Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

How do we unleash our ISP's speed on a Linux OS?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 7,002 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:08:52 PM

Posted 26 June 2016 - 03:01 AM

I ran across an article a couple of days back, meant to ask last night, though something came up & had no chance to. 

 

How do we get the most out of our network on Linux? There's ways to on Windows, as shown below, and have applied to one PC to see how it'll go, though need to download a large ISO to test it out. 

 

http://www.sysprobs.com/windows-7-network-slow

 

As can be seen, most was dome by cmd, though there was one box to uncheck in 'Turn Windows Feature on or off' in Step 2, right after the 1st step in cmd. 

 

So how do we do the same on Linux? Seems that the answer to this would be easy peasy, as it was on Windows 7. :)

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 mremski

mremski

  • Members
  • 493 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH
  • Local time:08:52 PM

Posted 26 June 2016 - 06:16 AM

Pretty much not worth it on Linux (in my opinion).  

 

Your PC plugged into a switch, switch upstream plugs into the ISP cable modem/router/whatever.  Speed is as fast as the slowest link.  You have 10Gb to from your pc to your locally connected switch, the switch plugs into a device that does 10/100Mb.  That section of the network is never going to run faster than 100Mb.  From your house to the ISP infrastructure, they are going to limit you, say max of 50Mb (because that's what you're paying for), so that gives you a max of 50Mb from your PC to the ISP infrastructure.

 

Autonegotiate is the network device hardware figuring out and agreeing on what speed and duplex to use.  If one side is forced and the other is autoneg, it will get the speed correct, but will not be able to determine duplex.  Bad things (collisions) happen if one side is thinking half-duplex, the other full-duplex.  Really, don't do this unless you guarantee both sides are set to not autoneg and have the same settings.

 

DNS cache:  if you don't run a local caching DNS server on your machine, it's a non issue.  DNS caching is often a good thing:  you don't need to keep on looking up an address.  The bad thing is pointed out in the article:  stale data.  DNS data doesn't go stale all that often, there are also bits in the protocol (Time To Live) that help work around this.

 

IPv6:  this one may have some benefit, a lot of DNS servers will respond with IPv6 addresses first or if they are asked in IPv6.  So disable it locally on your machine (most Linux distros that use some kind of network connection manager have it pretty clearly marked).

 

RDC:  compression is good.  Compressing the data means it takes fewer packets to get the whole thing.  The act of compressing and decompressing is what takes up the time.  Really no equivalent on Linux, each specific protocol would have an option to turn it on or off.

 

Autotuning:  IP protocol Maximum Segment Size or Receive Size Scaling.  From what I gather, this relates to the TCP receive window (not UDP) and relates to how much data the receiver can accept before it sends an ACK back to the sender.  TCK is a guaranteed delivery protocol.  Packets that are sent must be ACKed.  If not, sending side assumes they are not delivered and will resend them.  If the ACK is just late, then the sender has sent the data twice, the receiver gets it twice and has to throw one of them away.   Smaller window means sending more ACKs which take up bandwidth.

 

Executive Summary:

If you've made it this far, thanks :) 

The only one worth while to try on a Linux system is disabling IPv6.  The rest of it, go ahead and try but you'll likely muck things up more than help.

 

One thing not mentioned was MTU size.  Each physical link has a MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) associated with it, based on the wire line protocol.  Ethernet  is roughly 1546 bytes on the wire, ifconfig shows MTU as 1500 on most *nix systems.  That is how much data from your application will be put into each packet;  there is overhead for IP and protocol (TCP/UDP and others) headers.  If your connection is PPPOE, it often helps to set the MTU on your PC to something lower than 1500 (1476 rings a bell) to avoid as much fragmentation as possible.  But again, in most cases, you should be fine.

 

The above is my opinion, based on my experience.  Keep in mind that the whole IP/TCP/UDP network stack was developed on Unix, the BSD implementation was used as the reference standard, Linux used it as a base and evolved it.  MS, they may have used it for a base, but like any other standard that MS implements they think they know better than the reference.


FreeBSD since 3.3, only time I touch Windows is to fix my wife's computer


#3 Guest_GNULINUX_*

Guest_GNULINUX_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 26 June 2016 - 10:46 AM

...

