Bad ping times

[GameRuk]

Hi anyones internet been sluggish and the ping times way higher than normal?
My ping allways used to be 25 nearly 2 weeks now its been like this no matter what time a day it is,i also contacted support and they see they see nothing wrong,done all the stuff that needs to be checked but no joy.I got no virus or spyware all been checked even tried on another pc its the same and i just built my m8s new pc tried his and the exact same thing am at a lost as there nothing else that i can see that i can try.Ive also just noticed that for some reason since yesterday i downloaded 4 gig going by idnet account i find this a little strange as i didnt download anything i dont use a wireless router so that not it,would love to know whats changed last 2 weeks.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results/id/122462191470455132272.html
the normal for me is 6967Kbps and 690 Kbps
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Game oveR>ping jolt.co.uk

Pinging jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 109ms, Average = 76ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Game oveR>tracert jolt.co.uk

Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2   153 ms    92 ms    84 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    81 ms    68 ms    53 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    51 ms    50 ms    47 ms  te2-3.cr05.hx2.bb.gxn.net [193.203.5.14]
  5    63 ms    70 ms    68 ms  vl3952.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.137.9]
  6    55 ms    43 ms    42 ms  gi2-48-5.ar01.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.140.14]
  7    59 ms    57 ms    63 ms  ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net [212.241.24
1.14]
  8   122 ms   122 ms   106 ms  secure.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Game oveR>tracert bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2   164 ms    65 ms    78 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    70 ms    61 ms    64 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    73 ms    74 ms    69 ms  rt-lonap-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.91]
  5    56 ms    51 ms    52 ms  212.58.238.133
  6    52 ms    60 ms    57 ms  virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Game oveR>tracert idnet.net

Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2   112 ms   105 ms   109 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    79 ms    79 ms    70 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    62 ms    57 ms    70 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    96 ms    91 ms    83 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    79 ms    87 ms    78 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Game oveR>

[Steve]

Hi

BT not sneeked interleave on?

[Sebby]

I was also thinking interleaving. It might be worth getting in touch with IDNet. They'll be able to confirm whether it's to do with interleaving or something else, and hopefully sort it either way.

[zappaDPJ]

Is it possible that you have a virus? That might account for the network traffic and the high pings.

[GameRuk]

Ive asked idnet about interleaving and they say its off also they say there not a problem lol well they defo something not right somewhere,also i had tried 3 pc`s 2 which are my own and the other which is brand new that i just finshed putting together for a m8 its the same on that as well so that kinda rules out any sort of virus or spyware.Ive tried another router wired one not wireless new cables new filters took face plate off and connected it into the hidden socket but with no luck.

[Rik]

You're not in the Ilford area are you, GameRuk?

[Ardua]

Normally, I get download speeds in excess of 6Mbps. This is my latest reading:
22/10/08 10:01:39
Speed Down   437.24 Kbps ( 0.4 Mbps )
Speed Up   361.83 Kbps ( 0.4 Mbps )
Port   8095
Server   speedtest1.adslguide.org.uk

Something is going on.

[Rik]

Try and run a BT test, that will tell us what your profile is. Also, can you post your router's stats - downstream sync speed, attenuation and noise margin? Have you noticed the connection dropping at all?

[Ardua]

Rik,

I am getting nowhere with the BTSpeedtester. Their website continually states that the 'system is busy'.  My router stats are as follows:

Downstream

Connection 8128

Line Att   19

Noise Margin  11

Upstream

Connection 448

Line Att  4

Noise Margin 28

The system has been up for 163 hours. An electrician turned the power off a week ago to change a power socket. Today is the first day of slow speeds.

My latest stats (thinkbroadband) are 328.01Kbps Down and 378.77 Kpbs Up.

[Rik]

Exchange congestion would be my best guess, unless you're anywhere near Ilford. Contact IDNet and they can run some tests for you.

[Ardua]

Normal service seems to have been restored:
22/10/08 11:05:44
Speed Down   6667.29 Kbps ( 6.5 Mbps )
Speed Up   370.37 Kbps ( 0.4 Mbps )
Port   8095

I did send IDNet Tech Support an e-mail with my stats and it may be that they put another 'shilling in the meter'.

[Inactive]

Good news... Thanks for the update.

