Jump to content

Event id 4226


Tassadaru

Recommended Posts

This is just the way ICS runs, it isn't something that will be fixed with a registry key. remeber ICS was designed for a small network, 1-10computers max, normally 10 computers with just IE and outlook doing normal stuff on the internet (ie no P2P) would not generate that many connections. if you want to scale that connection number you will some device that can handles NAT, newer routers will handle this well and most older ones will also once firmware is released for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah I understand this but my network is a home network, in which I am the only one using p2p, the other computer has internet access from me, so this is my network.

Internet <-- MY PC (With 2 NICs: 1 for the net and 1 for the local area) <-- Other PC (with ip 192.168.0.2)

Other computer is hardly using any network, it is used for browsing from time to time, download sometimes, usual computer stuff. Only I am running p2p client (uTorrent) and I wouldn't want to change it, since it's so stable and small, and uses very little memory.

Any ideas on how can ICS be "fixed" somehow? Any *more* ideas I mean?

In the meantime I'd like to thank all of you for helping me out (again) and not just me, but all the users who have this problem.

PS: I know I should buy a router, but I need to access my PC Remotely (ftp, remote desktop, other ports that need accessing, etc), and a router would mess that up (since I would get a 192.168.0.x IP)

This is just the way ICS runs, it isn't something that will be fixed with a registry key. remeber ICS was designed for a small network, 1-10computers max, normally 10 computers with just IE and outlook doing normal stuff on the internet (ie no P2P) would not generate that many connections. if you want to scale that connection number you will some device that can handles NAT, newer routers will handle this well and most older ones will also once firmware is released for them.

post-119172-1169914641_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this was becomming such a wide spread problem for people.

I think its important to understand something concerning P2P applications, the real issue is that a problem doesn't really exist to being with. By this I mean that, using Windows as an example (not necessairly Vista), or even connection and internet/intranet operating systems in general, when using these systems they function according to the standards used for their TCP/IP interfaces - drivers - etc.... There is nothing wrong with the TCP/IP stack in Vista. Thats right, i'll say it again - there is nothing wrong with the TCP/IP stack in Vista. Its built with and adheres to the established standards used by those agencies who establish such standards (RFC for example), these are industry standards, it uses those standards to make connections. And...as Vista is out of the box, it works using those standards just like it was supposed to....IF!!!! all of the things that are not a part of Vista adhere to the exact same standards. The vast majority of P2P clients for example do not fully adhere to the software coding and TCP/IP standards even though they may say they do. They are riddled with odd ball coding schemes to make certain features work and frequently use code that 'forces' TCP/IP to work in ways at times it wasn't intended to work in, or the code is not really compliant with what was really intended, or the code is just not optimized to use certain things in an efficient manner. I'm not saying that the people who coded these things did anything wrong, its just that certain features in their products while they may seem to function may not be functioning as well as they should, I've never heard of one coder who coded perfect code for a thrid party application or didn't at some point "shoe horn" a "kludged up" routine into a third party product, there is always something that needs to be "modified" to make a third party product use the featurs they want you to use. Take into account also that for example if you have millions of computers all running the same OS with the same general types of connections, or entirely different connections, that no two of them will ever be alike, so its impossible to design an OS that will work exactly the same way for everyone all the time for their connections. There are just too many variables involved, every thing from the servers their connections pass thru to the operating status of their ISP's to the time of day to the network loading to the type of application being used. This is why we have standards for things like TCP/IP, so the TCP/IP stack can be built and optimized under a set of known standard conditions with known standard components or software. This is done so that the TCP/IP stack will work as intended in the OS out of the box, not in necessarily practice or application, and have the best chance of sucess for the majority of people - there are just two many unknowns to account for to try to build an OS that say for example works fine with little johnny's connection but not with little sallys connection. How are we or anyone to know what the outside influences are on any connection at any one time and build an OS TCP/IP stack based upon that? It can't be done. So, when we install Vista the TCP/IP stack works like its supposed to according to standards, what happens after we install it and start adding in P2P stuff doesn't mean there is a problem with the TCP/IP stack at all.

