wmrawls

This tip was posted on another board that I frequent and I applied it and it does seem to help somewhat with download speeds but I have not put a test monitor on the machines I suppor to see if the facts bear out the percieved benifits. No othe good forum jumps to mind to post this to so if a mod wants to move it do so.
I would appreciate any feed back (from those that try it) just to see what you guys that try it think.

A nice little tweak for XP-Pro only. M*crosoft reserve 20% of your available bandwidth for their own purposes (suspect for updates and interrogating your machine etc..)

Here's how to get it back:

Click Start-->Run-->type "gpedit.msc" without the "

This opens the group policy editor. Then go to

Local Computer Policy-->Computer Configuration-->Administrative Templates-->Network-->QOS Packet Scheduler-->Limit Reservable Bandwidth

Double click on Limit Reservable bandwidth. It will say it is not configured, but the truth is under the 'Explain' tab :

"By default, the Packet Scheduler limits the system to 20 percent of the bandwidth of a connection, but you can use this setting to override the default."

So the trick is to ENABLE reservable bandwidth, then set it to ZERO.

This will allow the system to reserve nothing, rather than the default 20%.

works on XP Pro, 2000 but not on other o/s not tested.

Legodude522

I use Mac OS X. :P

Actually, I just has QOS disabled on my networked PCs yesterday because my bandwidth was sucky.

Howard2k

That's grossly incorrect.

What it ACTUALLY means is that if QoS is enabled, the Packet Scheduler may allocate 20% of the bandwidth to applications that request it.

However - even is this WAS the case, neither your home network, not the Internet as a whole have QoS enabled*


Actually there IS QoS on the Internet backbone, it's just that you, the average user cannot see or take advantage of it.

Even if it WAS true (20% rule) it would be completely ineffectual.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

Howard2k

Originally Posted by Legodude522

I use Mac OS X. :P Actually, I just has QOS disabled on my networked PCs yesterday because my bandwidth was sucky.

If you have bandwidth problems, that is why you'd enabled QoS, not disable it. OS X supports QoS too.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

uzziah0

So, what is the effect of doing this?
I ran CNet Bandwidth Meter and it ran 850 to 1860 Kbps over 5 different tests before this change, and 3 tests after the change seem to run about 1100 Kbps.

Based on the variances in CNet I am thinking this is not much of a read change.

reese

Originally Posted by Howard2k

That's grossly incorrect. What it ACTUALLY means is that if QoS is enabled, the Packet Scheduler may allocate 20% of the bandwidth to applications that request it. However - even is this WAS the case, neither your home network, not the Internet as a whole have QoS enabled* Actually there IS QoS on the Internet backbone, it's just that you, the average user cannot see or take advantage of it. Even if it WAS true (20% rule) it would be completely ineffectual.

Damn, Howard Beat me to it!

AKAJohnDoe

Originally Posted by uzziah0

So, what is the effect of doing this? I ran CNet Bandwidth Meter and it ran 850 to 1860 Kbps over 5 different tests before this change, and 3 tests after the change seem to run about 1100 Kbps. Based on the variances in CNet I am thinking this is not much of a read change.

Did you clear cache before re-running the test?

Anyway, QoS is a very effective facility at the enterprise level, where there are many different competing classes of traffic.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Howard2k

See, there was no net neutrality back then either ;)

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

Grentz

Originally Posted by uzziah0

So, what is the effect of doing this? I ran CNet Bandwidth Meter and it ran 850 to 1860 Kbps over 5 different tests before this change, and 3 tests after the change seem to run about 1100 Kbps. Based on the variances in CNet I am thinking this is not much of a read change.

Your (and most everyones) internet is way slower than the network card in your machine, so it will not make a difference.

Plus as howard said, it is only for when QoS is in effect.

A lot of enterprises use QoS at the router/gateway level vs. a peer software level.

chewbacca

the speed test results are not convincing, but the pages load a little faster.

Howard2k

Originally Posted by chewbacca

the speed test results are not convincing, but the pages load a little faster.

It's all in your head. Seriously. :)

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

ksong12

Yeah, there gonna be no effect at all, unless QoS is running, which isn't that often.

Besides, you say that it doesn't matter to Macs. Unfortuately, Macs have a much higher speed, go buy a Mac and test it for yourself if you want.

Windows has some very unoptimized settings, and even if you were to change them, the way Windows handles packets is inefficent.

__________________
Kevin Song
Aximsite News Editor
Aximsite Moderator


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Howard2k

Originally Posted by ksong12

Yeah, there gonna be no effect at all, unless QoS is running, which isn't that often. Besides, you say that it doesn't matter to Macs. Unfortuately, Macs have a much higher speed, go buy a Mac and test it for yourself if you want. Windows has some very unoptimized settings, and even if you were to change them, the way Windows handles packets is inefficent.

The days of Appletalk are long gone, and with good reason. Whether it's Mac or PC they both communicate via standard protocols like Ethernet and the TCP/IP suite.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

spunker88

So this isnt a problem on xp home edition? I think ms only uses the bandwidth when it needs to download an update. 20% is probably the max. Most of the time its around probly 0%.

__________________
Dell Axim X50
Windows Mobile 2003SE
Think Outside IR Keyboard
8GB CF Card (Apps, Movies)
2GB SD Card (Music)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Best Pocket PC Freeware Sites:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Howard2k

Originally Posted by spunker88

So this isnt a problem on xp home edition? I think ms only uses the bandwidth when it needs to download an update. 20% is probably the max. Most of the time its around probly 0%.

It's not a problem on ANY edition. Microsoft doesn't allocate ANY of your bandwidth for their updates.

When they send an update they do it as fast as possible. When you download a file you download it as fast as possible.

There is no policing or QoS.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.