scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 i got this from www.dnsstuff.com Analysis: Number of hops: 14 Last hop responding to ICMP: 13, UDP: 14, TCP: 13. There appears to be a firewall at (hop 14) that blocks ICMP (ping) packets. The destination appears to block unwanted TCP packets. Legend: T1/T2/T3 are the round-trip times in milliseconds (1/1000ths of a second). T1 uses a proper ICMP-based tracert (Microsoft style). T2 uses a UDP-based traceroute (Unix-style). T3 uses a TCP-based traceroute (port 80). Since many ISPs now block ICMP and/or packets to unknown ports, T3 (not used by many traceroute programs) typically shows the best results. Best times may be theoretical (if it takes 80ms to hop 10, and 50ms to hop 11, we say the best time for hop 10 is 50ms). If no reverse DNS entry is given for an IP, we display 'unknown.example.com' if the domain name is known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Do you have a firewall or browser extensions, or any other downloads that may be interfering with the test results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 i have mcaffe security centre 2006 running, that is the only thing i am aware of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 is there anything else you can think of FallowEarth? i'm useless at these sort of things lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn0 Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Looks like the latency is just the hop from London to Dallas -> Testmy.net. Do you have any P2P apps such as bittorent running? With a slower connection, that can affect speeds significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 no, i currently do not have any progams running, all thats running is internet, (obviously), and mcaffe security centre 2006, nothing was updating at the time i did the log either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn0 Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Try this NDT speedtest located in Geneva, Switzerland. It is on your side of the puddle, see if you get better results. http://cemp1.switch.ch/network/performance/web100/tcpbw100.html Post speed results back here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 im afraid it wont work, it will do the outbound test then freezes on the inbound one, the makes my internet crash, do u no any other ones i could try? i have just gone through my internet application list and blocked almost anything that connects to the internet to try and solve the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn0 Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 It worked the first time I tried it, now somethings up on their end, sorry. Takes far too long to perform inbound test, let me see if I can find a different one. TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.3.3e click START to begin Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 502.26Kb/s running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 1.28Mb/s Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem Alarm: Duplex mismatch condition exists: Host set to Full and Switch set to Half duplex click START to re-test Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 501.51Kb/s running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 1.26Mb/s Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem Alarm: Duplex mismatch condition exists: Host set to Full and Switch set to Half duplex click START to re-test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Hi dn0, Seems like your connection setup has a problem too: Alarm: Duplex mismatch condition exists: Host set to Full and Switch set to Half duplex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn0 Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Hi dn0, Seems like your connection setup has a problem too: Alarm: Duplex mismatch condition exists: Host set to Full and Switch set to Half duplex Yeah, I know, for some reason I get my full speed when my NIC is set to 100mbps half duplex. It is unstable when set to auto or full duplex, so I just left it at half duplex and have not yet continued troubleshooting. Hey scumbucketsex (lol), try VanBuren's mirror in Stockholm: http://www.testmy.net/o-mirror-VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 I am puzzled by this part of the report: There were 7 packets retransmitted, 45 duplicate acks received, and 62 SACK blocks received The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time This connection is receiver limited 14.51% of the time. Increasing the the client's receive buffer (62.0 KB) will improve performance This connection is network limited 85.47% of the time. Why is the test asking for buffer to be increased while his setting has been balanced: The NDT server has a 101.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 1.49 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 62.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 0.92 Mbps The network based flow control limits the throughput to 0.95 Mbps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 I can only draw 3 conclusions from this puzzlement: Something wrong with the test server, or Some unknown program or virus is using bandwidth when testing was done, or The connection line is connected to another computer at the same time. To check the second, use this throughput display (AnalogX NetSat Live) and leave your comp and connection idle. Check to see if you are having incoming and outgoing traffic even when no known program is running: http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,7769,00.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn0 Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Scumbucketsex - Open command prompt and type: netstat -b Post info back here, you may want to omit your computer name and IP address before you post here. This might tell us if there is some other connection to your computer that you are unaware of. Again, block your PC name and private IP add before you post (for security reasons, never know who is watching). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 even slower on that one mate Connection is:: 291 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 20972 kB) Download Speed is:: 35 kB/s Tested From:: http://hem.bredband.net Test Time:: Bottom Line:: 5X faster than 56K 1MB download in 29.26 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 23.66 % of your hosts average (ntli.