IPv6:  this one may have some benefit, a lot of DNS servers will respond with IPv6 addresses first or if they are asked in IPv6.  So disable it locally on your machine (most Linux distros that use some kind of network connection manager have it pretty clearly marked).

...

The only one worth while to try on a Linux system is disabling IPv6.  The rest of it, go ahead and try but you'll likely muck things up more than help.

...

That's all I do on Linux and Windows, well actually I also change the DNS servers to the one I prefer...  :wink:

 

 

Since this is the UNIX/LINUX section, here's how to ignore and disable IPv6 on Peppermint 6:

(Should be likewise for other Ubuntu based systems!)

 

1. In your "network-manager" search for the IPv6 settings and choose "ignore".

 

2. Completely disable IPv6 on your machine.

 

Check if IPv6 is enabled on your machine

cat /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/disable_ipv6

0 = Enabled

1 = Disabled

 

If it's enabled proceed, otherwise you're done!

gksudo gedit /etc/sysctl.conf

(Replace "gedit" with your preferred text editor.)

 

Now add following lines and save the file.

# IPv6
net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6 = 1
net.ipv6.conf.default.disable_ipv6 = 1
net.ipv6.conf.lo.disable_ipv6 = 1

Restart your machine or reload the configuration:

sudo sysctl -p

IPv6 is now completely disabled on your system!

To revert the changes just delete the added lines or place a "#" before them and restart your machine or reload the configuration...

 

Hope this helps!  B)



#4 Chris Cosgrove

Chris Cosgrove

  • Moderator
  • 6,463 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 26 June 2016 - 05:25 PM

This topic has got me curious. Why would you want to disable IPv6 ?

 

Given the increasing shortages of available IPv4 addresses the use of IPv6 has to increase. Yes, at the moment almost anybody with an Ipv6 address also has IPv4 one(s) but this is not going to continue for all that much longer. I believe the pool of available and unassigned IPv4 addresses in the USA has already dried up.

 

Chris Cosgrove



#5 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 12,926 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:01:52 AM

Posted 26 June 2016 - 05:34 PM

 

This topic has got me curious. Why would you want to disable IPv6 ?

Agreed.


Arch Linux .
 
 Come join the fun, chat to Bleeping computer members and staff in real time on Discord.
 
The BleepingComputer Official Discord Chat Server!


#6 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat

  • Topic Starter

  • BC Advisor
  • 7,002 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:10:52 AM

Posted 27 June 2016 - 02:20 AM


 

This topic has got me curious. Why would you want to disable IPv6 ?

 

 

+1! :thumbup2:

 

What if my ISP were to switch me to a IPv6 address? As Chris pointed out, we're running dangerously short of IPv4 ones (and many articles confirms this), and don't want to cut myself out of a connection, if say there's a merger with another corporation (already in the works between Charter & Time Warner Cable) & they switch exclusively to IPv6 for their residential customers. To be honest, I don't understand why one wouldn't want an IPv6 address. Probably if asked, very few could tell one theirs w/out going to one of those 'What's my IP' web sites. :P

 

IPv6 is the future, with all of the IP addresses in use, there's no denying that fact, what I don't know is if this means more speed (or more control) or simply a longer IP address. Though on the ISP's end, it's like when we went from 32 to 64 bit, which even the youngest Internet users (am speaking of 9-10 year olds) will likely never see beyond. There's no need for it, the only things that can make our 64 bit computers faster (for a long, long time) are advances in hardware & having the cash to spend on upgrades. :)

 

I was just wondering if that same trick, which didn't fare as well as I had hoped for (the reason may had been some Google/OneDrive files merging in the background), or a similar one, is available for Linux OS's. To be honest, don't know if it would do any good, though after reading the article, the content interested me. :thumbup2:

 

5434034735.png

 

