Tony_Stuart
@cox.net
| [AZ] Cox Internet speeds.
During the day time my internet speed is great.
»www.speedtest.net/result/385691871.png
As soon as I get home around 6pm I am lucky to get 128KB/sec down.
Any suggestions? Cox so far can't figure it out.
Happens everynight.
Name
WebSTAR DPC2100R2
Modem Serial Number
218131117
Hardware Version
2.1
Software Version
v2.0.2r1256-060303
Receive Power Level
2.5 dBmV
Transmit Power Level
41.0 dBmV
Cable Modem Status
Operational
The above numbers are always the same.
I realize that there will always be some type of congestion, but congestion does not explain a drop from 27Mbits/sec to 1Mbit/sec. Atleast I dont believe so.
|
|
Tony_Stuart
join:2009-01-07
Phoenix, AZ
1 edit | During the day time my internet speed is great.
»www.speedtest.net/result/385691871.png
As soon as I get home around 6pm I am lucky to get 128KB/sec down.
Any suggestions? Cox so far can't figure it out.
Happens everynight.
Name
WebSTAR DPC2100R2
Modem Serial Number
218131117
Hardware Version
2.1
Software Version
v2.0.2r1256-060303
Receive Power Level
2.5 dBmV
Transmit Power Level
41.0 dBmV
Cable Modem Status
Operational
The above numbers are always the same.
I realize that there will always be some type of congestion, but congestion does not explain a drop from 27Mbits/sec to 1Mbit/sec. Atleast I dont believe so.
Sorry about that, but I registered so reposting.
Here are my speed test results over the past 24hrs.
1/7/2009 2:11 PM GMT 68.231.1.163 27116 kb/s 3362 kb/s 10 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/7/2009 4:36 AM GMT 68.231.1.163 2949 kb/s 2104 kb/s 10 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/7/2009 3:25 AM GMT 68.231.1.163 3043 kb/s 2265 kb/s 44 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/7/2009 1:07 AM GMT 68.231.1.163 8240 kb/s 2973 kb/s 10 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/6/2009 9:42 PM GMT 68.231.1.163 19872 kb/s 3325 kb/s 10 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/6/2009 9:42 PM GMT 68.231.1.163 18268 kb/s 2978 kb/s 10 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/6/2009 9:39 PM GMT 68.231.1.163 22285 kb/s 3356 kb/s 11 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open
1/6/2009 9:27 PM GMT 68.231.1.163 18106 kb/s 3952 kb/s 10 ms Phoenix, AZ ~ 50 mi Open |
|
CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA | reply to Tony_Stuart
If you could PM me the modem's MAC address I'll take a look for you. |
|
Tony_Stuart
join:2009-01-07
Phoenix, AZ | PM sent, and thanks CoxTech1 |
|
Tony_Stuart
join:2009-01-07
Phoenix, AZ | Here is an example of downloading during the day and at night.
»i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll69···oad2.jpg |
|
Tony_Stuart
join:2009-01-07
Phoenix, AZ
| Updated Modem Summary. Speed has slowed about half of what I had this morning.
Name
WebSTAR DPC2100R2
Modem Serial Number
218131117
Hardware Version
2.1
Software Version
v2.0.2r1256-060303
Receive Power Level
0.7 dBmV
Transmit Power Level
42.5 dBmV
Cable Modem Status
Operational |
|
CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA | Those signals look to be ideal, this problem doesn't appear to be quality of signal related. |
|
Tony_Stuart
join:2009-01-07
Phoenix, AZ | Technicians just ran a line from the box on the street directly into my modem, no difference in speed. Has been turned over to maintenance department. Will report back after the work outside is done. |
|
Ikyuao
Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS
 ·Cox HSI
| Looks like you have TCP issues that your small congestion window buffer are extremely inefficient of window side in order to take advantage of high speed broadband.
--
Professional Linux environmental blows microsoft windows out of the water. |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Ikyuao  :Looks like you have TCP issues that your small congestion window buffer are extremely inefficient of window side in order to take advantage of high speed broadband. Tony_Stuart Ignore the above post info....
