Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New ISP, slow Remote Desktop and FTP??

Tags:
  • Remote Desktop
  • FTP
  • Internet Service Providers
  • Windows XP
Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 1:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I recently was switched to a Comcast customer after they
bought out portions of my previoud provider. Since the new
ISP came in, my remote desktop and FTP server I use
between work and home has gone from about a 190 kbs.
average transfer spped to about 30 kbs. I can access the
internet fast as ever needed from the host PC via Internet
Explorer or other downlaoding programs. I ran some
bandwidth tests using several different sites/ methods.
They all return great speeds! However, when I remote in, I
get alot of lag like there's no bandwidth to be had. I
have the same problem with my BulletProof FTP server I
use. The kbs is horrible now. All other internet apps. run
fine/ fast. What could be the cause of this?? I haven't
changed anything at home w/ the exception of the IP
address through the new carrier, and adding thier DNS
information as I wasn't getting the speed I wanted overall
by allowing the PC to detect the network settings. I would
imagine if I can get great d/l speeds through one
application, I ought to be able to get fast connections
through all of them, right?

More about : isp slow remote desktop ftp

Anonymous
September 10, 2004 12:30:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

What is your "upload" bandwidth? This typically is much slower than
the "download" speed... Since it affects all of the services - I
would tend to believe that Comcast may be capping your upload speed.
Do another speed test to compare your upload speed.

Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking & Smart Display MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com

Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
be answered depending on time availability....

Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
Windows XP Expert Zone - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:02:38 -0700, "Rob Phillips"
<goofball04@comcast.net> wrote:

>I recently was switched to a Comcast customer after they
>bought out portions of my previoud provider. Since the new
>ISP came in, my remote desktop and FTP server I use
>between work and home has gone from about a 190 kbs.
>average transfer spped to about 30 kbs. I can access the
>internet fast as ever needed from the host PC via Internet
>Explorer or other downlaoding programs. I ran some
>bandwidth tests using several different sites/ methods.
>They all return great speeds! However, when I remote in, I
>get alot of lag like there's no bandwidth to be had. I
>have the same problem with my BulletProof FTP server I
>use. The kbs is horrible now. All other internet apps. run
>fine/ fast. What could be the cause of this?? I haven't
>changed anything at home w/ the exception of the IP
>address through the new carrier, and adding thier DNS
>information as I wasn't getting the speed I wanted overall
>by allowing the PC to detect the network settings. I would
>imagine if I can get great d/l speeds through one
>application, I ought to be able to get fast connections
>through all of them, right?
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 5:15:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I have had the upload test at 256 using
http://dfw.speakeasy.net/ , which is what the cable guy
used when he was here today. They can't find any problems
(of course) so I'm left to deal with it myself. I had a
friend in NY log onto my FTP and he could only pull 30.00
kbs max. I would think it wa a software issue if it were
only the FTP application. Remote Desktop is incredibly
slow, too, though, and that leads me to believe it's
something bigger.



>-----Original Message-----
>What is your "upload" bandwidth? This typically is much
slower than
>the "download" speed... Since it affects all of the
services - I
>would tend to believe that Comcast may be capping your
upload speed.
>Do another speed test to compare your upload speed.
>
>Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking & Smart Display MVP)
>jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
>
>Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the
benefit
>of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may
not
>be answered depending on time availability....
>
>Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
>http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
>Windows XP Expert Zone -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:02:38 -0700, "Rob Phillips"
><goofball04@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I recently was switched to a Comcast customer after they
>>bought out portions of my previoud provider. Since the
new
>>ISP came in, my remote desktop and FTP server I use
>>between work and home has gone from about a 190 kbs.
>>average transfer spped to about 30 kbs. I can access the
>>internet fast as ever needed from the host PC via
Internet
>>Explorer or other downlaoding programs. I ran some
>>bandwidth tests using several different sites/ methods.
>>They all return great speeds! However, when I remote in,
I
>>get alot of lag like there's no bandwidth to be had. I
>>have the same problem with my BulletProof FTP server I
>>use. The kbs is horrible now. All other internet apps.
run
>>fine/ fast. What could be the cause of this?? I haven't
>>changed anything at home w/ the exception of the IP
>>address through the new carrier, and adding thier DNS
>>information as I wasn't getting the speed I wanted
overall
>>by allowing the PC to detect the network settings. I
would
>>imagine if I can get great d/l speeds through one
>>application, I ought to be able to get fast connections
>>through all of them, right?
>
>.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 9:41:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Have you done any testing--maybe using the tools at dslreports.com? Seems
like a stretch since your performance was fine with the previous ISP, but
maybe something'll show up.