That said, I now have reason to believe I may be getting my speeds plus some extra, they measure in Mb/sec, and my download manager measures on MB/sec. So if I'm getting download speeds of 6 to 7MB, wouldn't that already be faster than the speed test? When downloading large Linux ISO's, like the 1.8GB sized ISO's, am finished in about three & a half minutes (using the Down Them All download manager on Firefox). Assuming this, if my guess is right, am getting more than I pay for (50Mb/sec download, 5Mbps upload). By this, I'm assuming 5MB/sec to be what they're saying is 50Mb/sec, If that's the case, sometimes my download speeds jumps over 8MB/sec during nights in bursts & settling to around 7MB, a huge increase over what I'm paying for, and my speed test consistently outperforms what I'm paying for anyway, topping out at 58.60/Mb on downloads & usually over 6Mb/sec uploads. In reality, many gets less than that we pay for, and I include myself in this, because until 3 or so months back, that was the case. A newer DOCSIS 3.0 modem is what corrected the issue, and plan to purchase my own, but have a PC build to do first. :thumbup2:

 

Sadly, that popular download manager for Firefox will go away in the upcoming months, hope that uget is just as fast. :)

 

My normal speeds with a download manager is over 6MB/sec, as long as I'm using a download manager, using the browser (Google Chrome) will depend on where the smaller downloads are coming from, though rarely hits what I pay for, occasionally hits 5MB/sec, but this is the exception & not the norm. 

 

That is, if my interpretation of how this is calculated is correct, then I don't need to make adjustments. My thoughts were that I might not be getting the most for my money, though the article above in real world life may be accurate for some regions (where network congestion is bad), though in others may be useless, that is, as long as I'm understanding the conversion correctly (10Mb/sec = 1MB/sec). 

 

Thanks to those interested in my Topic, all I'm wanting is to get what I'm paying for. Any extra, I consider payback for what I didn't get in the past. :)

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#7 Guest_GNULINUX_*

Guest_GNULINUX_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 27 June 2016 - 04:56 AM

This topic has got me curious. Why would you want to disable IPv6 ?

 

Given the increasing shortages of available IPv4 addresses the use of IPv6 has to increase. Yes, at the moment almost anybody with an Ipv6 address also has IPv4 one(s) but this is not going to continue for all that much longer. I believe the pool of available and unassigned IPv4 addresses in the USA has already dried up.

 

Chris Cosgrove

Why not? Why run two "protocols" for achieving the same thing?

At this moment IPv6 is still not fully supported worldwide, completely disable IPv4 and see for yourself...

 

Some sites are not reachable and some programs are not connecting on IPv6, it is after all these years still the future!  :wink:

 

And about the "shortages" of IPv4 addresses: ISP's have a perfect solution (shared IP) that they're already using, you know it and I know it...

 

The moment IPv6 is fully supported I'm going to disable IPv4 but that moment is not now...

Like I said: Why run both? It's a waste of resources, certainly when one (IPv6) isn't fully supported yet!

 

Greets! 



#8 mremski

mremski

  • Members
  • 493 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH
  • Local time:08:52 PM

Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:45 AM

Dual stack solutions, most will try IPv6 first, which means waiting for DNS timeouts before falling back to IPv4.  That addresses part of what is in the article Cat linked to.

 

Or if the ISP is providing a single IPv6 address, with /128 and you have multiple clients behind that.


Edited by mremski, 27 June 2016 - 07:08 AM.

FreeBSD since 3.3, only time I touch Windows is to fix my wife's computer


#9 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat

  • Topic Starter

  • BC Advisor
  • 7,002 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 28 June 2016 - 04:29 AM

 

And about the "shortages" of IPv4 addresses: ISP's have a perfect solution (shared IP) that they're already using, you know it and I know it...

 

 

For business and/or government purposes I can see this, for Home use, would be tougher. For example, I have a fixed ISP. If that same IP was shared with others, and something illegal was done, how is it determined 'who' committed the illegal act (for example the downloading of copyrighted materials w/out permission)? I can even search my IP through the lookup system & it's placed within 50 miles of my residence. So I know that my IP isn't shared between myself & someone clear across the other side of the US. 

 

Furthermore, my VoIP phone system (NetTalk Duo) is connected to the router, so the IP address is always in use (never 'released'), in my case keeping the phone ready to make/receive calls, regardless of how often my computers are ran. If it were shared, then I don't see how these services are possible. Plus am about to add a Google Talk device, all that's needed is a $10 SIM card kit to activate an old phone (of the same brand as original carrier) & then turn around & port the number, effectively paying only for a month's service & then $3 to $10 monthly from the list of providers thereafter for 'all you can eat' Google Talk. Of course this requires several steps, yet not that hard to perform & Google will assist if needed. 

