File download limit (IE 6)

Topic

New Reply

How do you increase the number of files you can download
– I know I did this before, but I can’t find a reference on how-to now, even on Google

Reply | Quote

Replies

HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionInternet Settings
MaxConnectionsPerServer
MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server

From http://www.speedguide.net/Cable_modems/cab…_advanced.shtml%5B/url%5D

Reply | Quote

..Please do NOT make this change. In any case, it does not change the number of files you can download : it changes the number of simultaneous connections to a server.

In the first place it’s ‘bandwidth hogging’ : the advantage you gain is at somebody else’s expense. If everyone did it, the whole shebang would grind to a halt. If your access to servers is limited so that everyone gets a bite of the cherry, my opinion is that we should respect it. ymmv

If altruism doesn’t grab you, you should also note that this tweak makes your IE a ‘non-standard’ browser. This will prevent you accessing certain websites, logging on to servers (eg for on-line games such as DAoC) etc.

Sorry, Rick, but this one should be a no-no.

Rgds

Reply | Quote

Well, I understand your concern. We have discussed this NUMEROUS times.

However, this tweak is taken DIRECTLY from the MSKB. Addtionally, it is all over the Internet — not just on SpeedGuide. Fred Langa’s newsletter — with a circulation in the hundred of thousands — instructs users how to do this tweak. So, as for this being “secret”, the cat has been out of the bag for quite a long time.

Additionally, if you REALLY think this does not change the number of files you can download at the same time, then you should also have absolutely NO problem with this tweak — because it would be bogus. However, in reality it works quite well. Microsoft tells you this in it’s Knowledge Base — although it does state this is ‘non-standard’.

We gave up on ‘hiding’ this information years ago. We even added this tweak into the SpeedGuide Optimizer (a Graphical User Interface to control TCP/IP settings) to make it easier to apply this tweak!

If the Woody’s Lounge team feels this should be kept secret, then please delete my post. Otherwise my opinion and the information shall remain. I was under the impression that the function of this forum was to give information — not hide it. If I am mistaken, then I am in the wrong forum.
_________________________

Addendum:

How to Configure Internet Explorer to Have More Than Two Download Sessions (Q282402)

To comply with current Requests for Comments (RFC), Internet Explorer limits the number of simultaneous downloads to two downloads, plus one queued download. This configuration is a function of the browser. However, as connection speeds increase, and the number of total connections that are allowed to Internet servers increase, the two-connection limit may be restrictive. To increase the number of simultaneous connections that are allowed to 10, follow these steps:

1. Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).

2. Locate the following key in the registry:

HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionInternet Settings

3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value , and then add the following registry values:

“MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server”=Dword:0000000a
“MaxConnectionsPerServer”=Dword:0000000a

4. Quit Registry Editor.
______________________________________

So now you can see the MSKB CLEARLY dishing out the exact same information. Do you STILL feel this is a no-no?? Tell Mr. Gates and the boys from Redmond.

Reply | Quote

I can’t see anything in my post about keeping this well-known tweak a secret. That was not the point at all. Like Prohibition, it wouldn’t work anyway. However, I also feel that both sides of an argument should be given. There are cons as well as pros.

For the record, Fred Langa, though he mentions and describes it, is clearly not at all happy about doing it : see here for instance. In any case, he does not reccommend it as a permanent setting, but sees it more as a useful temporary troubleshooting aid. Also for the record, I have not seen the Lounge’s previous discussion on this, and as far as I’m aware, as long as posts follow the rules of law and decency there is no censorship. The opinions I express are purely my own and do not reflect any policy, editorial or otherwise.

I don’t doubt that ‘everyone knows’ how to pirate software, but that doesn’t mean we should either do it, or encourage others to do it. Not that the analogy is perfect : pirating is illegal, this tweak is not. Nevertheless, both are selfish, antisocial and better not done. Hiding the method is not the point at issue. As a chemist, I could post perfectly legal information on how to make a bomb from commonly available substances, but I would not do so – irrespective of the same information being available on several websites. I cannot shelter behind the supposition that I can disseminate such, simply because it’s in the public domain. Judgement as to potential harm does (and should) come into the equation.

It is also worth repeating : making your browser non-standard is not as trivial as it sounds. In experimenting with the settings I can tell you from experience you can’t log on to some servers at all – the Dark Age of Camelot suite being one set of them.

And yes, as you may have gathered, I do still think it’s a no-no and do not hesitate to say so. Whether or not you’re in the wrong forum only you can decide. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Rgds

Reply | Quote

I commend your altruism and your good intentions.

We (at SpeedGuide) have recommended this tweak for several years. Also, it has been posted on many other “Speed/Tweak” sites (CableNut, DSLreports, etc.). Countless users have used this tweak and I have never, never seen anyone come back saying it caused a problem. My combined total number of posts at these sites is somewhere around 10,000 — so if this were a *big* problem, I would certainly know about it. As for experimenting, my browser has been non-standard for about two years — and I have never had a problem getting to any site ever.

While I must believe you that it causes a problem on the DAoC (do you have the link?), the vast majority of users never see any problem whatsoever. In fact, I cannot easily figure out why a site would stop working if you had too many connections — unless they SPECIFICALLY created a method for blocking IP addresses with more than 2 connections. This would not be a failure of the tweak, but a specific method used by the site to prevent its use.

While I agree Fred does not come out strongly in favor of this, he has still disseminated the information — and therefore I have no problem disseminating it myself.

This is something we will have to agree to disagree on…

Reply | Quote

Is this the site you had problems with? I had no problem opening 5 connections at a time.

