VanBuren Posted February 22, 2005 CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 wait, seems like your already pingable you posted this before http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1651326 do a new and lets compare VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 22, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 that was with my routerr. without the router, for some reason it's not pingable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 22, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 When I talked to the Comcast tech today, he said that it was more than likely a trojan or other type of spyware in my computer,. Thing is i've got everything upto date and have run every scan i know of and i show nothing like that. He then suggested I reformat my computer, which i really don't want to do if I can avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 22, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 Here are the results of the test I took without the router http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1662150 Here is the test with my routers http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1662179 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 22, 2005 CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 i just pinged your IP# 100 times and had a 29% loss so i pinged the gateway 100 times aswell (68.87.224.110) and there was no loss you get crappy speed even without router, so i dont think its that causing it, it might be a damaged cable, or bad connect somewhere try changing the LAN cable from your modem to router VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCleud Posted February 22, 2005 CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 omg dude lol DONT reformat you machine! One of the reasons Comcast has people go delete all of their cookies and temp files is to try and knock out potential issues from spyware and other shit that could effect speed in marginal ways. The actual implications of HAVING such things on the machine goes far beyond anything related to speed and is another discussion. As far as them telling you to reformat your drive, tell him to F**K off pronto. If spyware, malware, trojans or ANYTHING ELSE was causing your "speed" problem it would mean the program(s) are stealing your bandwidth doing nasty things such as using your machine as a remote hacking station etc. This would also mean you would be able to see your machine is, for some reason, uploading/downloading data that you are not specifically aware of but COULD see it using any number of ways including the simplest which is watching the network tab of taskman if using WindowsXP etc. Bottom line: Comcast has no means/methods to resolve bottlenecks in their network for the home user. Not sure if they have it for the Business customers or not. It "is" possible you may have a bad cable or physical connection problem that has suddenly exposed itself enough to be noticed. The simplest way of determining that is to just replace the cables with known-good spares so you can know your have a solid connection from your machine to the cable coming into your house. Not everyone has spare LAN cables laying around. Radio Shack can help there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 22, 2005 CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 yea i agree McCleud, never heard of a Trojan causing packetloss so like McCleud says do not format , just beqause a lazy ass customer support staff says so VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 22, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 I just changed the lan cable that was given to me by comcast for the lan cable I had on the router. I disconnected the router and am just using the cable modem again. still seems crapy. going to try and run another test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 22, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 There was definately a noticiible difference. I tried tiwht the two different cables and got the following results. http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1662214 and then http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1662232 but could just a faulty lan cable be the result of such a slow connectiion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 22, 2005 CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 do you still have your old modem at home, if so try change back and do a new linequality test VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 22, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 nope they took that with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 22, 2005 CID Share Posted February 22, 2005 if you have another pc that you know work well, plug it in direct to modem with a lan cable that you know are ok if you still dosent get speed, demand your ISP to come home to you and fix the problem VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCleud Posted February 23, 2005 CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 ... but Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 but it would seem to me that would effect both DL and UL speeds, and yet for some reason Only my DL speed is being effectted, or am I just wrong and it could just effect one thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 23, 2005 CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 but it would seem to me that would effect both DL and UL speeds, and yet for some reason Only my DL speed is being effectted, or am I just wrong and it could just effect one thing. it affect both upstream and downstream, but you wont notice much on a 384 Kbps upload cap if you had a upload of 3 Mbps you would have seen the impact with packetloss better VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 it affect both upstream and downstream, but you wont notice much on a 384 Kbps upload cap if you had a upload of 3 Mbps you would have seen the impact with packetloss better VanBuren Well i can physically see a difference with the cable that's showing a smaller amount of packet loss. The pages look like they're moving faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 23, 2005 CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 i would buy complete new cables, they are not very expensive, then you know they are ok VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 I bought some new cables and then did a new quality test today. here are my results. I already notice quite a difference on how fast it takes a new page to load. http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1663263 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCleud Posted February 23, 2005 CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 Excellent. Trace route shows you at 0 loss on that page except for gblx-gw.cgcil.ip.att.net. Most of the time seeing any packet loss is, at-minimum, 'odd'. If things are working properly everywhere between your machine and all the equipment and routing to the destination then should be 0's across the board regardless. Definitely 1000% better than the severe local packet loss your original tests showed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 23, 2005 CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 amazing what a new cable can do post some speed scores and lets see if you get what you pay for VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 23, 2005 amazing what a new cable can do post some speed scores and lets