 

So I couldn't see my IP address being shared with anyone. If this were the case, anyone could challenge a copyright or any complaint of illegal activity at the residence, saying it's one of another using the same. That IP address is kind of like a phone number in a sense, and the subscriber bears the responsibility of all activities (just as with a phone). 

 

As far as my original question, I believe it's sorted out (my misinterpretation of speed test results), I was seeing anywhere between 6 to as much as 8MB/sec of download speed, and wasn't looking closely at the speed test result, which is measured in Mb/sec, therefore felt I was getting 10% of what I'm paying for. When in fact, am getting more than what I'm paying for. 

 

Therefore, there's nothing left to discuss here, at least for myself. Hopefully this will make others who aren't more aware of how the system works, as far as speeds goes, keeping in mind that some types of service provides more consistent speeds than others. For example, speed can be more constant on a dedicated phone/Internet line (any fiber optic network & even solid copper) than cable Internet, which main lines must not only carry Internet, also digital TV & phone service also, and the main cable consists of a copper core, though also has cheap aluminum & insulating materials. There is often the theft of cable services, and if not connected properly, will disrupt several neighborhoods before located & repaired, which will certainly affect speed. 

 

Finally, the big one, prime time hours, and major sporting events affects Internet speeds for all subscribers on the system, kind of like being in the shower & someone in another bathroom flushed the toilet & another starting a load of laundry. This is a domino effect which covers the neighborhood, or all subscribers on that particular main line. While there's been improvements in recent years, there's room for more, depending on region. :)

 

I'm satisfied with what I have, going back to my photo in Post #6, being faster than 75% of US subscribers for less than $54 (including $10 modem fee & taxes) isn't bad at all. Many pays a lot more & gets far less, so I'm in a great position for the amount of cash I'm paying. Who knows, with a top notch Motorola modem, may milk more speed out of the connection for $10 less per month. :thumbup2:

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#10 dannyboy950

dannyboy950

  • Members
  • 1,338 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:port arthur tx
  • Local time:08:52 PM

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:44 AM

I hesitate to post as my ISP is an att-uverse account that by default uses both ipv4 and ipv6, but I tried an experiment to see if there would be any discernible difference changing the ipv6 addresses.

I used the same 5 web addresses for my tests. My Isp would resolve the ipv6 addresses ok but would not let me change the ipv4.
I gained and lost only about 10 mega bits per second so no real difference to me.

HP 15-f009wm notebook AMD-E1-2100 APV 1Ghz Processor 8 GB memory 500 GB Hdd

Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa Cinamon


#11 Guest_GNULINUX_*

Guest_GNULINUX_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:47 AM

cat1092: About "shared IPv4", a bit of reading for you...  :wink:

In ISP-level IPv4 NAT, ISPs may implement IPv4 network address translation within their networks and assign private IPv4 addresses to customers. This approach may allow customers to keep using existing hardware. Some estimates for NAT argue that US ISPs have 5-10 times the number of IPs they need in order to service their existing customers. This has been successfully implemented in some countries, e.g., Russia, where many broadband providers use carrier-grade NAT, and offer publicly routable IPv4 address at an additional cost.

Source: Wikipedia

 

Please also read both included links.

 

I don't say you're in that situation but I just explain how it's done and the fact that most user don't even know it's happening. Phones and other devices stay connected and they knock on the right door when you download something illegal thanks to (ISP) logs!

One of the few things that probably will not work is running a website...

 

Greets!  :wink:



#12 Naught McNoone

Naught McNoone

  • Members
  • 307 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Great White North
  • Local time:08:52 PM

Posted 28 June 2016 - 02:35 PM

. . . not worth it on Linux . . . PC plugged into a switch . . . plugs into the ISP . . . as fast as the slowest link

 

I think that this sums it all up.

 

You can tweak the network, to edge out a little more speed, but it all comes down to the weakest link.

 

In the old days of dial up, we use to set the packet size to fewer bytes, to reduce the number of errors we got.  It would speed up the transfer, somewhat, by preventing the re-transmission of large blocks of data.  The digital world has changed that, and packet sizes have increased, as networks have become more efficient.