"Robbo" <goofball04@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0c3301c49905$40e19bb0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>I have had the upload test at 256 using
> http://dfw.speakeasy.net/ , which is what the cable guy
> used when he was here today. They can't find any problems
> (of course) so I'm left to deal with it myself. I had a
> friend in NY log onto my FTP and he could only pull 30.00
> kbs max. I would think it wa a software issue if it were
> only the FTP application. Remote Desktop is incredibly
> slow, too, though, and that leads me to believe it's
> something bigger.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>What is your "upload" bandwidth? This typically is much
> slower than
>>the "download" speed... Since it affects all of the
> services - I
>>would tend to believe that Comcast may be capping your
> upload speed.
>>Do another speed test to compare your upload speed.
>>
>>Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking & Smart Display MVP)
>>jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
>>
>>Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the
> benefit
>>of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may
> not
>>be answered depending on time availability....
>>
>>Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
>>http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
>>Windows XP Expert Zone -
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>
>>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:02:38 -0700, "Rob Phillips"
>><goofball04@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I recently was switched to a Comcast customer after they
>>>bought out portions of my previoud provider. Since the
> new
>>>ISP came in, my remote desktop and FTP server I use
>>>between work and home has gone from about a 190 kbs.
>>>average transfer spped to about 30 kbs. I can access the
>>>internet fast as ever needed from the host PC via
> Internet
>>>Explorer or other downlaoding programs. I ran some
>>>bandwidth tests using several different sites/ methods.
>>>They all return great speeds! However, when I remote in,
> I
>>>get alot of lag like there's no bandwidth to be had. I
>>>have the same problem with my BulletProof FTP server I
>>>use. The kbs is horrible now. All other internet apps.
> run
>>>fine/ fast. What could be the cause of this?? I haven't
>>>changed anything at home w/ the exception of the IP
>>>address through the new carrier, and adding thier DNS
>>>information as I wasn't getting the speed I wanted
> overall
>>>by allowing the PC to detect the network settings. I
> would
>>>imagine if I can get great d/l speeds through one
>>>application, I ought to be able to get fast connections
>>>through all of them, right?
>>
>>.
>>
Anonymous
September 14, 2004 1:43:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Maybe a MTU setting? If FTP is slow as well, it leads me to believe
it is an upstream bandwidth problem.

Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking & Smart Display MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com

Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
be answered depending on time availability....

Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
Windows XP Expert Zone - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:41:41 -0400, "Bill Sanderson"
<Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote:

>Have you done any testing--maybe using the tools at dslreports.com? Seems
>like a stretch since your performance was fine with the previous ISP, but
>maybe something'll show up.
>
>"Robbo" <goofball04@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:0c3301c49905$40e19bb0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>>I have had the upload test at 256 using
>> http://dfw.speakeasy.net/ , which is what the cable guy
>> used when he was here today. They can't find any problems
>> (of course) so I'm left to deal with it myself. I had a
>> friend in NY log onto my FTP and he could only pull 30.00
>> kbs max. I would think it wa a software issue if it were
>> only the FTP application. Remote Desktop is incredibly
>> slow, too, though, and that leads me to believe it's
>> something bigger.
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>What is your "upload" bandwidth? This typically is much
>> slower than
>>>the "download" speed... Since it affects all of the
>> services - I
>>>would tend to believe that Comcast may be capping your
>> upload speed.
>>>Do another speed test to compare your upload speed.
>>>
>>>Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking & Smart Display MVP)
>>>jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
>>>
>>>Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the
>> benefit
>>>of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may
>> not
>>>be answered depending on time availability....
>>>
>>>Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
>>>http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
>>>Windows XP Expert Zone -
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>>
>>>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:02:38 -0700, "Rob Phillips"
>>><goofball04@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I recently was switched to a Comcast customer after they
>>>>bought out portions of my previoud provider. Since the
>> new
>>>>ISP came in, my remote desktop and FTP server I use
>>>>between work and home has gone from about a 190 kbs.
>>>>average transfer spped to about 30 kbs. I can access the
>>>>internet fast as ever needed from the host PC via
>> Internet
>>>>Explorer or other downlaoding programs. I ran some
>>>>bandwidth tests using several different sites/ methods.
>>>>They all return great speeds! However, when I remote in,
>> I
>>>>get alot of lag like there's no bandwidth to be had. I
>>>>have the same problem with my BulletProof FTP server I
>>>>use. The kbs is horrible now. All other internet apps.
>> run
>>>>fine/ fast. What could be the cause of this?? I haven't
>>>>changed anything at home w/ the exception of the IP
>>>>address through the new carrier, and adding thier DNS
>>>>information as I wasn't getting the speed I wanted
>> overall
>>>>by allowing the PC to detect the network settings. I
>> would
>>>>imagine if I can get great d/l speeds through one
>>>>application, I ought to be able to get fast connections
>>>>through all of them, right?
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 10:07:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I checked the MTU using ping www.dslreports.com -f -l 1472
and got the following results. I couldn't make the packet
size any higher than 1472 without fragmenting. Is ths a
good result to get? I really don't know too aweful much
about packets and such.