see if you get what you pay for VanBuren Here are the speed tests they aren't good. I took them from 3 different places just to make sure. DSL reports: 48 / 243 Toast.net : 37 /242 :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 189 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 97 KB) Download Speed is:: 23 KB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Wed Feb 23 2005 17:21:15 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB download in 44.52 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 6.06 % of your hosts average (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/id-JHY6L0N5M :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 233 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 579 KB) Upload Speed is:: 28 KB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Wed Feb 23 2005 17:23:08 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Bottom Line:: 4X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 36.57 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 71.25 % of your hosts average (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/id-0FNYQS7KL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 24, 2005 CID Share Posted February 24, 2005 hey again vagarcia74 Power cycle your modem, unplug it for atleast 30 seconds. run this test, copy all text you find in "more info" and "Statistic" and paste it here, http://nitro.ucsc.edu/ also make a tracert, go to start-run type command and hit enter, type tracert testmy.net and hit enter, right click copy all and paste it in your post. also run this test http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks copy and paste result URL adress in your post VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 24, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 24, 2005 hey again vagarcia74 Power cycle your modem, unplug it for atleast 30 seconds. run this test, copy all text you find in "more info" and "Statistic" and paste it here, http://nitro.ucsc.edu/ also make a tracert, go to start-run type command and hit enter, type tracert testmy.net and hit enter, right click copy all and paste it in your post. also run this test http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks copy and paste result URL adress in your post VanBuren TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.3.3a click START to begin Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 339.19Kb/s running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 84.33kb/s Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link click START to re-test WEB100 Enabled Statistics: Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 339.19Kb/s running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 84.33kb/s ------ Client System Details ------ OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1 Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.5.0 ------ 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 = 92.0 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and There were 28 packets retransmitted, 6 duplicate acks received, and 7 SACK blocks received The connection stalled 6 times due to packet loss The connection was idle 2.28 seconds (22.79%) of the time This connection is network limited 99.98% of the time. Contact your local network administrator to report a network problem Excessive packet loss is impacting your performance, check the auto-negotiate function on your local PC and network switch 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: OFF Packet size is preserved End-to-End Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End Client IP addresses are preserved End-to-End WEB100 Kernel Variables: Client: localhost/127.0.0.1 AckPktsIn: 43 AckPktsOut: 0 BytesRetrans: 40880 CongAvoid: 18 CongestionOverCount: 0 CongestionSignals: 12 CountRTT: 20 CurCwnd: 4380 CurMSS: 1460 CurRTO: 380 CurRwinRcvd: 65535 CurRwinSent: 5840 CurSsthresh: 2920 DSACKDups: 0 DataBytesIn: 0 DataBytesOut: 140160 DataPktsIn: 0 DataPktsOut: 96 DupAcksIn: 6 ECNEnabled: 0 FastRetran: 1 MaxCwnd: 5840 MaxMSS: 1460 MaxRTO: 390 MaxRTT: 270 MaxRwinRcvd: 65535 MaxRwinSent: 5840 MaxSsthresh: 2920 MinMSS: 1460 MinRTO: 260 MinRTT: 50 MinRwinRcvd: 65535 MinRwinSent: 5840 NagleEnabled: 1 OtherReductions: 0 PktsIn: 43 PktsOut: 96 PktsRetrans: 28 X_Rcvbuf: 103424 RcvWinScale: 2147483647 SACKEnabled: 3 SACKsRcvd: 7 SendStall: 0 SlowStart: 17 SampleRTT: 70 SmoothedRTT: 100 X_Sndbuf: 103424 SndWinScale: 2147483647 SndLimTimeRwin: 0 SndLimTimeCwnd: 10419379 SndLimTimeSender: 2402 SndLimTransRwin: 0 SndLimTransCwnd: 1 SndLimTransSender: 1 SndLimBytesRwin: 0 SndLimBytesCwnd: 140160 SndLimBytesSender: 0 SubsequentTimeouts: 5 SumRTT: 1840 Timeouts: 6 TimestampsEnabled: 0 WinScaleRcvd: 2147483647 WinScaleSent: 2147483647 DupAcksOut: 0 StartTimeUsec: 783735 Duration: 10430407 c2sData: 2 c2sAck: 2 s2cData: 9 s2cAck: 2 half_duplex: 0 link: 100 congestion: 1 bad_cable: 0 mismatch: 0 spd: 0.00 bw: 0.34 loss: 0.125000000 avgrtt: 92.00 waitsec: 2.28 timesec: 10.00 order: 0.1395 rwintime: 0.0000 sendtime: 0.0002 cwndtime: 0.9998 rwin: 0.5000 swin: 0.7891 cwin: 0.0446 rttsec: 0.092000 Sndbuf: 103424 Checking for mismatch condition (cwndtime > .3) [0.99>.3], (MaxSsthresh > 0) [2920>0], (PktsRetrans/sec > 2) [2.8>2], (estimate > 2) [0.34>2] Checking for mismatch on uplink (speed > 50 [0>50], (xmitspeed < 5) [0.33<5] (rwintime > .9) [0>.9], (loss < .01) [0.12<.01] Checking for excessive errors condition (loss/sec > .15) [0.01>.15], (cwndtime > .6) [0.99>.6], (loss < .01) [0.12<.01], (MaxSsthresh > 0) [2920>0] Checking for 10 Mbps link (speed < 9.5) [0<9.5], (speed > 3.0) [0>3.0] (xmitspeed < 9.5) [0.33<9.5] (loss < .01) [0.12<.01], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for Wireless link (sendtime = 0) [2.0E=0], (speed < 5) [0<5] (Estimate > 50 [0.34>50], (Rwintime > 90) [0>.90] (RwinTrans/CwndTrans = 1) [0/1=1], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for DSL/Cable Modem link (speed < 2) [0<2], (SndLimTransSender = 0) [1=0] (SendTime = 0) [2.0E-4=0], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for half-duplex condition (rwintime > .95) [0>.95], (RwinTrans/sec > 30) [0>30], (SenderTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], OR (mylink <= 10) [3.0<=10] Checking for congestion (cwndtime > .02) [0.99>.02], (mismatch = 0) [0=0] (MaxSsthresh > 0) [2920>0] estimate = 0.34 based on packet size = 11Kbits, RTT = 92.0msec, and loss = 0.125 The theoretical network limit is 0.34 Mbps The NDT server has a 101.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 8.57 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 63.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 5.43 Mbps The network based flow control limits the throughput to 0.48 Mbps Client Data reports link is 'T1', Client Acks report link is 'T1' Server Data reports link is '10 Gig', Server Acks report link is 'T1' http://ttester.broadbandreports.com/tweak/block:74f70?service=cable&speed=3000&os=winXP&via=normal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted February 24, 2005 CID Share Posted February 24, 2005 The connection stalled 6 times due to packet loss The connection was idle 2.28 seconds (22.79%) of the time this is what slowing you down, bypass your router again, now you know you have good cables and do same tests again VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagarcia74 Posted February 24, 2005 Author CID Share Posted February 24, 2005 The router isn't plugged in. 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.