So this is what I mean by the problem doesn't really exist. Because we add a P2P application to the OS and it doesn't work exactly like it did in the past or we expected it to doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the TCP/IP stack in Vista, what it does mean is there is something wrong or not right with the P2P application we added. The solution to the problem is to have who ever coded or made the P2P application structure it so its optimized, coded properly, and uses the TCP/IP stack in Vista properly. Are there some things in Vista applications that could be different or better? yes there are, but were not talking Vista in-box applications, were talking a TCP/IP stack that is designed and built exactly according to standards that work while tyring to interface with the unknown particulars of a third party application that is probably (in all likely hood) not really coded properly to properly utilize the features of the TCP/IP stack in Vista to begin with. What we are trying to do is force a known (TCP/IP stack in Vista) to compensate for the unknown condition (the P2P software), when in reality the unknown should be using the known properly. Trying to change the TCP/IP stack is not the solution, using the TCP/IP stack properly is.

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I understand what you're saying, but thing is, theese lockups were NEVER happening on my Windows XP machine. Even so, I've never encountered ONE single lockup or net/slowdown on XP. Furthermore, the settings I'm using for my P2P application are modified and limited, (net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20). On the first page (I think) of this post I explained what this is. Furthermore: if my p2p client is CLOSED, lockups *still* occur when I'm surfing the web even. I've stopped my Mozilla Firefox Addon: Fasterfox, and still, lockups occur. It's not that I'm or some program is using the TCP/IP stack like it shouldn't, since if it were like that, alot of people on XP for example would have this problem. But still, the problem only applies on VISTA with ICS (i see). So the problem may be a TCP/IP/ICS conflict somewhere? Like when one of your applications STOP working all of a sudden and give an illegal operation style error in '98? I don't want you to think I'm talking stupid or that I am :) but anyhow, something IS wrong, and it's not the applications. It's either TCP/IP (which I don't think that would be a problem), or ICS (since all people are using ICS that share this problem or something similar). My question to you, now, is to give me an alternative (or some more) of ICS. Like programs that I can use instead of ICS to share my internet connection, programs that you or someone else have tried, and worked in the past. I want to see if using other connection sharing program (not ICS and NOT a proxy server) will have a merry-go-round effect on my PC and relieve me of my lockups, and eventually if it does, to help other users get rid of the errors/lockups until a fix comes out (if it's a M$ problem, and I believe it is.)

Thank you and I will await your answer.

I didn't realize this was becomming such a wide spread problem for people.

...

Trying to change the TCP/IP stack is not the solution, using the TCP/IP stack properly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning P2P applications in XP and Vista;

"theese lockups were NEVER happening on my Windows XP machine."

You found part of the problem right there. Your P2P application was made for winXP which used a implementation of TCP/IP, while adhereing to the standards for the most part it was implemented differently. Just because a P2P application made for winXP installs in Vista and seems to work doesn't mean it does everything its supposed to do properly.

As an example; "net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20"

An application could do this in winXP, but an application can't do this in Vista.

"Even so, I've never encountered ONE single lockup or net/slowdown on XP."

See above - your application is still trying to address the Vista TCP/IP stack in the same manner it addressed the winXP TCP/IP stack because it was coded based upon an earlier iimplementation of TCP/IP. It needs to be coded based upon the TCP/IP implementation in Vista to work properly.

Concerning ICS;

"or ICS (since all people are using ICS that share this problem or something similar). "

I don't have any problems with ICS, but I agree that some people are experiencing issues with it. I'd be willing to bet that if you were to take a look at those systems you would find something that wasn't compliant with the requirements for using Vista ICS (routers, firmware, etc....)

ICS was made based upon the standards which include normal things like web browsers, email, and FTP, and later included things like instant messaging, it was never intended to be used with P2P clients.

"(if it's a M$ problem, and I believe it is.)"

Is it a MS problem (meaning is it an issue with Vista)? ; who can say for a fact. A true story; When I was a kid I remember my uncle trying to put a carb on a car he was working on one day, he was a back yard mechanic and loved cars, and back in those days you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to fix your own car, he was building a car from the ground up. He couldn't get the carb for the exact year of the vehicle so he tried to use a carb from a previous year model. The carb was the same for both years with the exception that one of the mounting holes had been moved slightly for the later year model, other than this they were the same. He put it on and it worked fine except he couldn't ever get the one part of the carb bolted down because the hole was slightly off. About two weeks after he got it working he faintly smelled gas when driving it, everything else was running perfectly. Checking the engine didn't reveal anything, no leaks were seen, but that carb mounting hole was evidently on his mind because he said "i think its that carb", he never was able to bolt that part of the carb down because the one mounting hole was slightly off. Anyway, it bugged the crap out of him. He wrote a letter to the company complaining about the carb, they wrote back and told him to use the right carb and everything would be fine. Eventually he found the right carb, put it on, and never had another problem again with that car. He built it with his own hands using original factory parts for the year and model, except for that one thing, that carb which he later corrected, took him three years to find all the parts. The moral of the story is; It can look like its supposed to be and doing what its supposed to do, but if we put the wrong parts in and don't meet the requirements for what was intended its never going to work exactly like its supposed to.