 

The office computer and my home server are identical machines.  Both IBM xenon quad cores, running Xbuntu.  With one exception, the home system only has 6GB RAM, and the office one has 8GB.  At the office I downloaded the Windoze 10 iso from Microsoft.  The Win10_1511_2_English_x64.iso 4.5 GB (4,458,960,896 bytes) took 1 hour on our DSL service.  Out of curiosity, I tried it at home, just to see.  Less than 10 min.  (OK, I cheated.  I have fiber at home!)

 

But still, there is only so much you can do.

 

Tuppence,

 

Naught



#13 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat

  • Topic Starter

  • BC Advisor
  • 7,002 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:06:52 PM

Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:35 AM

 

You can tweak the network, to edge out a little more speed, but it all comes down to the weakest link.

 

 

+1! :thumbup2:

 

That's why I have all Cat6 cabling going from my router to computers, and when run out of ports on the router (the VoIP device takes one), use a Gigabit switch, and the cabling from my modem to router is Cat7. 

 

Now, some may find that overkill, first look at it like this. All of those cables (Newegg promos) cost less than a single 25 feet 5e cable at Walmart. Once I made the transition to Cat6 in 2011-12, at the time was paying for 10Mb/sec. Well with those new cables, my speed test results went straight from 10Mb/sec to 15Mb/sec download (at the time the next tier up), upload remained the same at 1Mbps/sec. That's a 50% boost in speed, and to see if I was wrong, reconnected the Cat5e cables back, which were still fairly new, and speedtest.net tests went right back down to 9-10Mb/sec on downloads. 

 

All because I wanted to upgrade my cables to match each other in color, I didn't expect anything more, just ran the tests out of being curious. And if TWC (the ISP) has an appointment, will switch those cables right back, so that they can't 'tune' their speed to my cables that were a grand fortune of $18 shipped (6 cables). :P

 

Now I've had to purchase a couple more since, though on some computers (notebooks) just run wireless & disable the Ethernet port, because it's inconvenient to connect/disconnect cables & sooner or later the port will be broken. My router is fast enough to give the same fast speeds anyway. 

 

While some may have never heard of Cat7, it's one that's thicker (too short & impossible to work with), basically with the same signal properties of Cat6, yet has more insulation to prevent interference from microwave & other very strong signals. The only other place I've seen these used is in the hospital, when going an ultrasound. For me, it's to ensure a really great connections between the modem & router, and router to VoIP device, where obviously the less interference to include background noise, the better.

 

I think in the next week or two, will go to Earthlink Extreme (100Mb/sec) for $10 more, yet as above, will have my 5e cables plugged in when making the switch in speed. That is TWC's standard & still comes with new routers & modems as well. Don't know why they want to stick with dinosaur cabling, because it does go back to being the 'weak link' in the supply chain. Maybe for residential customers, it's what the ISP wants. 

 

Whatever, do not pull out a set of these & ask to connect to these when the ISP is performing setup, you'll lose speed that you're paying for. This is because they measure performance on 5e cables, and will 'tune' the speed back to 5e performance. I merely posted the cable upgrade as a 'hidden' upgrade that works for many, though not all cable Internet subscribers. It doesn't work on AT&T & ISP's based on fiber optic or other phone lines, I've tried three times for other, no difference. Yet around 8 out of every 10 times, the speed will jump noticeably for those with cable Internet, for one person, from 100Mb/sec to 145Mb/sec, and that's a massive upgrade (actually a tier above) for the cost of a cable. Even the upload jumped to match, though he has his own Motorola router, and installed a heatsink in the place where the case was made for one, but Motorola didn't install it, and this was over a $150 modem at the time (maybe 3 years back). Pricing has dropped since then & have my eyes on a $100 model that has 16x4 download/upload channels & 2 year warranty. If I were to stash that $10 modem fee for a year (which I would), could order another w/overnight shipping for the cash saved. 

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16825690001&cm_re=motorola_modem-_-25-690-001-_-Product

 

This modem, if one could do it legally, provide 100Mbps (download) to over 6 homes, nearly 7. It'll surely futureproof my network for a long time. 

 

So my point is that for many customers, the quality & rating of the cables used are everything. :)

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users