|
|
发表于 2006-2-24 00:58:05
|
显示全部楼层
来自： 中国黑龙江哈尔滨
我试了一下，确实有变化，但效果如何还有待考验，反正也不耽误我什么，如果真有效果就赚了！ z* j& S/ d# S+ X
谢谢搂主题供！) P5 ^! f! e6 \( ~. y0 K' z7 q
" X" t8 ~, E) D# o
TCP options string = 020405a00103030201010402: i F0 m j( z2 B8 S7 u, d' C& D
* h2 K/ J# e$ q, M9 {
MTU = 1480( c* ~( U9 {9 X0 {6 v1 f1 P
MTU is optimized for Windows XP PPoE DSL broadband. If not, consider raising MTU to 1500 for optimal throughput.. F8 B% p# P) F) T- ]0 s6 j* O
- n# k$ F& J+ n- g4 h, H% ~3 K t
MSS = 1440
6 c* `# h1 D4 y7 q# EMSS is optimized for Windows XP PPPoE DSL broadband. If not, consider raising your MTU value.
1 R" g1 D u( x3 o* ~ # k+ [6 X$ N$ p+ Q/ H
Default TCP Receive Window (RWIN) = 256320
8 L, K2 S9 B: @/ v7 RRWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 2 bits (scale factor of 4)2 V& Q+ C% g* _1 ?6 y
Unscaled TCP Receive Window = 64080
) N9 B; j5 Q; s) P$ A
$ W) g! Y3 V6 XRWIN is a multiple of MSS9 o# P, v3 K8 i6 s" I
Other RWIN values that might work well with your current MTU/MSS: . q$ n0 ^5 l# T& |7 o* l) z4 r
506880 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 8)1 \! d% E+ l3 W9 m" b" P |
253440 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 4)0 V0 B; r$ o- s) U9 ^2 ^! D
126720 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 2); c" Z1 S t% Q- ?1 O- l V5 i! P
63360 (MSS x 44)& e- }0 z% T9 ?6 L* D( L
6 N; e8 b% j2 O
bandwidth * delay product (Note this is not a speed test):
R+ L% L6 Y, K3 n9 @4 [9 Y0 E, W
Your TCP Window limits you to: 10252.8 kbps (1281.6 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
( R8 O0 ~1 Y7 ^& n/ U% FYour TCP Window limits you to: 4101.12 kbps (512.64 KBytes/s) @ 500ms |
|
