or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › OS X only internet accelerator works nicely
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OS X only internet accelerator works nicely

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
as reported by <a href="http://www.spymac.com" target="_blank">spymac</a> (i know, i know) theres a <a href="http://www.enigmarelle.com/sw/BroadbandOptimizer/" target="_blank">download accelerator</a> available for os x which works wonders (my experience anyways) for broadband users.

try it out if you've got os x and a broadband connection. or not.
post #2 of 24
I tried this puppy (on a DSL 256k DL & 640k UL account) and my before & after bandwidth was exactly the same.
post #3 of 24
Anyone have any experiences with this?
post #4 of 24
I use it and only notice it in uploading and when connected to fast sites. Also this should be noted that this only really works for cable modem users. I read a review of it and the gist of it was about a 30 to 50% improvement from cnets speed tester thing. You should try it for yourself to get real facts
post #5 of 24
i'm using a cable modem and using the bandwidth tests at

<a href="http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/" target="_blank">http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/</a> i found in multiple tests that my connection was actually faster without the optimizer installed. it may work for some, but certainly not for me.
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
post #6 of 24
[quote]Originally posted by koffedrnkr:
<strong>i'm using a cable modem and using the bandwidth tests at

<a href="http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/" target="_blank">http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/</a> i found in multiple tests that my connection was actually faster without the optimizer installed. it may work for some, but certainly not for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Without: 1598245.73 bits per second
With: 1546866.42 bits per second
I guess I was wrong <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

"compared to all connection types worldwide yours is fantastic" That makes me happy in its self
post #7 of 24
The optimiser made no difference to me at all, on my DVDIMac 400 .......

OSX Explorer 475 kbs
OSX Omniweb 886 kbs

both of these with the optimiser

OS9 Explorer 567 kbs

My wife just got a 5 year old, clunky Fujitsu running Windows 98, and using the same connection as me got 1.4 kbs

Why?
post #8 of 24
Worthless garbage, as are all download "optimizors".

If it is so easy to speed up downloads then why wouldn't Apple do it themselves?
post #9 of 24
If you knew what it did, you wouldn't call it garbage.

It's not like Speed Download, which also isn't worthless garbage.

If this is the same one I tried once before, it basically uses built-in command line tools to change settings in the TCP/IP stack...

[code]sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
sysctl -w kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=524288
sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
sysctl -w net.inet.udp.recvspace=73728</pre><hr></blockquote>

vs

[code]sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=32768
sysctl net.inet.tcp.recvspace=32768
sysctl kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=262144
sysctl net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=1
sysctl net.inet.udp.recvspace=41600</pre><hr></blockquote>

It increases the number of ports it recognizes to the max. It increases the packet buffer size and lowers the delay between acknowledging packets.

On the other hand, "Download Accelerators" *are* also useful on busy servers. They just multiply the # of client connections. They won't increase your cable line's max download speed, but it will increase the size of the pie piece you get from a server that has its own bandwidth saturated.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #10 of 24
[quote]On the other hand, "Download Accelerators" *are* also useful on busy servers. They just multiply the # of client connections. <hr></blockquote>

Yeah, these sorts of utilities work well, but I'm skeptical of the "optimizer" variant. Why would OS X ship with poor internet "stack" settings? Sure OS X needs optimization, but when it's as easy as changing a few values why wouldn't Apple simply change the defaults?
post #11 of 24
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>

Yeah, these sorts of utilities work well, but I'm skeptical of the "optimizer" variant. Why would OS X ship with poor internet "stack" settings? Sure OS X needs optimization, but when it's as easy as changing a few values why wouldn't Apple simply change the defaults?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The TCP settings can't optimized (by default) for all the different connections. Settings that are optimized for normal (hub/switch) ethernet would not be optimized for a DOSIS (cable modem) over ethernet nor would it optimized for Satellite modem over ethernet etc etc etc.

Each method of communication using ethernet has it's own 'best settings'.

