If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading
updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. Just a thought, but to paraphrase a popular song, "Gee it would be nice if you did." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
On 2/22/19 9:05 PM, lonelydad wrote:
Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. Just a thought, but to paraphrase a popular song, "Gee it would be nice if you did." Add to that, would it not be nice if they had a bugzilla bug reporter. And in-sourced their programmers back to the United States. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
lonelydad wrote:
Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) will only use spare bandwidth. If it is using half of your bandwidth means that you were only using half and the other half would've been unused. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. So, are you reporting that active hours aren't obeyed? Did you define when are your active hours for that computer? https://www.windowscentral.com/how-c...during-updates |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
VanguardLH wrote:
lonelydad wrote: Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) will only use spare bandwidth. If it is using half of your bandwidth means that you were only using half and the other half would've been unused. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. So, are you reporting that active hours aren't obeyed? Did you define when are your active hours for that computer? https://www.windowscentral.com/how-c...during-updates The OS Upgrade no longer uses BITS. You can try the BITSADMIN utility (likely deprecated) and see what is going on. bitsadmin /monitor /allusers ******* My test case finally started running the 1809 upgrade just now. This is where I disable DoSvc by setting it to Bypass, and also throttle the BITS it will end up using for the Upgrade Install. (Use "download original image") https://i.postimg.cc/B6Kby0kS/thrott...GPEDIT-MSC.gif Here, you can see it's only using one connection, even though the BITS table has room for a couple more. And an interesting result, is the download is *no slower* than it is with the crappy default method. Microsoft appears to change the method they use, and uses a "large" download over the single connection used. https://i.postimg.cc/4xwnrw30/upgrade-throttled.gif Whereas, downloading the DVD avoids all of this "puttering around" to achieve a similar result. While BITS was doing its single-connection download, my Surf Machine was still able to surf the Internet without being slowed down. And that's because the router "fair share" was only having to deal with single connections from each machine. Rather than the Upgrade machine machine-gunning the router and "stealing" all the fair-share. As it's based on connection count and nothing else. "He who opens the most connections on a home router, wins." That's my experience. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
Paul wrote in :
VanguardLH wrote: lonelydad wrote: Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) will only use spare bandwidth. If it is using half of your bandwidth means that you were only using half and the other half would've been unused. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. So, are you reporting that active hours aren't obeyed? Did you define when are your active hours for that computer? Active hours is a setting that tells Microsoft that they are not to remotely force a start of the upgrade process withint that time range. The assumption is that either the machine is not in use at all, or can be interrupted without problem outside of those hours. They have nothing to do with when Microsoft downloads any updates to one's system. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
Paul wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) will only use spare bandwidth. If it is using half of your bandwidth means that you were only using half and the other half would've been unused. The OS Upgrade no longer uses BITS. You can try the BITSADMIN utility (likely deprecated) and see what is going on. So, if I *disable* the BITS service, the OS upgrade still proceeds? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
VanguardLH wrote:
Paul wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) will only use spare bandwidth. If it is using half of your bandwidth means that you were only using half and the other half would've been unused. The OS Upgrade no longer uses BITS. You can try the BITSADMIN utility (likely deprecated) and see what is going on. So, if I *disable* the BITS service, the OS upgrade still proceeds? It would depend as well, on the DoSvc Setting page settings. If you're not careful, you could turn it off there, as well as be able to turn it off in GPEDIT. The idea of doing it via GPEDIT, is so they can't "sneak some through that way". I was surprised that DoSvc had taken over from BITS. I can't remember what I was doing, but I had the BITSADMIN monitor running, the OS was "doing something", and none of the download activities involved BITS. I have to assume it was DoSvc running the show. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ization-portal "Delivery Optimization allows devices to download updates from alternate sources (such as other peers on the network), in addition to Microsoft servers. Delivery Optimization combines partial bits from local devices, with partial bits from Microsoft servers to update devices in the network environment. === In the form of a thousand signed packages The expected result is reduced bandwidth usage, === YES, by inspection and a faster update process. === NO, not even close " So the staff at Microsoft are temporally challenged. That's got to explain it. This scheme is "all about the gigabytes" and making customer machines do the transfers instead. The update process isn't faster. I think I used to be able to get some of the DVDs in around 25 minutes or so. When I tested the DoSvc Peer-to-Peer-LAN feature, it didn't work! Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