Reply | Quote

I have a difficult time seeing your side of this argument. If the authors of the MSKB feel it is OK to use this ‘tweak’, then I am not sure why you feel the way you do. Fred Langa is no friend of mine (his newsletter so full of errors as to be dangerous) — I only used his name because of the size of his circulation (which barely exceeds the size of his ego). The MSKB clearly states:

“…as connection speeds increase, and the number of total connections that are allowed to Internet servers increase, the two-connection limit may be restrictive.”

I support their opinion — this limit is too restrictive. This ‘rule’ was created at a time when the Internet was in it infancy. Well, times change — and so should opinions.

Perhaps part of your reluctance with this is the possibility of the “non-standard” browser being unable to access certain web sites. I have to call you on the carpet about this. This is an illogical view. Yes, I am SURE you can say that “it happened to me” — but so does person who was ever abducted by an alien.

I believe you will have an extremely difficult time finding proof that this is the case. There is no logical reason for a web site to refuse a connection because of this registry modification. There is no logical way for the web site to KNOW you made this modification. This information is NOT used in the TCP/IP three-way handshake that begins the communication between a server and a client. I believe your statements that this will “prevent you from accessing certain websites” is unfounded and technically incorrect.

Perhaps another part of your reluctance is this further misinterpretation:
“In the first place it’s ‘bandwidth hogging’ “.

Again, I think you will have an extremely difficult time validating this statement and I must call you on the carpet for making it. Perhaps “bandwidth” has a different meaning in your country, but here in the states “bandwidth” can be defined this way:

“Bandwidth (the width of a band of electromagnetic frequencies) is used to mean (1) how fast data flows on a given transmission path, and (2), somewhat more technically, the width of the range of frequencies that an electronic signal occupies on a given transmission medium….

Generally speaking, bandwidth is directly proportional to the amount of data transmitted or received per unit time.”

Let’s take the “generally speaking” view. Now, as a moderator and resident TCP/IP and Window registry expert on SpeedGuide I have had to answer MANY questions on whether or not a registry tweak can increase someone’s bandwidth. Perhaps I have been mistaken all along! You are now telling me that a tweak that we have posted for years actually achieves this goal — and we never knew about it! Amazing.

I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of what this does. This does NOT “hog bandwidth”. Your bandwidth will NOT change by increasing or decreasing this — or any other — registry value. This tweak MAY increase the speed of loading complicated web pages (by allowing to have more connections to that server), but this is NOT the same as “hogging bandwidth”.
_____________________

Given the repid growth of broadband throughout the world and given the increasing complexity of web pages, I must concur with Microsoft on this issue. The OLD policy of limiting the number of connections to 2 is too restrictive and certainly outdated. Perhaps your strong views against this are based on false assumptions about browser/server incompatibilities and mistaken interpretations on bandwidth consumption.

As always, these are just opinions…

Reply | Quote

Hi Rick
Just a coupla points. It’s the servers running the game Dark Age of Camelot that won’t let you log in if you have this tweak set. I don’t need to prove it, just buy the game and try it. Presumably they need all the bandwidth they can get. Their website has been difficult to get on to in the past, especially at weekends, and the tweak does nothing to improve or worsen this. Call me on the carpet as much as you like – I’ll just pull it out from under you. According to your argument, there is no such thing as the internet slowing down at times, which may be so for broadband, but it sure ain’t the case for ordinary mortals.

If you speed up your downloading in this way, it’s not you but the other users in the packet queues that would notice it – unless, that is, so many had done it as to exceed the allocated access (what I thought bandwidth meant to the average layman) at which point the site would fall over. Why do you imagine it’s so hard to log on to places, or download from them at ‘busy’ times? To alleviate this, why do ISPs and the like add more and more servers to their set ups? It’s because the point comes when they can’t handle an more traffic. In effect the tweak changes you from two ‘visitors’ to ten or more. Have you never been to a site that is down because it has had too many visitors for the server to handle? At the risk of mat-burns, I have. This tweak increases the likelihood of this sort of thing happening, no matter how much you quibble over terminology. I am not, btw, concerned with the in and outs of broadband connections. In this country it is still an expensive luxury. I see bandwidth as a highway with a limited number of lanes. Fill up the lanes and you can’t handle any more traffic.

If MS are so sure the setting is too old to be useful, how come they didn’t change it by default in XP? Forgetfulness? Perhaps they realise that not everyone has broadband connection. Along with millions of others I still use the 56Kb/s connection I’ve had for many years. We in the Stone Age resent our access routes being commandeered.

[indent]

---

Generally speaking, bandwidth is directly proportional to the amount of data transmitted or received per unit time.”

---

[/indent]
Hoist by your own petard. If you take thisto be true, then increasing your rate of data transmission (download speed) must, by your own definition, utilize more (hog) bandwidth, since this cannot simply increase indefinitely. I cannot see how you can argue that putting more data packets into the queue will not increase the length of that queue. It must do, and since there is no concomitant increase in the speed at which the queue decreases, there is potential for gridlock.

You and I are on opposite sides of this canyon. Nothing in your argument has persuaded me yet to come over to yours. It isn’t the first time and I’ve no doubt it won’t be the last. Fortunately, I am not alone.

PS : if you are going to quote an MSKB article at me, it does not inspire confidence in the author if he cannot apply the rules of syntax correctly. But I can hardly blame you for somebody else’s mistakes, can I?

Cheers

Reply | Quote

Thanks to both of you for yours responses
– I hadn’t realised it was so contentious

Reply | Quote