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-QTWRV27LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 downloaded analog x, nothing incoming when connected but not using internet, a small bit of incoming tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 max incoming is 66.8kb tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 analog x stays at a steady 51b when connected but not looking at anything on the net and i typed in netstat-b in command post but it didnt work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 anyone with any more ideas?i will keep popping back over the next few hours to see if anyone says anything, thanks to you all for all the help so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Hi, Maybe you can carry out your network diagnostic test again once now and another a couple of hours later. Check to see if the test still ask you to increase your buffer. My bandwidth is similar to yours (1 Mbps) and I am using the same ccs file as you. Here is an example of my test results. It differs from your earlier results in 2 major parts: It did not ask me to increase my buffer when it has been set to 62 kbytes. My PC throughput limit and network based control throughput limit are over 1 Mbps. "Web100 reports the Round trip time = 250.82 msec; the Packet size = 1444 Bytes; and There were 8 packets retransmitted, 68 duplicate acks received, and 72 SACK blocks received The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time This connection is network limited 99.98% of the time. estimate = 0.46 based on packet size = 11Kbits, RTT = 250.82msec, and loss = 0.008928571 The theoretical network limit is 0.46 Mbps The NDT server has a 101.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 3.14 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 62.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 1.94 Mbps The network based flow control limits the throughput to 1.22 Mbps " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 WEB100 Kernel Variables: Client: localhost/127.0.0.1 AckPktsIn: 257 AckPktsOut: 0 BytesRetrans: 10220 CongAvoid: 117 CongestionOverCount: 0 CongestionSignals: 1 CountRTT: 198 CurCwnd: 39420 CurMSS: 1460 CurRTO: 890 CurRwinRcvd: 64240 CurRwinSent: 16304 CurSsthresh: 32120 DSACKDups: 0 DataBytesIn: 0 DataBytesOut: 649700 DataPktsIn: 0 DataPktsOut: 445 DupAcksIn: 53 ECNEnabled: 0 FastRetran: 1 MaxCwnd: 65700 MaxMSS: 1460 MaxRTO: 1320 MaxRTT: 920 MaxRwinRcvd: 64240 MaxRwinSent: 16304 MaxSsthresh: 32120 MinMSS: 1460 MinRTO: 560 MinRTT: 190 MinRwinRcvd: 64240 MinRwinSent: 16304 NagleEnabled: 1 OtherReductions: 0 PktsIn: 257 PktsOut: 445 PktsRetrans: 7 X_Rcvbuf: 103424 RcvWinScale: 2147483647 SACKEnabled: 3 SACKsRcvd: 69 SendStall: 0 SlowStart: 58 SampleRTT: 620 SmoothedRTT: 630 X_Sndbuf: 103424 SndWinScale: 2147483647 SndLimTimeRwin: 1437171 SndLimTimeCwnd: 8919957 SndLimTimeSender: 2663 SndLimTransRwin: 1 SndLimTransCwnd: 2 SndLimTransSender: 1 SndLimBytesRwin: 35040 SndLimBytesCwnd: 614660 SndLimBytesSender: 0 SubsequentTimeouts: 0 SumRTT: 105550 Timeouts: 0 TimestampsEnabled: 0 WinScaleRcvd: 2147483647 WinScaleSent: 2147483647 DupAcksOut: 0 StartTimeUsec: 475752 Duration: 10363317 c2sData: 2 c2sAck: 2 s2cData: 2 s2cAck: 2 half_duplex: 0 link: 100 congestion: 0 bad_cable: 0 mismatch: 0 spd: 0.00 bw: 0.44 loss: 0.002247191 avgrtt: 533.08 waitsec: 0.00 timesec: 10.00 order: 0.2062 rwintime: 0.1387 sendtime: 0.0003 cwndtime: 0.8610 rwin: 0.4901 swin: 0.7891 cwin: 0.5013 rttsec: 0.533081 Sndbuf: 103424 aspd: 2.23699 Checking for mismatch on uplink (speed > 50 [0>50], (xmitspeed < 5) [0.29<5] (rwintime > .9) [0.13>.9], (loss < .01) [0.00<.01] Checking for excessive errors condition (loss/sec > .15) [2.24>.15], (cwndtime > .6) [0.86>.6], (loss < .01) [0.00<.01], (MaxSsthresh > 0) [32120>0] Checking for 10 Mbps link (speed < 9.5) [0<9.5], (speed > 3.0) [0>3.0] (xmitspeed < 9.5) [0.29<9.5] (loss < .01) [0.00<.01], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for Wireless link (sendtime = 0) [3.0E=0], (speed < 5) [0<5] (Estimate > 50 [0.44>50], (Rwintime > 90) [0.13>.90] (RwinTrans/CwndTrans = 1) [1/2=1], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for DSL/Cable Modem link (speed < 2) [0<2], (SndLimTransSender = 0) [1=0] (SendTime = 0) [3.0E-4=0], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for half-duplex condition (rwintime > .95) [0.13>.95], (RwinTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], (SenderTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], OR (mylink <= 10) [3.0<=10] Checking for congestion (cwndtime > .02) [0.86>.02], (mismatch = 0) [0=0] (MaxSsthresh > 0) [32120>0] estimate = 0.44 based on packet size = 11Kbits, RTT = 533.08msec, and loss = 0.002247191 The theoretical network limit is 0.44 Mbps The NDT server has a 101.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 1.48 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 62.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 0.91 Mbps The network based flow control limits the throughput to 0.94 Mbps Client Data reports link is 'T1', Client Acks report link is 'T1' Server Data reports link is 'T1', Server Acks report link is 'T1' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 anyone with any more ideas?i will keep popping back over the next few hours to see if anyone says anything, thanks to you all for all the help so far. Just try downloading AVG free Anti Virus onto hard drive, from http://free.grisoft.com/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5 Get offline unhook modem if necessary. Assuming you con get MacAffee back when you want. Install AVG free, update, restart and try again. I ditched Norton when still had 9 months service left and have not been sorry since. Solved a lot of my problems. Good luck. of 2 best free Anti Virus programs out there. Avast being the other one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumbucketsex Posted February 5, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 swap mcaffe for avg? how is that better? will that solve any of my broadband issues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 I was wondering why your RTT=533 ms while mine is only 251 ms. I am based in Thailand, and you are in the UK. Let's try something. Adjust your ccs file for DefaultReceiveWindow - 128480 and do this network test again. Also test your speed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted February 5, 2006 CID Share Posted February 5, 2006 Oops, you also need to change Tcp13230pts - 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.