Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)
ikon

GO JUMBO OR GO HOME

Recommended Posts

timekills

I'm not a huge fan of the TCP Optimizer, and not because I'm a Luddite. Some - many - of the "tweaks", even those supposedly for Win7 or that kernel family are still throwbacks to XP and earlier. Much as people still thought many of the reghacks and service disabling that helped Win2000 and XP were still relevant in Win7 but at best do nothing and at worst can impede speeds. This is from my own testing, admittedly, but I saw connectivity lag when using the TCP Optimizer across my own LAN. It may have helped my Internet connection, but nothing measurable, and I had distinct issues across the LAN.

 

For reference, these are connection speeds between a laptop - read only 5400 RPM hard drive - and my server:

 

First one is before the registry change (i.e. the standard 20% limit for QoS):

BeforeReg.png

 

This second one is after implementing the change on both laptop and server:

AfterReg.png

 

Not a significant difference. I caution you - QoS is just that. the 20% reserved does NOT mean it isn't used on a normal basis. What it means ifs under multiple measured streams the OS will portion out bandwidth to ensure the data type (or port, depending on your QoS) that requires higher priority (i.e. VIDEO, or voice - real time data requirements) are getting the bandwidth they need. By removing this you are allowing a Twitter pic or email download to over-ride or at best have equal time with the real-time data you want to prioritize.

 

I.E. you are hurting your video streaming, not helping it. Stutter isn't caused by lack of bandwidth. Giving that extra bandwidth out and not allowing QoS may - may - help when you're transferring a 4+GB file across the LAN as long as no other network transmission is going on. But you'll be disappointed when your other data streams are competing and the video loses out because QoS isn't implemented or able to be measured.

 

Be careful what you fix.

 

P.S. posting non-addressble IPs - i.e. 192.168.x.x - isn't a security risk. MAC addresses aren't either really, but for those of you outside my house with a sniffer I'd rather you figure out which MACs are mine instead of me giving them to you. :)

 

P.P.S I do agree with the jumbo frames if they are fully supported however. Again, do some checking because if any link doesn't support them, then the fragmentation caused by trying to use them will be much worse than not using them at all.

Edited by timekills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

P.P.S I do agree with the jumbo frames if they are fully supported however. Again, do some checking because if any link doesn't support them, then the fragmentation caused by trying to use them will be much worse than not using them at all.

Totally agreed. The really fortunate thing is it is extremely easy to test, and trivial to disable if no benefit is seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Smartepants

Well I had the opposite experience. Enabling jumbo frames killed my backups. Backups would get to about 50% and then kill the server network connection on my WHSv1 EX490. The connector icons would turn grey on all my client PCs and I'd have to do a manual shutdown (hold the power button for 2 sec.) just to restore connectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

Well I had the opposite experience. Enabling jumbo frames killed my backups. Backups would get to about 50% and then kill the server network connection on my WHSv1 EX490. The connector icons would turn grey on all my client PCs and I'd have to do a manual shutdown (hold the power button for 2 sec.) just to restore connectivity.

Sorry to hear that. Mine still seem to be working, but I think I'll do a manual one just to confirm, so thanks for posting. Out of curiosity, did you try all the different Jumbo Frame sizes and, assuming you did, did you notice any difference at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dvn

The Packet Scheduler limits the system to 20% of the bandwidth of a connection, but you can override this value by using this parameter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this only comes into play when you use QoS. Otherwise, it does nothing.

 

I agree with timekills about TCPOptimizer. I also feel it is vestige of XP days, and even then it did not benefit a system that was configured with the default network settings. Now if some application had badly messed with the settings, then TCPOptimizer might provide some improvement. That was my experience, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Welch

correct, i ran across another post stating the QOS improvement, i also after tryingTCPoptimizer felt the same way and sticking with manual adjustments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cino

I suggest TCPOptimizer as it was a quick for my system. After building my WHS 2011 box I started to test SMB and NFS shares to my WDTV Live device. 1-2GB AVIs and MKV would stutter over NFS but were playable over SMB (should be the other way around). I have a couple of 16GB+ MKV files and they would stutter after a minute of playing. ISOs would take a minute to start playing. Before building the WHS box, all my movies would play over a NFS share from my single drive QNap NAS with no issues, AVIs, MKV, ISOs(I had stuttering with SMBs). Thinking it was the built-in Realtek NIC, I popped a Intel Server 1000 NIC in the box and had the same results.

 

I hard set my NICs/Switch Port speed, didn't help. I used a cross-over cable between WHS and my WDTV box, no luck. Also thought about JUMBO frames but knew this could cause issues with parts of my network. We do use JUMBO frames on certain networks at work but they are on networks that are just for video streaming, think VoD or MoD. I never gave TCP Optimizer a thought as I agree that its from the good old XP days and previous windows OSs. I decided to try it and it was night and day for me. No stutter on either SMB or NFS shares.

 

When I remove the setting, stuttering comes back...I would prefer not to use it but it works for me on my WHS box. What I need to do is find the time and figure out what setting(s) it change that fix the stuttering for me.

 

I haven't messed around much with Win 7 built in QoS but if your internal network isn't setup for it, is there any benefit? Even if I did setup DSCP or 802.1p on my switch, i'm accessing my Videos via a SMB or NFS share. I could be wrong but I don't believe windows would tag the packets to increase or decrease the traffic priority. Maybe if I used DLNA it would tag the packets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

interesting Cino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Smartepants

Out of curiosity, did you try all the different Jumbo Frame sizes and, assuming you did, did you notice any difference at all?

Yes. My desktop only supports up to 7k MTU sizes so that's what I started with on the EX490, then 5k & 4k MTU before I gave up and switched back to "Disabled".

I still have Jumbo frames enabled on my desktop NIC set at 4k but it's disabled on the server. Backups now complete normally.

My gigabit switch supports Jumbo frames up to 9k MTU but I'm not sure of my router (Linksys WRT320N).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

Yes. My desktop only supports up to 7k MTU sizes so that's what I started with on the EX490, then 5k & 4k MTU before I gave up and switched back to "Disabled".

I still have Jumbo frames enabled on my desktop NIC set at 4k but it's disabled on the server. Backups now complete normally.

My gigabit switch supports Jumbo frames up to 9k MTU but I'm not sure of my router (Linksys WRT320N).

Interestingly, I have noticed that my network just seems a little more 'peppy' since enabling Jumbo. Of course it's subjective and hard to quantify, but things just seem to respond a bit quicker. I noticed it particularly when connecting to my Untangle UTM; the usual lag for the main page to come up wasn't there. Still haven't done the backup test.... must do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...