Slashdot Mirror
Mark Russinovich On Vista Network Slowdown
koro666 writes "In his latest blog post, Mark Russinovich analyzes the network slowdown experienced by some users when playing multimedia content. 'Tests of MMCSS during Vista development showed that... heavy network traffic can cause enough long-running DPCs to prevent playback threads from keeping up with their media streaming requirements, resulting in glitching. MMCSS' glitch-resistant mechanisms were therefore extended to include throttling of network activity. It does so by issuing a command to the NDIS device driver... [to] pass along, at most 10 packets per millisecond (10,000 packets per second)... [T]he networking team is actively working with the MMCSS team on a fix that allows for not so dramatically penalizing network traffic, while still delivering a glitch-resistant experience.'"
Almost, but not quite. Really, it's Microsoft's drive to appeal to the least common denominator. Dumb end-users aren't likely to notice a speed decrease in their network throughput -- not even a significant one. So maybe they did test it, but ignored any performance feedback about the network because it was ignored as smart power users being 'overly picky', since their target customer requires that the CD cases be printed on drool-proof cardboard.
My blog
Because the standard Ethernet frame size is about 1500 bytes, a limit of 10,000 packets per second equals a maximum throughput of roughly 15MB/s. 100Mb networks can handle at most 12MB/s, so if your system is on a 100Mb network, you typically won't see any slowdown. However, if you have a 1Gb network infrastructure and both the sending system and your Vista receiving system have 1Gb network adapters, you'll see throughput drop to roughly 15%."
That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a while. Let's see:
What an over-engineered non-solution to what should have been a non-problem in the first place. Microsoft is supposed to employ some of the smartest engineers in the world: can none of them optimise their code?
I find this totally interesting. It goes to the heart of what is wrong with Microsoft these days... All seperate groups of folks, not talking to each other, to try and do "what is best" for the user, and then totally stomping on each other. Instead of really looking at thread management and optimising the kernel, they cludge together something to make multi media work by simplying saying "in certain situations, I can't guarentee the thread because of a crappy kernel, so I am going to tell everyone else to slow down".
It is these sorts of things and things like the teams and teams debating the "Shutdown Menu" in Vista that are really showing Microsoft needs to really change if they are going to survive. It amazes me how a bunch of open source developers with all their own agendas do a better job then a bunch of folks all paid by the same company. Of course then there is Apple of an example of a group that shows you can pull it off and still all look like the same organisation.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
I haven't been really on the lookout for it, but I haven't seen any posts explaining that as the cause. I'd expect if that really were the cause, there'd be a much bigger outrage from people and it would have blown up and I'd see articles on it whether I wanted to or not. I don't really see any useful DRM techniques for unprotected MP3s anyway. There'd really be nothing that MS could do with that sort of information.
However, this actually does make sense. In all honesty, they probably would have worked on a better answer than cutting back on networking, but with the time crunch on releasing it, they probably cut corners here and there (and by probably, i mean definitely and by here and there, i mean everywhere). They probably viewed this as an acceptable cut for the time being because for a majority of users, they use very little of their networking bandwidth. If its just a PC connected to the internet, they'd most likely never notice. The only time this would be an issue is for heavy network usage, which would normally only occur on work-related machines because let's face it, aside from geeks and techies, not many people have systems set up that max out their network bandwidth, so, if they were work-related machines, well, they probably wouldn't be playing that much music to begin with.
I'm not a MS shill, though I don't assume everything they do has evil intentions. We have to admit that they are great code writers, just not the best. Just because they do shady things here and there (mostly in business practices however) doesn't mean everything they do is evil. This was a problem they ran into and they made a workaround that would only affect a relatively small amount of their users. They were probably hoping no one would notice it at all until they either A) had a fix or B) just let it go because maybe no one would notice it.
Remember, this wouldn't really slow down your internet unless you have an *extremely* high bandwidth and even then, bottlenecks on the information before reaching you would probably still mask the problem. This is only an issue on system that have heavy network usage on some sort of intranet or other type of local area network, because these would account for the majority of networks that could even use a decent amount of your possible networking bandwidth.
Various flavors of Linux can take a flying leap. The mainline Linux kernel is generally in very strong shape, and I say this after spending years loathing many bad choices in Linux. Many mainstream distributions are doing very well too. Most of all, Linux does not compromise basic performance for "rights management", which Vista does.
Vista's worst engineering decision is to make a system optimized for restrictions and money-farming, not for user experience. The WGA breakdown is the best example. The legitimate users who paid a ridiculous sum to use Vista's 'ultimate' features (you know, the ones which are free in Linux and at least standard in MacOSX) had their systems crippled, and the pirates who bypassed WGA were not even affected. The whole feature does exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do. That's failed engineering, any way you look at it.
Sam ty sig.
it was an IMPOSED, HARDCODED limit WITHOUT ASKING the user. They could just add a registry entry of "maximum network packets per millisecond when playing multimedia files" or something.
Microsoft has a long history of hardcoding stuff without thinking of power users. Remember the 10-limit for open TCP connections per program? They did this because viruses and malware open many TCP connections. "Hey, what about P2P?" "What's P2P?".
- Multiple NICS
- Gigabit NICS
- Multiple CPUs/Cores
Those things just seem like glaring oversights, especially considering how many people have wifi in addition to the mobo's onboard NIC.One thing I don't get is how he managed 41.61% CPU utuilization while transferring a file. Did he have the ethernet equivalent of a winmodem?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!