Ikyuao.... Does the "buffer" size change at night? If not how do you explain the excellent daytime speeds???????? |
|
Ikyuao
Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
2 edits | AZwidcats, In windows 2000 and XP doesn't have any dynamically tune of congestion window buffer implemented, congestion window buffer size will be always be static and latency times will always be dynamically ups and downs of times and while congestion window buffer size static non-changeable and will lose congestion window stream while latnecy times clinbs up of larger packet delay time unless you are on windows vista, newer an TCP congestion window buffer can do dynamically in automatically tune as latency times are dynamically at same a time rather than old early TCP static of congestion window buffer in the windows 2000 and XP versions. Linux does have congestion window dynamically implantment as optional since 2.4 Linux kernel and now newer 2.6.xx Linux kernel have enabled of congestion window buffer dynamically, window scaling as automatically tune at default setting.
Larger congestion window buffer size with window scaling enabled really can help to keep congestion window from collapsing of data stream of broadband or dedicated high speed bandwidth in the packet delay times and the high latency of environmental.
--
Professional Linux environmental blows microsoft windows out of the water. |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ | OMG |
|
tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·Callcentric
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·FrontierNet Intern..
1 edit | Tony_Stuart , i apologize in advance crapping all over your thread (this is in no way directed towards you or Fubar )...
when i first started reading these boards, i almost used to think he just a joke that someone was playing on us...
the longer and longer i go on, the more i think that he is a real person and actually believes what he spews...
my real 2009 wish (and i say this at the risk of getting modded) - Ikyuao stops spouting off about "windows xp not have autotuning for congestion avoidance when tcp buffer steams across long fat pipe across internet" and will speak in perfect english.
/rant
q. |
|
Ikyuao
Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
| Be quiet! I'm helping this person of original poster to get his TCP be tweak up and running in the way of efficient of broadband in the high latency environmental.
--
Professional Linux environmental blows microsoft windows out of the water. |
|
Ikyuao
Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
3 edits | reply to Fubar
If that web site is so far away in distant of 200 ms to 300 ms away from your home in long range of distance to japan country or foreign country so your 64K small congestion window buffer size will be much likely get collapsed of data stream that really definitely slow down and finally crawls down and lost completely. It's like if your the spacecraft ship wanted to go warp speed of inbound for Andromeda Galaxy that really 2.5 million years light away then your spacecraft will be definitely runs out of the fuel of dilithium crystalline and matter-antimatter energy then you and your crew will be definitely be killed in starvation and completely lost in space empty of floating. do you understand what I mean what I talking about congestion window buffer size, when having dealing with packet delay times as high latency environmental or maybe internet routers are too busy of buffer of packets as triggering latency increases of delay times.
I can access to sega.jp web site reachable in japan country really fast enough with larger window buffer.
--
Professional Linux environmental blows microsoft windows out of the water. |
|
daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
| reply to tubbynet
I have seen this person also post in the Comcast forum in the same partial-English sort of way.
Not sure if he/she is from some foreign country and not comfortable with the English language, or if he/she knows English just fine and is deliberately using strange expressions for some sort of enjoyment.
|
|
AnonInTucson
join:2008-12-18
Tucson, AZ
| reply to Ikyuao
I'm not sure which is worse. The fact that Ikyuao is still here posting crap two years later or the fact that there are still people who haven't used the ignore feature to remove his garbage from their screens.
It's posters like Ikyuao and jsmiddleton that make the snr of this forum too low for me to bother much anymore. |
|
tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| said by AnonInTucson :there are still people who haven't used the ignore feature to remove his garbage from their screens. the issue here is that if everyone were to ignore, only those who need help and aren't familiar with his reputation can see his garbage. if no one interjects, then the user may try his solutions and have his setup puke more than it already is.
q. |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
| said by tubbynet :said by AnonInTucson :there are still people who haven't used the ignore feature to remove his garbage from their screens. the issue here is that if everyone were to ignore, only those who need help and aren't familiar with his reputation can see his garbage. if no one interjects, then the user may try his solutions and have his setup puke more than it already is. q. Exactly! |
|
Ikyuao
Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
1 edit | said by Fubar :said by tubbynet :said by AnonInTucson :there are still people who haven't used the ignore feature to remove his garbage from their screens. the issue here is that if everyone were to ignore, only those who need help and aren't familiar with his reputation can see his smart of the way of TCP tune techniques. if no one interjects, then the user may try his solutions and have his setup will not puke more than it already is. q. Exactly! That's right, there is the way of hidden of the efficient of use broadband bandwidth via TCP expension of high performance. I bet that most colleges and universities will say that I'm correct about the high speed WAN link and latency packet delay times.
--
Professional Linux environmental blows microsoft windows out of the water. |
|