Pinging dslreports.com [209.123.109.175] with 1472 bytes
of data:

Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=51ms TTL=50
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=52ms TTL=50
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=50ms TTL=50
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=54ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 209.123.109.175:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 51ms

I had also used the sdlreports "tweak tester" and got the
following:

1. Your Tweakable Settings:
Receive Window (RWIN): 64240
Window Scaling: off
Path MTU Discovery: ON
RFC1323 Window Scaling: OFF
RFC1323 Time Stamping: OFF
Selective Acks: ON
MSS requested: 1460
TTL: unknown
TTL remaining: 113

2. Test 146000 byte download
Actual data bytes sent: 146000
Actual data packets: 100
Max packet sent (MTU): 1500
Max packet recd (MTU): 1500
Retransmitted data packets: 0
sacks you sent: 0
pushed data pkts: 5
data transmit time: 0.437 secs
our max idletime: 161.5 ms
transfer rate: 140175 bytes/sec
transfer rate: 1121 kbits/sec
This is not a speed test!
transfer efficiency: 100%


3. ICMP (ping) check
Target unpingable




Notes and recommendations:
RWIN is in range
Looking good

Notes and recommendations:
Good data stream (no/few rexmits)

Notes and recommendations:
Become pingable
if you need basic packet loss tests done
Check tweak FAQ


Again, I have no idea if these are ideal or not. I have
made the changes to make the PC Pingable, but will not
reboot until I get home. (I did it through remote desktop
while I was @ work).
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 7:42:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

1472 is exactly right. If you add in 28 bytes of overhead of various sorts,
this comes to a 1500 byte packet, which is standard.

So--this rules out MTU issues.


"Rob Phillips" <goofball04@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0a3401c49bee$17039910$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>
> I checked the MTU using ping www.dslreports.com -f -l 1472
> and got the following results. I couldn't make the packet
> size any higher than 1472 without fragmenting. Is ths a
> good result to get? I really don't know too aweful much
> about packets and such.
>
> Pinging dslreports.com [209.123.109.175] with 1472 bytes
> of data:
>
> Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=51ms TTL=50
> Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=52ms TTL=50
> Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=50ms TTL=50
> Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=1472 time=54ms TTL=50
>
> Ping statistics for 209.123.109.175:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 51ms
>
> I had also used the sdlreports "tweak tester" and got the
> following:
>
> 1. Your Tweakable Settings:
> Receive Window (RWIN): 64240
> Window Scaling: off
> Path MTU Discovery: ON
> RFC1323 Window Scaling: OFF
> RFC1323 Time Stamping: OFF
> Selective Acks: ON
> MSS requested: 1460
> TTL: unknown
> TTL remaining: 113
>
> 2. Test 146000 byte download
> Actual data bytes sent: 146000
> Actual data packets: 100
> Max packet sent (MTU): 1500
> Max packet recd (MTU): 1500
> Retransmitted data packets: 0
> sacks you sent: 0
> pushed data pkts: 5
> data transmit time: 0.437 secs
> our max idletime: 161.5 ms
> transfer rate: 140175 bytes/sec
> transfer rate: 1121 kbits/sec
> This is not a speed test!
> transfer efficiency: 100%
>
>
> 3. ICMP (ping) check
> Target unpingable
>
>
>
>
> Notes and recommendations:
> RWIN is in range
> Looking good
>
> Notes and recommendations:
> Good data stream (no/few rexmits)
>
> Notes and recommendations:
> Become pingable
> if you need basic packet loss tests done
> Check tweak FAQ
>
>
> Again, I have no idea if these are ideal or not. I have
> made the changes to make the PC Pingable, but will not
> reboot until I get home. (I did it through remote desktop
> while I was @ work).
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 7:42:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I have just ruled out the slowness being a problem with
the specific application I use for FTP, BulletProof. I
started another FTP program called SmartFTP and uploaded
some goods to my buddy in NY. It also maxed out at exactly
30.00kbs. There's some global setting somewhere that
limiting my upload on everything I need it for with the
exception of IE. That's the only app. that seems to be
able to break the unkwown barrier.
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 7:42:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I just ran an upload to the same FTP server from an
Internet Explorer window while I was uploading to the same
server through an FTP program. I checked the total upload
speed using an application called NetStat Live. It was
reading upload speeds (combined) of over 175kbs while I
was using both applications to upload to the New York FTP.
Is there maybe something in IIS that would cause conflicts
for FTP or Remote Desktop?? That's he only thing I can
think of adding to the OS of my home PC that is related to
up/ downloading. (Note: I don't use the FTP from IIS.)


>-----Original Message-----
>
>I have just ruled out the slowness being a problem with
>the specific application I use for FTP, BulletProof. I
>started another FTP program called SmartFTP and uploaded
>some goods to my buddy in NY. It also maxed out at
exactly
>30.00kbs. There's some global setting somewhere that
>limiting my upload on everything I need it for with the
>exception of IE. That's the only app. that seems to be
>able to break the unkwown barrier.
>.
>
!