Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results

About talon223

  • Birthday 07/12/1989

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lufkin, Tx
  • Interests
    2001 Honda Prelude...

talon223's Achievements

Jr. Member

Jr. Member (3/10)



  1. It's not called RWIN, however there is an equivalent value... Rwin, and rmem are both simply TCP/IP parameters..So they are universal. OSX has an equivalent value to RWIN rmem_default - default rx window rmem_max - maximum rx window there you go not trying to start a fight..just trying to prove my point ____ and back to tweaking on linux... I'm in the middle of setting up this: http://powertweak.sourceforge.net/index.html Hopefully it'll make changing network setting easier and more fun.
  2. Ahh...but it's still going to be a good idea to manually calculate your RWIN and put it in as the default value. Believe me man, you WILL see a boost. Besides, unless they've changed, Redhat, Slackware, and maybe SuSe do NOT figure up the best RWIN for you...and it defaults them to ..64kb? I dunno..I heard something about it at one of the local meets, because the guy was having slow network transfer speeds...
  3. Btw...who is swimmer shugz? Sounds like an interesting character... I might wanna talk to him on MSN or AIM. Ahh..only a year on linux and I've already decided to become a unix systems administrator. Just started college this fall.
  4. you CAN change the RWIN....but on ubuntu/kubuntu, i found out it's a little different. Linux automatically measures different variables and tries to tune accordingly, but ...you can definitely see a boost from RWIN. I got a good 400kb boost just a bit ago... ahh...just dug this site up for you... guide to tweaking linux I played around with my sysctl.conf file until it got something done...just...everytime you make a change .."sudo sysctl -p" to ...apply the patch.
  5. Speedguide link ahhh...digged around a bit more...figured I'd post this on here for the general public, because I didn't come up with anything when I searched. Maybe save someone some trouble?
  6. Is there any power to be had? Is it already at optimal settings, or what? I honestly doubt that it is.
  7. ahhh..I might just have to hit up these forums again. It's always fun on here. I haven't been on in a WHILE though. If you want a hobby, get just a decent box ..512mb ram, a gfx card, a 40GB hard drive or something...and build an ubuntu/suse/[your distro] ....box. Always something to play with. ahh, gotta find the general forum and ask a question.
  8. Yeah, I was thinking maybe that...Do they still work on the Cox backbones? Did they ever finally switch over? Cox has been doing alot of upgrades in the Houston area I'm fairly certain.
  9. ahh... anyone care to explain my 40$ a month connection? :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 8278 Kbps about 8.3 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB) Download Speed is:: 1010 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/09/05 - 11:23am Bottom Line:: 144X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.01 sec Tested from a 12160 kB file and took 12.034 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 126.36 % faster than the average for host (suddenlink.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-8R2TZ7O4S User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20061201 Firefox/ (Ubuntu-feisty) [!] ________________ :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 523 Kbps about 0.5 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 64 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/09/05 - 11:26am Bottom Line:: 9X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 16 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 15.884 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 26.33 % faster than the average for host (suddenlink.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-USBT386W1 User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20061201 Firefox/ (Ubuntu-feisty) [!] ___________________ I've been running a good 5-6mbps on an untuned connection(ubuntu) and the d/l is the same as always...somewhere around 512. Not that I'm complaining, but why the sudden boost? Could it be because I'm so close to your server? (Lufkin, TX)
  10. my god...i just happen to live in texas...lufkin....d00d...that blows...wat's my fate ...who knows...i swear....verizon better buy them out or something...upgrade all the lines to Fiber Op..........but i bet anything....SBC or some crappy company like consolidated.....i love my cox .....okay...the cox puns really do go on and on
  11. Seriously...i really wanna thank you guys....this is an AWESOME website....and the test server is like 100 miles south or so....im in lufkin....east texas ....so....dang....i dunno if that effects the accuracy...but like... ....i love you guys....man...i wish there were more sites like this....i tell all my friends about this site....spread the word a bit.....i used vanburens settings and it finally reached the advertised speeds(a bit above...).....so...erm..THANKS d00ds!....lol ________________ :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 4050 Kbps about 4.1 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB) Download Speed is:: 494 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Mon Mar 14 2005 14:54:19 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Bottom Line:: 72X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.07 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 30.35 % faster than the average for host (cox.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-M5PFGQ8KA _________________ :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 246 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 97 kB) Upload Speed is:: 30 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Mon Mar 14 2005 14:55:18 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Bottom Line:: 4X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 34.13 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 56.04 % of your hosts average (cox.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-1RLBTCQX7 __________________ anything i can do about that...it's supposed be 512 upload.... ...also...on the nitro server i get good speeds on that ... _______________________________________ WEB100 Enabled Statistics: Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 564.01Kb/s running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 3.60Mb/s ------ Client System Details ------ OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1 Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.4.2_03 ------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------ Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found. Link set to Full Duplex mode Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic. Good network cable(s) found Normal duplex operation found. Web100 reports the Round trip time = 85.91 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and There were 6 packets retransmitted, 151 duplicate acks received, and 153 SACK blocks received The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time This connection is network limited 99.97% of the time. Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to: RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON Packet size is preserved End-to-End Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End Client IP addresses are preserved End-to-End ___________________ there's that in case that's needed......i passed the cap...560 kb/s on that server...im sorry if im annoying.....that's what the preemptive thanks was for....the fact that like....im annoying...you'd be so flattered that you'd forget...
  12. haha....is that LCARS...from TNG? haha....omg...i used 2 be a die-hard trekkie..... still am....deep deep inside.....
  13. haha.....i would like 2 have IE blocked...i cringe everytime an app opens it up on accident.... ....it's getting a bad rep.....with all this news lately...
  14. i remember that pic........talk about protection
  • Create New...