Paul wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Paul wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) will only use spare bandwidth. If it is using half of your bandwidth means that you were only using half and the other half would've been unused. The OS Upgrade no longer uses BITS. You can try the BITSADMIN utility (likely deprecated) and see what is going on. So, if I *disable* the BITS service, the OS upgrade still proceeds? It would depend as well, on the DoSvc Setting page settings. If you're not careful, you could turn it off there, as well as be able to turn it off in GPEDIT. The idea of doing it via GPEDIT, is so they can't "sneak some through that way". I was surprised that DoSvc had taken over from BITS. I can't remember what I was doing, but I had the BITSADMIN monitor running, the OS was "doing something", and none of the download activities involved BITS. I have to assume it was DoSvc running the show. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ization-portal "Delivery Optimization allows devices to download updates from alternate sources (such as other peers on the network), in addition to Microsoft servers. Delivery Optimization combines partial bits from local devices, with partial bits from Microsoft servers to update devices in the network environment. === In the form of a thousand signed packages The expected result is reduced bandwidth usage, === YES, by inspection and a faster update process. === NO, not even close " So the staff at Microsoft are temporally challenged. That's got to explain it. This scheme is "all about the gigabytes" and making customer machines do the transfers instead. The update process isn't faster. I think I used to be able to get some of the DVDs in around 25 minutes or so. When I tested the DoSvc Peer-to-Peer-LAN feature, it didn't work! Paul Ah, the "steal partial downloads from non-Microsoft others". To reduce load on their own WSUS servers, they employ peer-to-peer incremental updates. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...y-optimization My property is not Microsoft's. I don't let Microsoft use my computer nor my bandwidth to incrementally deliver THEIR updates. My host is not theirs to [ab]use. Like MANY other configuration settings and services in Windows 10, Delivery Optimization was amongst those that I configure to keep Microsoft using my host as theirs. https://www.thewindowsclub.com/turn-...y-optimization For the same reason that I chose not to become covertly volunteered to assist Microsoft to deliver Microsoft's updates, I also will not abuse the hosts of other users to acquire those Microsoft updates. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
On 2/23/2019 12:05 AM, lonelydad wrote:
Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. Just a thought, but to paraphrase a popular song, "Gee it would be nice if you did." Because I'm curious...how much bandwidth is "half"? My last updates have been using every last bit of my 25MB DSL. It also hogs all of my measly 1.4 upload whenever anything gets sent to One Drive. GrtArtiste |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
GrtArtiste wrote:
On 2/23/2019 12:05 AM, lonelydad wrote: Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. Just a thought, but to paraphrase a popular song, "Gee it would be nice if you did." Because I'm curious...how much bandwidth is "half"? My last updates have been using every last bit of my 25MB DSL. It also hogs all of my measly 1.4 upload whenever anything gets sent to One Drive. GrtArtiste I wonder if there are any definitive articles explaining how it's supposed to work. The problem is, home routers are sensitive to "connection count". When a Win10 machine opens 20 connections, it "hogs" the router. It squeezes out a machine which is just using its web browser. Yet, the Win10 machine is supposed to have some notion of bandwidth. But bandwidth is *not* the problem. You can have two computers downloading a DVD, and if each machine uses one connection for the job, they each get 50% of link. Now, even if you set the "bandwidth" on one machine to some lesser number, it can still use an excess of connections to foul up the usability of the home router for other people in the house. Bandwidth as a knob to twiddle is *not* the answer. There's more to it. And I just got my test case to run, the one I've been waiting months for it to take off. And when I force fed it the Feb 2019 Patch Tuesday, finally it started the Upgrade download after that. And it did it with my modified BITS settings, and it behaved nicely and the download went just as fast without being a pig about it. It downloaded the whole Upgrade, using no more than one connection. And it ran at 83% link while doing it. If I were to Web Surf on the other machine, the transfer rate on the Win10 machine would momentarily drop. In other words, fairly sharing my home router. Paul |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
On 2/23/2019 5:08 AM, Paul wrote:
GrtArtiste wrote: On 2/23/2019 12:05 AM, lonelydad wrote: Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. Just a thought, but to paraphrase a popular song, "Gee it would be nice if you did." Because I'm curious...how much bandwidth is "half"? My last updates have been using every last bit of my 25MB DSL. It also hogs all of my measly 1.4 upload whenever anything gets sent to One Drive. GrtArtiste I wonder if there are any definitive articles explaining how it's supposed to work. The problem is, home routers are sensitive to "connection count". When a Win10 machine opens 20 connections, it "hogs" the router. It squeezes out a machine which is just using its web browser. Yet, the Win10 machine is supposed to have some notion of bandwidth. But bandwidth is *not* the problem. You can have two computers downloading a DVD, and if each machine uses one connection for the job, they each get 50% of link. Now, even if you set the "bandwidth" on one machine to some lesser number, it can still use an excess of connections to foul up the usability of the home router for other people in the house. Bandwidth as a knob to twiddle is *not* the answer. There's more to it. And I just got my test case to run, the one I've been waiting months for it to take off. And when I force fed it the Feb 2019 Patch Tuesday, finally it started the Upgrade download after that. And it did it with my modified BITS settings, and it behaved nicely and the download went just as fast without being a pig about it. It downloaded the whole Upgrade, using no more than one connection. And it ran at 83% link while doing it. If I were to Web Surf on the other machine, the transfer rate on the Win10 machine would momentarily drop. In other words, fairly sharing my home router. Â*Â* Paul Thank you for the explanation. What concerns me though is that the vast majority of users won't bother to modify their BITS settings and will just live with it. So...does *more* bandwidth eventually become *enough* bandwidth to mitigate the problem to any noticeable degree? Or will the update/upgrade process always monopolize as much bandwidth as it can? The OP originally said "half my download bandwidth disappeared". If that was not just an guess/estimate, I'd like to know how much "half" really is. GrtArtiste |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
