High Pings earlier .

Started by maxping, Jan 06, 2007, 18:56:56

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4 All
User actions

maxping

Jan 06, 2007, 18:56:56
I have been getting pings into the 80's in the last couple of Horus so tried the BT log in (as explained in the first post in the "how to fix high pings" thread)
I didn't use the speed test just logged in and then put my idnet user name back in and rebooted router.

Before using BT log in

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 44ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 58ms

After using BT log in.

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10:

maxping

#1
Jan 06, 2007, 19:00:54 Last Edit: Jan 06, 2007, 19:07:46 by maxping
Seems fine again now not even getting the spikes into the 50's

For those not used to pinging from start/progs/accessories/command prompt.

Type ping -t idnet.net (or whatever address you want to ping)

Adding the -t will let the test run for as long as you want it to , stop it by right clicking once , click "mark" , left click and drag the white box over the part you want to save and hit "enter" to save it so you can paste it into your post.



Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=60

mrapoc

#2
Jan 06, 2007, 19:13:26
all normal here - i wasnt on my pc at the time you got high pings, too busy watching the gunner pwn liverpool 3-1  :D

DorsetBoy

#3
Jan 06, 2007, 19:14:15
Can't even get BT Speedtester to work!

Enter phone number................................................35 mins later still waiting for the next stage.

Forum took over a minute to open and signing in another 45 secs+.

::) ::)

maxping

#4
Jan 06, 2007, 20:13:49 Last Edit: Jan 06, 2007, 20:16:44 by maxping
I spoke too soon  :'(

Can a few of you peeps ping 87.117.208.22  for me and post the results , Ta.

I would try switching the router off for 30 mins but i wont be on again after 9:00 so  will try again in the morning.

Tracing route to 87.117.208.22 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     *       31 ms    25 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    24 ms    32 ms    33 ms  212.69.63.10
  4     *        *       27 ms  x-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net [213.232.64.54]
  5    38 ms    32 ms     *     lon-sb1.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE [62.154.15.153]
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  9     *       30 ms     *     87.117.208.22
10    28 ms     *       27 ms  87.117.208.22

Trace complete.



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

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     *       24 ms    25 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    39 ms    44 ms    51 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    71 ms    62 ms    61 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    84 ms    96 ms    73 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.



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

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2  2223 ms  1196 ms   177 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    27 ms    26 ms    30 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    58 ms    41 ms    48 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    70 ms    58 ms    50 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

AvengerUK

#5
Jan 06, 2007, 21:05:27
my pings went high earily aswell not so bad now, However i am seeing alot of loss to some locations which i didnt previously get, also pings are still slightly suffering - but not as bad as before!

BTW: your IP as well with pinging multiplay times out alot (loss)

ou7shined

#6
Jan 06, 2007, 21:52:43
Here you go Max. Sorry I couldn't be bothered copying it out.


Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

maxping

#7
Jan 07, 2007, 11:22:49
Thanks - its as bad again this morning , i will wait and see if Simon sees the thread and can shed any light on it.



Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2   164 ms   308 ms   323 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    22 ms    31 ms    23 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    23 ms    26 ms    23 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
  5    22 ms    24 ms    23 ms  212.58.238.153
  6    23 ms    24 ms    23 ms  212.58.238.36
  7    24 ms    25 ms    25 ms  pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
  8    24 ms    26 ms    26 ms  virtual0.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]

Trace complete.



Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    22 ms    22 ms    23 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    24 ms    24 ms    23 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    24 ms    24 ms    23 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
  5    22 ms    25 ms    24 ms  212.58.238.153
  6    24 ms    23 ms    24 ms  212.58.238.36
  7    25 ms    25 ms    26 ms  pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
  8    25 ms    26 ms    24 ms  virtual0.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]

Trace complete.


Tracing route to 87.117.208.22 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    23 ms    22 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    23 ms    23 ms    23 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    22 ms    24 ms     *     x-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net [213.232.64.54]
  5     *       23 ms    24 ms  lon-sb1.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE [62.154.15.153]
  6    24 ms    24 ms    24 ms  217.239.39.230
  7    24 ms    25 ms    24 ms  217.6.48.238
  8    23 ms    25 ms     *     ge-1-24.pup.mer.lon.rapidswitch [87.117.214.2]
  9    24 ms    25 ms     *     87.117.208.22
10    27 ms    24 ms    25 ms  87.117.208.22

Trace complete.