Visit <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/faq/tweaks" target="_blank">http://www.dslreports.com/faq/tweaks</a> for tons of good info on the topic.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #12 of 24
The defaults in OS X seem to be optimized for modem users.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #13 of 24
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>
[code]sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
sysctl -w kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=524288
sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
sysctl -w net.inet.udp.recvspace=73728</pre><hr></blockquote>

vs

[code]sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=32768
sysctl net.inet.tcp.recvspace=32768
sysctl kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=262144
sysctl net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=1
sysctl net.inet.udp.recvspace=41600</pre><hr></blockquote>

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Too bad these settings can't be made per interface.

post #14 of 24
I tired this thing and with IE, OW, Entourage open something would quit, Then I'd open which ever one quit and then finder would crash. Then I'd open just OW and watch a java sports scoreboard and it would quit. Then I'd try in IE and it would quit and then the finder would crash.

Basically, after installing this on my virgin dual gig internet apps would freak out if I was surfing the net and email app was checking for mail. I trashed it and the crashes are fewer between but still happen every now and them.

Can someone tell me how to get the settings back to their defaults?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #15 of 24
Kidred, there's absolutely no way this would effect the stability of your machine if you did everything as directed. All it installs is a UNIX shell-script that tells the computer to open its TCP/IP stack a bit wider for broadband connections.

If you're getting stability problems, it's something else. I guarantee it.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #16 of 24
Before:
Your raw speed was 2919957.14 bits per second (2.9 Mbits).

After:
Your raw speed was 3439389.31 bits per second (3.4 Mbits).

I found it results to be consistantly at least 300 megabits faster using the modifications under IE.

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
post #17 of 24
Eugene, It's the only thing I can think of. No crashes or weird things since I got the dual 2 weeks ago. Then 5 minutes after installing this script/app whatever, all internet apps started crashing and bringing down the finder. No other apps would crash, only IE, and OW. If I had IE, OW, mail, ICQ and iTunes streaming live radio in the background, the finder would crash and re log itself basically. Then, after deleting the StartUp folder that contained this thing, stability is once again back. Process of elimination in my case. It did something, without a shadow of a doubt. No problems before, and none after trashing it, yet I had horrible crashes with internet apps while it was installed.

Maybe it doesn't like my router, my cable modem, or whatever, but it did do something to my machine.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #18 of 24
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Kidred, there's absolutely no way this would effect the stability of your machine if you did everything as directed. All it installs is a UNIX shell-script that tells the computer to open its TCP/IP stack a bit wider for broadband connections.

If you're getting stability problems, it's something else. I guarantee it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oooo, those are pretty firm words there.. How well do you know the kernel source. Seeing as how he has a dual box, I wouldn't rule out this problem. Maybe there is some weird race condition in the IP stack that only occurrs on dual boxes.
:eek:
post #19 of 24
That would be merited except I have the exact same machine he does, and it causes no problems here.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #20 of 24
hey Eug, 2 questions regarding your screenshot on your website:

One, is QT5 using 96% of your dual 1 ghz to play a QT Movie?!

Second, why isn't your terminal semitransparent?
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #21 of 24
QT is using 4.2% of my CPU(s) to play the movie.

I have no reason to make my terminal windows semi-transparent, other than to strain my eyes.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #22 of 24
Whoops! I didn't notice you were running distributed.net!

Oh, I've been portscanning you and noticed two ports open to a 'NetBus' protocol... wtf is netbus? I noticed this on an OpenBSD server as well.

BTW, Nmap rates hacking you at 9999999 ('Good luck!')... well done!

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #23 of 24
What ports would those be? I only have two ports open on my machine. Anything "filtered" is via my ISP.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #24 of 24
I installed this program last week with a Shaw cable connection. Download speeds went up from baout 190 K per second to just over 400K sec sustained tested at a variety different times of day. I used the Cnet test, the speed test at DSL reports, and a 20MB download speed test from the shaw.ca site. D/L 20MB in about 50 seconds a significant improvement.

No stability problems. Good comments on Version Tracker from those who noticed improvement and those who did not but not much mention of instability problems.
semper ubi sub ubi
Reply
semper ubi sub ubi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › OS X only internet accelerator works nicely