GrtArtiste wrote:
On 2/23/2019 5:08 AM, Paul wrote: GrtArtiste wrote: On 2/23/2019 12:05 AM, lonelydad wrote: Why can't Microsoft post a notification when they are downloading updates/upgrades? It would be nice to know why all of a sudden half my download bandwith disappeared. Even more radical - why don't they wait till it is outside of my set active hours. Then it really wouldn't matter if they take up a majority of my bandwidth, because I will be in bed sleeping the sleep of the just. Just a thought, but to paraphrase a popular song, "Gee it would be nice if you did." Because I'm curious...how much bandwidth is "half"? My last updates have been using every last bit of my 25MB DSL. It also hogs all of my measly 1.4 upload whenever anything gets sent to One Drive. GrtArtiste I wonder if there are any definitive articles explaining how it's supposed to work. The problem is, home routers are sensitive to "connection count". When a Win10 machine opens 20 connections, it "hogs" the router. It squeezes out a machine which is just using its web browser. Yet, the Win10 machine is supposed to have some notion of bandwidth. But bandwidth is *not* the problem. You can have two computers downloading a DVD, and if each machine uses one connection for the job, they each get 50% of link. Now, even if you set the "bandwidth" on one machine to some lesser number, it can still use an excess of connections to foul up the usability of the home router for other people in the house. Bandwidth as a knob to twiddle is *not* the answer. There's more to it. And I just got my test case to run, the one I've been waiting months for it to take off. And when I force fed it the Feb 2019 Patch Tuesday, finally it started the Upgrade download after that. And it did it with my modified BITS settings, and it behaved nicely and the download went just as fast without being a pig about it. It downloaded the whole Upgrade, using no more than one connection. And it ran at 83% link while doing it. If I were to Web Surf on the other machine, the transfer rate on the Win10 machine would momentarily drop. In other words, fairly sharing my home router. Paul Thank you for the explanation. What concerns me though is that the vast majority of users won't bother to modify their BITS settings and will just live with it. So...does *more* bandwidth eventually become *enough* bandwidth to mitigate the problem to any noticeable degree? Or will the update/upgrade process always monopolize as much bandwidth as it can? The OP originally said "half my download bandwidth disappeared". If that was not just an guess/estimate, I'd like to know how much "half" really is. GrtArtiste Well, I know the effect he's referring to, because I first saw that about three releases ago. And it makes your Surf Machine "slogging slow". I think at one point, I even had a connection time out, because there wasn't an opportunity to squeeze in a packet in time. Microsoft did turn it down a bit, and I don't think they open quite as many connections today as they did the first time they used that method. And if the Win10 machine is aggressive enough, it can actually crash my router. My router isn't exactly a champ (it would never be selected for usage with Tor), but I was duly impressed that Windows 10 and its bad connection habits, could actually tip the router section over. It doesn't do that now. This generation of release is a little better behaved and doesn't kill the router, but it still makes the Surf Machine slow. And as my test result shows, it's unnecessary to make the process punishing like this. By turning off DoSvc and going back to BITS, the download process used 83% of the link (comparable to other cases), the download finished in a decent time (it might have finished faster than normal actually), and it only used the one connection. I could surf on the Surf Machine as if Windows Update wasn't even running. Which tells you the process doesn't have to be crappy, to work. Paul |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
In article , Paul
wrote: And if the Win10 machine is aggressive enough, it can actually crash my router. then you have an incredibly ****ty router. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
In article , Paul
wrote: The problem is, home routers are sensitive to "connection count". When a Win10 machine opens 20 connections, it "hogs" the router. It squeezes out a machine which is just using its web browser. nonsense. home routers can handle many hundreds, if not many thousands of simultaneous connections. if 20 connections caused a problem, then all sorts of things wouldn't work properly, or at all. a single web page often has more than that, plus all the other stuff that's in use. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I just had a radical idea
This regular troll can't hold a candle to Paul...
-- nospam nospam nospam.invalid wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: nospam nospam nospam.invalid Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10 Subject: I just had a radical idea Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 08:04:28 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 13 Message-ID: 230220190804283561%nospam nospam.invalid References: XnsA9FEEAEA532C3lonelydad58gmailcom 69.16.179.29 q4qnq9$m7p$1 dont-email.me q4r630$tt0$1 dont-email.me Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3da57bf4e7c8935aebc8070ae48abdbc"; logging-data="19903"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eOcQFwdaauA2Du8vXHhZq" User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X) Cancel-Lock: sha1HcXKSV+hu1ZaebnD8Lsruq4NJ8= Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:89676 In article q4r630$tt0$1 dont-email.me, Paul nospam needed.invalid wrote: The problem is, home routers are sensitive to "connection count". When a Win10 machine opens 20 connections, it "hogs" the router. It squeezes out a machine which is just using its web browser. nonsense. home routers can handle many hundreds, if not many thousands of simultaneous connections. if 20 connections caused a problem, then all sorts of things wouldn't work properly, or at all. a single web page often has more than that, plus all the other stuff that's in use. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|