Tracing route to 87.117.208.22 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     *      192 ms    23 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    23 ms    23 ms    22 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    23 ms    23 ms    23 ms  x-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net [213.232.64.54]
  5    23 ms    24 ms    23 ms  lon-sb1.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE [62.154.15.153]
  6    23 ms    23 ms    75 ms  217.239.39.230
  7    25 ms    24 ms    25 ms  217.6.48.238
  8    25 ms    24 ms    23 ms  ge-1-24.pup.mer.lon.rapidswitch [87.117.214.2]
  9    26 ms    28 ms    25 ms  87.117.208.22

Trace complete.



Tracing route to 87.117.208.22 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    23 ms    22 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    24 ms    23 ms    22 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    23 ms    25 ms    24 ms  x-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net [213.232.64.54]
  5    24 ms    23 ms    30 ms  lon-sb1.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE [62.154.15.153]
  6    23 ms    25 ms    23 ms  217.239.39.230
  7    25 ms    23 ms    25 ms  217.6.48.238
  8    29 ms    32 ms    24 ms  ge-1-24.pup.mer.lon.rapidswitch [87.117.214.2]
  9    25 ms    24 ms    28 ms  87.117.208.22

Trace complete.


Tracing route to 87.117.208.22 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    22 ms    23 ms    24 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    24 ms    25 ms    23 ms  212.69.63.10
  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  5    24 ms    26 ms    24 ms  lon-sb1.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE [62.154.15.153]
  6    24 ms    23 ms    23 ms  217.239.39.230
  7    28 ms    27 ms    26 ms  217.6.48.238
  8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  9    24 ms     *        *     87.117.208.22
10    26 ms    24 ms    25 ms  87.117.208.22

Trace complete.

maxping

#8
Jan 07, 2007, 11:25:27
This is strange , i get no problems using the bbc   ???


Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.



Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    22 ms    22 ms    28 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    24 ms    23 ms    22 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    24 ms    24 ms    23 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
  5    23 ms    23 ms    23 ms  212.58.238.153
  6    24 ms    23 ms    23 ms  212.58.238.36
  7    24 ms    25 ms    25 ms  pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
  8    25 ms    25 ms    25 ms  virtual0.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]

Trace complete.



Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms     2 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    23 ms    22 ms    24 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    25 ms    23 ms    23 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    23 ms    24 ms    24 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
  5    23 ms    24 ms    25 ms  212.58.238.153
  6    23 ms    23 ms    23 ms  212.58.238.36
  7    25 ms    25 ms    26 ms  pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
  8    24 ms    24 ms    25 ms  virtual0.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]

Trace complete.



Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    23 ms    22 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3    24 ms    23 ms    24 ms  212.69.63.10
  4    25 ms    23 ms    26 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
  5    23 ms    23 ms    24 ms  212.58.238.153
  6    24 ms    23 ms    24 ms  212.58.238.36
  7    25 ms    24 ms    28 ms  pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
  8    25 ms    26 ms    24 ms  virtual0.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]

Trace complete.

Bill

#9
Jan 07, 2007, 12:00:44
When you're having high ping problems, why do you quote traceroutes? The intermediate figures mean nothing unless the the values go high at one point and remain high beyond it. The sporadic high value on the telehouse router just means it's fairly busy, it doesn't affect the time to the destination server.
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

DorsetBoy

#10
Jan 07, 2007, 12:04:14
I tried pinging IDNET last night........pings at 385ms :( ,  waited 2 minutes and pinged again.........only 42ms ???

My broadband connection has also been dropped though the router stats clearly showed that the power had NOT been off.

The speeds were so bad this morning I have rebooted the router and will have to see where this takes us.

cavillas

#11
Jan 07, 2007, 12:14:10
Quote from: Bill on Jan 07, 2007, 12:00:44
When you're having high ping problems, why do you quote traceroutes? The intermediate figures mean nothing unless the the values go high at one point and remain high beyond it. The sporadic high value on the telehouse router just means it's fairly busy, it doesn't affect the time to the destination server.

Just means that many people are probably pinging and tracerting.  ;)
------
Alf :)

maxping

#12
Jan 07, 2007, 12:21:25 Last Edit: Jan 07, 2007, 12:25:34 by maxping
Quote from: Bill on Jan 07, 2007, 12:00:44
When you're having high ping problems, why do you quote traceroutes?

Bill if i had of known that i wouldn't have  ;)


I did ping in the op before i tried the BT log in  and it shows high pings.

Before using BT log in

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 44ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 58ms


I have Pinged both servers this morning that were showing high last night and all seems well again, i will keep my fingers crossed.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.