[DarkStar]

I had a very slow connection earlier, 200-400 kbps against my usual 1900kbps. I live in deep Suffolk 3+ miles from the exchange. First thing I always do if I have slow speeds is to run the BT test
www.speedtester.bt.com
I can nearly always get on it, no problem, just have to wait a little while. If the throughput speed is as normal then its IP related, if its slow then BT related. Throughput was well down this morning so I guess BT messing about, perhaps putting in a super fast connection for me  I wish.
Anyway everything back to normal now.

Ian

[Sebby]

Glad to hear it.

[davej99]

Strangely my pings have gone out too and I noticed the following:

(1) On telehouse-gw2.lo1.idnet.net (212.69.36.51) I seem to be getting pings hi 40s to low 50s versus previous typical of mid to high 20s. Interleave is on.

(2) BT Speeds are reasonable, if a bit below usual 6600+:
  DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM),  448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
  IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
  Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6153 kbps

(3) Speed profile during the BT test is a bit raggy, whereas I usually see a near flat max rate  rectangular shape in DU meter. I suggest this indicates the onset of contention somewhere. DU meter tells me I have no extraneous activity.

(4) CHAP authentication is taking 2 over minutes per router log:
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:47:45 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:47:45 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:48:46 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:48:46 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:49:47 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:49:47 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:49:56 - CHAP authentication success

(5) Largest possible non-fragmented packet is 1472 + 28 headers gives my MTU, which seems OK, though I am on the limit of my expertise here.

(6) Telnet Rx Stats look OK but as I say I am no expert.
Connection Rate:  8128 Kbps
Line Attenuation: 37 dB
Noise Margin:     11 dB

Interleave CRC:   2
Interleave FEC:   722
Interleave HEC:   0

My conclusion is that I have a good connection and setup with early stage congestion.

Would appreciate a more informed opinion.

Cheers,
Dave

[Sebby]

I think what you're seeing is either exchange congestion or something going on at IDNet's end. It's worth getting in touch with IDNet to see if they can detect any problems.

[davej99]

Thanks, Sebby.

I was reluctant to contact Tech Support without some confidence that there may be a hint of a  problem. I think you will agree it is a very minor issue that is only detectable because IDNET provide such an exemplary service. I mentioned it only because of the earlier posts on this thread.

I have noticed with previous ISPs that lengthening pings tracked with central congestion, so much so I used to poll centrals and pick the best one. I agree that exchange contention is a possibility too. I think the justification for mentioning the subject to IDNET is user feedback rather than a complaint.

Cheers,
Dave

[Rik]

Feedback's what they need, Dave. It wouldn't be the first time that we've highlighted an issue through the forum before they've become aware of it. The telehouse ping may just be down to low priority being given to pings if that router is busy, I'm much more concerned by the CHAP authentication delays.

[davej99]

OK, Rik. I guess I was concerned not to be like the odd customers that gets ripped into IDNET  and then discovers the problem is self-inflicted. Strange that; I am not usually so inhibited; must be the very amiable tone you help generate on the forum, Rik.

[Rik]

I must be slipping, Dave.

I think there's a huge difference between yelling down the phone (not that I'm suggesting you would) and raising a perceived phenomenon with them. I ran PingGraph for 24 hours to demonstrate that pings to idnet.net had become erratic, and it helped find an issue which didn't show on the monitoring from within the network. By working with IDNet, we are able to ensure the best possible performance, something we all want to see.

[GameRuk]

Hi rik nah m8 am in wick caithness lol the highlands anyways heres the stats
ADSL Link              Downstream  Upstream
Connection Speed    8128 kbps    832 kbps
Line Attenuation      26 db          6.5 db
Noise Margin           9 db            14 db

The router never drops sync or disconnects and bt speed tester dont work for me so i cant run that,i dont think idnet will do anything as they said they tested it and its fine but surly it cant be i dont care about the download if i had 512k connection it wouldnt bother my as long as the pings fine but atm it aint.

[Rik]

It looks like your line is fine, full sync with some noise margin in hand, and interleaving doesn't appear to be on. The reason I mentioned Ilford is that there's been a major BT outage there in the past couple of days, but it wouldn't affect you (nice place you're in, btw ).

I'm guessing at BT work or congestion being at the route of your problem. Is your router pingable? If so, contact IDNet and they can run some tests to see what they get from their end to you. It might also be worth running PingGraph for some hours (up to 24 preferably) to see if there's any fluctuating pattern. If there are specific servers affected, ping them, otherwise ping www.idnet.net.

[GameRuk]

yes my router is pingable and idnet had done the tests and say its fine and the ping time are some to any servers its all the same m8..