In the computer world we have a tendancy to get the operating system then try to make our stuff fit rather then meeting the requirements of the OS.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but thing is, theese lockups were NEVER happening on my Windows XP machine. Even so, I've never encountered ONE single lockup or net/slowdown on XP. Furthermore, the settings I'm using for my P2P application are modified and limited, (net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20). On the first page (I think) of this post I explained what this is. Furthermore: if my p2p client is CLOSED, lockups *still* occur when I'm surfing the web even. I've stopped my Mozilla Firefox Addon: Fasterfox, and still, lockups occur. It's not that I'm or some program is using the TCP/IP stack like it shouldn't, since if it were like that, alot of people on XP for example would have this problem. But still, the problem only applies on VISTA with ICS (i see). So the problem may be a TCP/IP/ICS conflict somewhere? Like when one of your applications STOP working all of a sudden and give an illegal operation style error in '98? I don't want you to think I'm talking stupid or that I am :) but anyhow, something IS wrong, and it's not the applications. It's either TCP/IP (which I don't think that would be a problem), or ICS (since all people are using ICS that share this problem or something similar). My question to you, now, is to give me an alternative (or some more) of ICS. Like programs that I can use instead of ICS to share my internet connection, programs that you or someone else have tried, and worked in the past. I want to see if using other connection sharing program (not ICS and NOT a proxy server) will have a merry-go-round effect on my PC and relieve me of my lockups, and eventually if it does, to help other users get rid of the errors/lockups until a fix comes out (if it's a M$ problem, and I believe it is.)

Thank you and I will await your answer.

I didn't realize this was becomming such a wide spread problem for people.

...

Trying to change the TCP/IP stack is not the solution, using the TCP/IP stack properly is.

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Spooky, but please, just for my well-being mentally, gimme some programs that I can install and replace ICS with, if it behaves with lockdowns again, after installing those/that program, I'll rest my case and change my p2p client to a 100% (or so the author says) Vista Compatible one. I just want names and vendors of the software, maybe URLs, if you want, you can PM me, that's not a problem, I don't know if links are allowed on the forums. Thanks a bunch :)

...
I didn't realize this was becomming such a wide spread problem for people.

...

Trying to change the TCP/IP stack is not the solution, using the TCP/IP stack properly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah I just checked out uTorrent's webpage and in the faq section it's written:

General

What are µTorrent's system requirements?

Very low. It works on as weak a system as Windows 95 on a 486 with 14MiB of RAM (with the Winsock2 update), up to 2003 and Vista. It also works on 64-bit Windows.

So it's 100% vista compatible (version 1.6), the version that I'm using :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no one can say 100% vista compatible.. that's what "we" (the users) said.. it works great.. no glitches, no anything..

except for that half-open thing.. anyways the default value for net.max_halfopen is below 10 so there shouldn't be any problems..

the thing is, we're used to the patch and we have a high setting for that which kills vista.. we need a vista patch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah man but the thing is that not the 4226 error is the problem, but another thing. The 4226 queues connections to be made so that there will be no connection outburst (like 100 halfopen connections at one), that's when the 4226 "error" kicks in. The thing is hardcoded into tcpip.sys, but I've saw that users having this problem use ICS. There must be something between them (even if the computer connecting to the internet trough ICS is NOT using p2p)... I've got my net.max_halfopen down to 4, and still get lockdowns. I want to try another program similar to ICS but I dunno what to try. Awaiting ideas. :blink:

no one can say 100% vista compatible.. that's what "we" (the users) said.. it works great.. no glitches, no anything..

except for that half-open thing.. anyways the default value for net.max_halfopen is below 10 so there shouldn't be any problems..

the thing is, we're used to the patch and we have a high setting for that which kills vista.. we need a vista patch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between "It works" and 100% compatable or even just compatable. Yes, it works, so it may be 100% compatable with things like, it runs, it produces a window, it doesn't normally crash, basic functions operate without problems.... it isn't 100% compatable with the TCP/IP in Vista...as in a previous post - "net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20" - the ability of a third party application to change these values is NOT compatable with the TCP/IP stack in Vista. So lets qualify the term '100% compatable' - yes its 100% compatable as far as it functioning, but its not 100% compatable as far as the TCP/IP is concerned. System requirements are only established for functionality (as in - will it run and do basic functions), not for 100% compatability.