Pinging 217.146.92.144 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 217.146.92.144:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 27ms



Pinging 217.146.92.144 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 217.146.92.144:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 24ms



Pinging 217.146.92.144 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=120
Reply from 217.146.92.144: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 217.146.92.144:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pinging 87.117.208.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 87.117.208.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 25ms


Pinging 87.117.208.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 87.117.208.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 24ms



Pinging 87.117.208.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=121
Reply from 87.117.208.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 87.117.208.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 25ms

maxping

#13
Jan 07, 2007, 12:43:33
Just read this at the TB idnet forum in the "Latency Issues thread.

A co-lo customer had a problem with one of their sites being used to relay a flood of spam. They managed to fix that problem with help from our team. Apologies to anyone affected.
Simon

DorsetBoy

#14
Jan 07, 2007, 14:42:36
Quote from: maxping on Jan 07, 2007, 12:43:33
Just read this at the TB idnet forum in the "Latency Issues thread.

A co-lo customer had a problem with one of their sites being used to relay a flood of spam. They managed to fix that problem with help from our team. Apologies to anyone affected.
Simon


YES MAX............on the 28/12/2006 ;D ;D

maxping

#15
Jan 07, 2007, 14:59:58
Quote from: DorsetBoy on Jan 07, 2007, 14:42:36

YES MAX............on the 28/12/2006 ;D ;D

Ooooops  :-[  well spotted.

Seems to be sorted whatever it was.  ;)

DorsetBoy

#16
Jan 07, 2007, 15:31:59
Not sorted here.............too eratic to be worth having the PC running!

Nerval

#17
Jan 07, 2007, 16:23:55
Browsing erratic here too Dorset, and I'm  far away from Dorset.  :laugh:

AvengerUK

#18
Jan 07, 2007, 16:45:36
Also very erratic my end -  pings are "ok" to some places and awfull to others.

AvengerUK

#19
Jan 07, 2007, 16:50:25
Quote from: maxping on Jan 07, 2007, 14:59:58
Ooooops  :-[  well spotted.

Seems to be sorted whatever it was.  ;)
Just noticed: there is a reply from simon today in that thread - at around 1:30 "no network problems" apparently!

Bill

#20
Jan 07, 2007, 17:16:34
It's possible that school holidays, it's a weekend and this announcement may not be unconnected with the problem...
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

AvengerUK

#21
Jan 07, 2007, 17:19:26
actually school holidays ended *i believe* for most schools last week sometime?!

Anyway - pings are still the same ;) - its not bad so doesent stop me doing what i need to do though :)

maxping

#22
Jan 07, 2007, 17:24:29
Quote from: AvengerUK on Jan 07, 2007, 17:19:26
actually school holidays ended *i believe* for most schools last week sometime?!



My Sons first day back is tomorrow.

ou7shined

#23
Jan 07, 2007, 17:26:36
Quote from: AvengerUK on Jan 07, 2007, 16:50:25
Just noticed: there is a reply from simon today in that thread - at around 1:30 "no network problems" apparently!

Apparently indeed. :-\
Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

MikeT

#24
Jan 07, 2007, 22:53:09
I am getting very slow site page loading times with Pipex dsl too so it may be a big problem somewhere on the network. Even tried using their webcache and that sped things up a little for a while but now its just as bad. ADSLguide speed test for my 1meg connect just gave this result.

Date     07/01/07 22:35:45
Speed Down    389.38 Kbps ( 0.4 Mbps )
Speed Up    241.45 Kbps ( 0.2 Mbps )

So seems its something general to all, unless of course I am missing something.

ou7shined

#25
Jan 07, 2007, 23:55:16
Thanks Mike, it's perversely reassuring that we might all be in the same boat. ;)
Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

AvengerUK

#26
Jan 08, 2007, 12:43:31
- From 22:00 onwards it fully cleared up - although it wasnt all that bad in the first place!

Everything since that time has been flat as a lake!  ;D

AvengerUK

#27
Jan 08, 2007, 19:39:02
Why o why do i open my mouth...

Are they back again or is it just me?

DorsetBoy

#28
Jan 08, 2007, 20:04:18
Pings and speeds are back to VERY erratic again.

maxping

#29
Jan 08, 2007, 20:07:15
Quote from: AvengerUK on Jan 08, 2007, 19:39:02
Why o why do i open my mouth...

Are they back again or is it just me?

Bad here also.

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=60

AvengerUK

#30
Jan 08, 2007, 20:14:20
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=120
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 6, Lost = 4 (40% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 135ms, Average = 88ms

Interesting note: it only times out as  much as this to MP when the pings are having issues! - only times out through routes which go through enta...i think.