[Rik]

What do you ping to idnet.net?

[vitriol]

No problems here, very strange problem you've got though

Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 21ms

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.195] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.251.195: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.251.195: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.251.195: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.251.195: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122

Ping statistics for 212.58.251.195:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 24ms

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 21ms

[GameRuk]

i use cmd prompt why ?

[Sebby]

I think he means what's the result when you ping IDNet?

[GameRuk]

C:\Documents and Settings\Game oveR>tracert idnet.net

Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2   112 ms   105 ms   109 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    79 ms    79 ms    70 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    62 ms    57 ms    70 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    96 ms    91 ms    83 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    79 ms    87 ms    78 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

[Rik]

I manage 23ms with interleaving on. It's worth letting IDNet have your results and see if they can find a cause.

[davej99]

Rik, like you I used to see pings in the 20s. I just ran an overnight PingGraph and the floor is just over 40 with averaged excursions into the 100s at one every 3-5 minutes and the 50s at about the same rate. Though I must caveat that I am very inexperienced at measuring and tracking pings and I could be suffering a cranial inversion. 

[Rik]

Did you mean you're standing on your head, Dave?

It would be worth letting support have the graphs, see if they can come up with anything. It sounds a bit like interleaving has been turned on, or the error correction depth has increased.

[davej99]

I have always been interleaved, Rik.

The cranial inversion I spoke of is sometimes known as secondary alimentary canal articulation. Saw a nasty case at Holyrood recently. 

Where would I look for error correction depth. Is that the FEC HEC stuff? Tech support say the rise in ping is not a result of a network change and is caused by a low ICMP priority.

Cheers, Dave

[Rik]

I have always been interleaved, Rik.

Bang goes the first theory.

The cranial inversion I spoke of is sometimes known as secondary alimentary canal articulation. Saw a nasty case at Holyrood recently. 

They do it well.

Where would I look for error correction depth. Is that the FEC HEC stuff? Tech support say the rise in ping is not a result of a network change and is caused by a low ICMP priority.

I do know that IDNet's routers do give low ping priority, so within that environment, nothing should really have changed. I've just checked and got:

ping www.idnet.net

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 25ms

Pretty much normal, with one slower one.

The interleave depth can't be determined by the end user, and tbh, I know little about it, just that it was explained to me once, not by IDNet, that the depth of interleave had an effect on latency and, given my figures, I must be on one of the low settings.

[Steve]

Screen shot from DMT tools of a Netgear DG834N showing interleave depth

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Rik]

OK, it can't be determined by the end user unless they have a router which reports it.

[Steve]

Rik I agree, I never used to get the depth figures using DMT and the 585V6. I don't understand netgear error reports, which are important? As I have always wondered about having interleave removed just for the sake of it and also for the gamers in the household.

[Rik]

Usually, Steve, interleaving has been turned on by the system for a reason. However, it does no harm to get it turned off - if the line can't hack it, it will simply be turned back on again. With a full sync and 13.8db of noise margin, I can see no reason why you should need interleaving.

[Steve]

It was turned on six months ago I had BT 2700 HGV synced at 8128 go mad one afternoon shortly before it failed completely when I swapped it for another one the next sync was 7616.The margin used to be 12 prior to this I think its 15 now.

[Rik]

Worth trying it off again then, I'd say.

[Sebby]

Yep, I'd agree with that. It sounds like something mislead the exchange into believing you need interleaving on.

[GameRuk]

i got nearly the same thing from support what this low ICMP priority all about sure this cant make my ping as bad as it is.Also i guess this will stay on so my ping wont go back to normal.bummer i may have to look else why for another isp.

[Steve]

Whilst sympathizing with your ping times as they are worse than my interleave connection,any server i.e perhaps jolt? which is set to give give low priority to ICMP requests is going to give a poor response to pings but should not effect downloads speeds or gaming. I think perhaps before you jump you need to ensure BT congestion is not the root cause.

[Sebby]

It might be true, but I sometimes think that the low priority thing is a bit of a good excuse, but it's difficult to say.

[davej99]

The ICMP priority argument does not explain why my pings were 20s and are now 40s at very best, with episodes in the 100's. I like the interleaves on the line excuse much better. 

[Steve]

The ICMP priority argument does not explain why my pings were 20s and are now 40s at very best, with episodes in the 100's. I like the interleaves on the line excuse much better. 

Thats Network Rails's excuse.