The ""net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20" only affects how the program tries to make things happen and its interpetation, not as things are actually happening. And there in lies the need to code for the Vista TCP/IP stack to satisfy its requirements instead of trying to make it do something it wasn't intended to do with a third party application.

DISCLAIMER: This is not to say that uTorrent is not a good little program, and its obvious that the person who coded it knew what he/she was doing, and its a good program. I've tried it myself and its a fine piece of work. So i'm not trying to dog out uTorrent here, its just not addressing the Vista TCP/IP stack functionality properly, its still trying to address the stack like it did in XP. I'm sure as time goes on it will do so.

Ah I just checked out uTorrent's webpage and in the faq section it's written:

General

What are µTorrent's system requirements?

Very low. It works on as weak a system as Windows 95 on a 486 with 14MiB of RAM (with the Winsock2 update), up to 2003 and Vista. It also works on 64-bit Windows.

So it's 100% vista compatible (version 1.6), the version that I'm using :|

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard with applications like TweakVI or Vista Manager you can increase maximum number of TCP/IP connections. I tried to install that TweakVI, but the feature we're after is not available in free version, so .. Haven't tried with the other one, maybe someone else will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some of these utilities say they do but they really don't simply because they can't really. What they try to do is disable the autotune which in the beginning people claimed cause the 4226. This was based upon something that occured during the beta when autotune wasn't working correctly (it was a beta after all). In the RTM these utilities do not increase the number of TCP/IP connections. Besides the way this works is there is no need to increase this as the limit of 10 in reality only affects connections that do not respond or time out during the TCP/IP hand shaking process - if all the connections connect and are sucessful in the TCP/IP handshaking and do not time out this limit of 10 has no effect - in other words if all the connects are good and act like they are supposed to there is no limit. In practical reality the 4226 error is not really an error, its something that tells you some of the connections did not sucessfully negoiate the TCP/IP handshaking process or timed out.

Even in winXP when the so called 'fix' for TCPIP.sys was put out with the hacked file it did not actually remove the limit, the hacked file just changed the limit to a higher number - by doing this the 4226 was not reported until the higher number was reached, so people had connections that did not do the TCP/IP handshaking sucessfully or timed out and they didn't even know it until much later when the higher limit was reached. the people who hacked the file and distributed it advertised it as "more TCP/IP connections" when in reality it did not do anything at all for the number of connections and the TCP/IP was still functioning exactly the same as it was before being hacked. It did nothing for the number of connections because there was nothing to do because there was no limit to begin with. The people who hacked the file did so in the mistaken belief that they were changing some limit, they simply did not understand how TCP/IP operates. The same is true for Vista, its how TCP/IP operates.

The 4226 event has been widely touted has placing a limit on the numer of connections you can make. In reality its only telling you that some of the connections did not do the TCP/IP handshaking properly or timed out duing the connection attempt. Thats all its telling you. Is it not telling you there is a limit on the number of connections you can make, and is not placing a limit on the number of connections. The connections that it reports are connections you could not use anyway because they did not actually connect due to either conditions on the net, the path, or the client on the other end. There is no limit to change, there is no limit on the number of connections you can make. What your seeing is the exact same activity for every TCP/IP stack in the world on every OS in the world, MS is just reporting it to you thats all. What your seeing is simply how TCP/IP sees the connection and how TCP/IP operates, its what is happening on the net, not on your computer. Changing any file will not change the effect your seeing, because what your seeing has already occured outside of your computer, not on your computer, and on the net and these are conditions you can not control. So it is not true that a utility can increase the number of connections you can make, there is no file you can hack or change to increase the number of connections, and it will not be true, ever for TCP/IP, simply because there is no limit on the number of connections you can make and the event 4226 is in reality only reporting bad connections you could not use anyway because they never really connected.

I heard with applications like TweakVI or Vista Manager you can increase maximum number of TCP/IP connections. I tried to install that TweakVI, but the feature we're after is not available in free version, so .. Haven't tried with the other one, maybe someone else will.
Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tassadaru

I'm was looking around for something that you might try for ICS, haven't really found anything yet. This is probably because there isn't really any replacement for ICS because ICS is a MS innovation that is built into the OS.

I know this is a little out of post, but would please, someone recommend some good internet sharing utilities/programs for Win Vista? Thank you! I want to see if the problem is ICS compatibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...