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 69ms, Maximum = 100ms, Average = 79ms




maxping

#31
Jan 08, 2007, 20:17:38 Last Edit: Jan 08, 2007, 20:19:34 by maxping
Its not just you mate.

I'm going to try the 30 min switch off and see if it helps.

Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 97ms, Maximum = 111ms, Average = 102ms


Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 87ms, Maximum = 152ms, Average = 118ms



Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=120
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 55ms, Maximum = 136ms, Average = 105ms

jackmalanak

#32
Jan 08, 2007, 20:21:15
Never had a problem until now BUT today I'm seeing the same sort of things. Just pinged idnet and results were returned in the high 100's

AvengerUK

#33
Jan 08, 2007, 20:24:44
Quote from: maxping on Jan 08, 2007, 20:17:38
Its not just you mate.

I'm going to try the 30 min switch off and see if it helps.

:) - let us know the results, i may follow suit!

ou7shined

#34
Jan 08, 2007, 20:51:31
How'd ya like them apples?


I didn't think that was possible. ??? >:(
Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

Lance

#35
Jan 08, 2007, 22:00:34
Nothing wrong this end...

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.LANCES>ping www.idnet.net -n 10

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 16ms


This is easily the best i have ever got. I occasionally maybe get one ping under 20 but 13 is by the the lowest i have ever had! i have previously normally been around 26.
Lance
_____

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

philco

#36
Jan 08, 2007, 22:03:16
bad for me too.



[attachment deleted by admin]

TimJ

#37
Jan 08, 2007, 22:47:29
3 Lines - 3 exchanges - 3 similar l8nc graphs

1st 2 are my lines - the 3rd is from AvengerUK's sig

maxping

#38
Jan 09, 2007, 00:42:24 Last Edit: Jan 09, 2007, 00:44:11 by maxping
QuoteI'm going to try the 30 min switch off and see if it helps.


I don't know if it was a coincidence but my pings returned to normal after i switched off the router for 30 mins.


Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms



Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 37ms, Average = 29ms



Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=120
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 29ms

philco

#39
Jan 09, 2007, 08:05:01
Maybe just coincidence, Mine seemed to be ok again at about midnight.

AvengerUK

#40
Jan 09, 2007, 12:55:14
Proberbly coincidence  - it got alot better for me also!

Simon_idnet

#41
Jan 09, 2007, 14:18:15
We have seen that the traffic through our Centrals has become unbalanced
recently. This is particularly apparent during the highest peak hours of 8pm
to 10pm. We are working at re-balancing the traffic.

We have more capacity due to come online at the end of February which will
alleviate the problem. The sudden increase in traffic has been due to an
unforeseen influx of customers recently.

Apologies to those affected.
Regards
Simon

houseparty

#42
Jan 09, 2007, 14:50:42
Quote from: simon on Jan 09, 2007, 14:18:15
We have seen that the traffic through our Centrals has become unbalanced
recently. This is particularly apparent during the highest peak hours of 8pm
to 10pm. We are working at re-balancing the traffic.

We have more capacity due to come online at the end of February which will
alleviate the problem. The sudden increase in traffic has been due to an
unforeseen influx of customers recently.

Apologies to those affected.
Regards
Simon



yes im sure thats the problem, i notice cr*p pings, slow webpages loading during busy hours, i went on the net at 7 this morning and it was great, really nice and enjoyable, but it goes sllllooooooowwwwwwwww during peak hours.

I then notice the pages loading better towards 10 at ight, and by 11 tey are nice and fast again.

I think members on this forum have brought this on too ourselfs, we have said how good idnet is and now they everyone wants too join idnet, that is causing us problems, like this one...........lol

AvengerUK

#43
Jan 09, 2007, 15:11:18
Thanks for the update :)

I think *most* isp's have seen a large increase of customers recently due to the amount of ISP's that have collapsed!

"I think members on this forum have brought this on too ourselfs, we have said how good idnet is and now they everyone wants too join idnet, that is causing us problems, like this one...........lol"

;)

The pings werent extremely bad, so hopefully it wont get much worse - but i have not noticed a single "slow down" - speeds remain at my max at any hour....so im happy!

mrapoc

#44
Jan 09, 2007, 16:20:52
sometimes it helps to grin and bear it  - unless you have a clan match on a game or a job that relies on your net  :(

AvengerUK

#45
Jan 09, 2007, 16:26:46
Quote from: mrapoc on Jan 09, 2007, 16:20:52
sometimes it helps to grin and bear it  - unless you have a clan match on a game or a job that relies on your net  :(

Wouldnt that just involve more "grinning" :)

maxping

#46
Jan 09, 2007, 18:01:01
Quote from: houseparty on Jan 09, 2007, 14:50:42


yes I'm sure thats the problem, i notice cr*p pings, slow webpages loading during busy hours, i went on the net at 7 this morning and it was great, really nice and enjoyable, but it goes sllllooooooowwwwwwwww during peak hours.

