked. In fact, that is far too high. At that setting, every time a single TCP packet is lost, your connection has to retransmit 256KB!!

[pacmania_2001]

Hey Kinneera, what value do you recommend?

[TIbrO]

Well, I've been using this tweaked setting for a day or two now, and I still can't tell the difference. Either I was right in thinking that this registry tweak doesn't work in XP anymore, or maybe I set the value too high and my connection likes losing packets.

[next]

I just tested my cable modem at 411.com and I got 1988kbs. This was without the tweaks suggested here. Interestingly enough when I first installed the modem 10 months ago I was getting around 700kbs. It looks like my provider has increased bandwidth significantly.

The speed is almost beyond belief. In other tests at different times of the day I've gotten as high as 2300kbs.

[TIbrO]

Damn!
That means that you can stream the XVCDs from my CDROM drive to your house!

Ours is a measly 384kbps and it has capped sends at 34.6kbps thanks to napster and other peer to peer sharing proggies. I say "thanks to napster" because our cable was much faster until napster gained popularity and press, then came the caps. But I don't know if it's really the reason why we got slower service out of nowhere.

[next]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-19 12:05:08, TIbrO wrote:
Damn!
That means that you can stream the XVCDs from my CDROM drive to your house!

Ours is a measly 384kbps and it has capped sends at 34.6kbps thanks to napster and other peer to peer sharing proggies. I say "thanks to napster" because our cable was much faster until napster gained popularity and press, then came the caps. But I don't know if it's really the reason why we got slower service out of nowhere.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

When the cable modem was first installed it was installed directly to a nic card and I was getting the 700kbs I mentioned. I then installed a cheap Hawking router and was getting the same speeds. I researched the Hawking router a bit and found out that one of its problems was that it wouldn't go beyond 800-900kbs. This didn't bother me because I thought my limit was around 700kbs.


Last week I had a power failure that knocked everything out. The only thing I could not restore was my internet access. I narrowed it down to either the cable modem or the router. I exchanged the cable modem for a new one but still no access throught the router. When I hooked up the modem directly to the nic card everything was fine. That's when I noticed the increase in speed. I was getting 1800-2300kbs.

I figured my provider was managing MAC addresses better now than when I first installed the Hawking router a while back. I did some research and picked up a D-Link 704 router at Best Buy for $69 net after rebates. I chose the D-Link because it is essentially an SMC Barricade without the print server - no big deal for me. And it was cheap.

Well the D-Link has a feature called "clone MAC address" which clones the cable modem MAC address (the Hawking does not). Now the router works fine and I'm getting the speeds I mentioned through the router.

Best power failure I ever had.

[TIbrO]

Hmmm... when we first got cable I bought a Netgear Home Networking Startup Kit that came with two Netgear fast ethernet cards and two cables and the hub... So you're saying maybe it's my hub that's messing up the access? Well, the send cap is by the cable company, but you're saying my downloads can get even better if I get a different hub?

Sounds like the next few paychecks I save will be for a router like the one you bought... When did you buy this? Is the rebate still in effect if I go buy one within the month, or will I have to pay some outrageous price? $69 is not bad at all... I can cover that within the week, but ofcourse you say that's after rebate. So I figure I have to go to the store with like $200, right?

[next]

Well actually that's not what I'm saying. It sounds like your cap has been set by your cable company. The point I was making was that it appears that my Hawking router was slow and did not take full advantage of the bandwidth available. This is a well known problem with Hawking routers. If your provider is capping you then there is very little or nothing you can do.

[TIbrO]

Alright, well thanks for the useful info. I went to BestBuy.com and found the router you bought. It costs $99.99 from the site, plus shipping... There is nothing about a rebate on the site. And at their site, when there is a rebate, they say it in the product description. I will hold off on buying it, but I will definitely bring up the idea the next time I speak with my bro, since we're the ones that networked the house and got cable access...

[next]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-19 13:40:10, TIbrO wrote:
Alright, well thanks for the useful info. I went to BestBuy.com and found the router you bought. It costs $99.99 from the site, plus shipping... There is nothing about a rebate on the site. And at their site, when there is a rebate, they say it in the product description. I will hold off on buying it, but I will definitely bring up the idea the next time I speak with my bro, since we're the ones that networked the house and got cable access...

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

http://www.dlink.com/sales/promo/Back2School.htm

[next]

oops I screwed up. It looks like the offer is not valid at Best Buy. Oh well. Looks like a return and then a repurchase somewhere else.

edit-

Like here maybe:

http://www.us.buy.com/retail/computers/product.asp?loc=413&sku=10259449

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: next on 2001-09-19 14:27:22 ]</font>