flexy Posted January 31, 2005 CID Share Posted January 31, 2005 hey vanburen, i found this forum today and think it might be worth lettting you know some thoughts i had regarding the new css settings. I already posted a thread at broadbandnuts http://www.broadbandnuts.com/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=3521 but didnt really get a feedback regarding my concerns. Please read the thread if you have time In short: You, and also people on broadbandnuts (actually) recommend "new settings" which (in my opinion) just dont make sense. The "new recommended" settings (which i THINK might be wrong) are the ones concerning the buffer sizes: ++++++ OLD css: 100 InitLargeBufferCount x 81920 Bytes (LargeBufferSize) = 8000kB = 8MB ! 240 InitMediumBufferCnt x 15040 Bytes (MediumBufferSz) = 3525kB = 3.5 MB 320 InitSmallBufferCiunt x1280 Byes (SmallBufferSize) = 400kB = 0.4MB NEW settings: 200 InitLargeBufferCount x 819200 Bytes (LargeBufferSize) = 160.000kB = 160 MB ! 480 InitMediumBufferCnt x 150400 Bytes (MediumBufferSz) = 70.500kB = 70MB ! 640 InitSmallBufferCiunt x12800 Byes (SmallBufferSize) = 8.000kB = 8 MB ! +++++++++ in the old settings they had the values 81920, 15040, 1280 etc....and now all of a sudden people upped these values by factor 10. (see "NEW settings")..and also the multipliers got higher. As far as i understand the tweaks these are in bytes, and the "LargeBufferSize", mediaumbuffersize, smallbuffersize etc. is MULTIPLIED by the entries "InitLargeBufferCount". (or Init MediumBufferCount" or "InitSmallBufferCount" respective. Please see the above lines and calculate for yourself You will see that the new values result in relatively high buffer allocation (238MB !!! just for the TCP/IP stack in my example which i was given at my request on broadbandnuts.com (For a comcast 4000/384 cable connection under XP). thanks Addendum: Also...i think MANY people in the near future will upgrade their comcast cable from the standard 3000/256 to 4000/384. (Including me). Therefore you might want to include settings for this too in your css since quite a lot of people actually have comcast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted January 31, 2005 CID Share Posted January 31, 2005 hey flexy and welcome to the forum You are absolutly right, the settings allocate that amount of memory from your swapfile, i tryed both since Cablenut team also suggest this amount of buffers. The reason i also recommend them is simple, it gave me a small increasing of performance, when using big DefaultReceiveWindow and DefaultSendWindow. alot of ppl using these setttings and i have never heard anyone complaining that it allocate too much memory, infact the settings work great. Im glad to get feedback and if anyone like to test changing their settings from NEW settings: 200 InitLargeBufferCount x 819200 Bytes (LargeBufferSize) = 160.000kB = 160 MB ! 480 InitMediumBufferCnt x 150400 Bytes (MediumBufferSz) = 70.500kB = 70MB ! 640 InitSmallBufferCiunt x12800 Byes (SmallBufferSize) = 8.000kB = 8 MB ! to OLD css: 100 InitLargeBufferCount x 81920 Bytes (LargeBufferSize) = 8000kB = 8MB ! 240 InitMediumBufferCnt x 15040 Bytes (MediumBufferSz) = 3525kB = 3.5 MB 320 InitSmallBufferCiunt x1280 Byes (SmallBufferSize) = 400kB = 0.4MB and report back if the performance drop or increased, i would be glad VanBuren 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.