I then notice the pages loading better towards 10 at ight, and by 11 tey are nice and fast again.

Simon has given the reason and remember exchange contention will also play a part at peak times.



QuoteI think members on this forum have brought this on too ourselfs, we have said how good idnet is and now they everyone wants too join idnet, that is causing us problems, like this one...........lol

I don't see it as a problem , in the 12 months  there has only been one other instance of high  pings  and it was fixed quickly.
As more users join more money fills the bank account so more can be invested in keeping IDNet thew way we like it. :)

/takes fanboy hat off  :laugh:

maxping

#47
Jan 09, 2007, 18:02:16

Quote
Apologies to those affected.
Regards
Simon

Thanks for the update Simon.

maxping

#48
Jan 09, 2007, 18:30:31
Pings are spot on here @ 18:35

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 25ms

Lance

#49
Jan 09, 2007, 18:37:14
here too @ 18:41

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 17ms
Lance
_____

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

AvengerUK

#50
Jan 09, 2007, 19:14:59
Here also!  ;D

C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping idnet.net

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 37ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 37ms

Lance

#51
Jan 09, 2007, 20:00:29
mine seem much higher now @ 20:04...

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 124ms, Average = 90ms

Would seem its now the "peak" time on the interweb!
Lance
_____

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

maxping

#52
Jan 09, 2007, 20:19:31
Still fine here.

As Simon has said there is a problem , the solution is coming .
They are trying to balance the traffic so hopefully this will help until the end of Feb.
I would like to thank Simon for coming to what is an unofficial forum to tell us there is a problem and how they intend to deal with it.
How many ISP's Customer Support staff would have done the same?

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 28ms

RostokMcSpoons

#53
Jan 09, 2007, 20:39:06
My ping sucks so much I can't play :(


Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Ross>ping idnet.net

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=218ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=61

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 185ms, Maximum = 218ms, Average = 201ms

maxping

#54
Jan 09, 2007, 20:48:09 Last Edit: Jan 09, 2007, 20:53:21 by maxping
Quote from: RostokMcSpoons on Jan 09, 2007, 20:39:06
My ping sucks so much I can't play :(


I know its a p.i.t.a mate but try turning the router off for 30 mins.
Its going to be a bumpy ride for the next few days , hopefully Simon and the team can get the balancing act sorted and keep things ticking over until the end of next month when they get  more capacity.

I have just checked my ping and its high again i will try turning the m/router off and see how things go. ;)

Jobe

#55
Jan 09, 2007, 20:54:07
This is terrible, any info on when Idnet will fix these issue's?  I am pinging Jolt now over 250ms.

I came from Virgin who had the same problem of GREED and I left for that very reason; being a gamer I need low pings! This is smells like the exact same thing happening here   not happy.

I have tried everything, Had the router off 60 mins and the problem remains.

Hi all btw hehe. 

AvengerUK

#56
Jan 09, 2007, 21:11:56
Quote from: Jobe on Jan 09, 2007, 20:54:07
This is terrible, any info on when Idnet will fix these issue's?  I am pinging Jolt now over 250ms.

I came from Virgin who had the same problem of GREED and I left for that very reason; being a gamer I need low pings! This is smells like the exact same thing happening here   not happy.

I have tried everything, Had the router off 60 mins and the problem remains.

Hi all btw hehe. 


There really isnt much IDnet can do - apart from help with balancing, but that may not fix anything either. I *used* to be a gamer - but i only play Xbox live these days, which isnt badly affected.

Really the only thing you can do is wait, unlike virgin Idnet have told us of the issue(s) and are making attempts to manually rebalance so that the wait for the new capacity wont be *as hard* - but this may still mean high pings.

FYI - quite a few ISP's have had this exact problem recently, so its not just IDNet :)

Jobe

#57
Jan 09, 2007, 21:26:42
I do respect Idnet telling us of the problems, But I was told the very same thing by a few Virgin insiders before I moved ISP's.

I knew in the end that it was going to take a lot longer to fix the problem with Virgin. Infact I know it will take Virgin until March to fix this (Or so they say), but they also told me back in September it would be done by December.

The only difference here is that idnet have made it public!

Don't get me wrong I like Idnet alot as a ISP, there tech support is second to none (5 rings then a human) and I have never had a problem with them for the 2 months I have been with them, so far the last week or so it's been going down hill. It's just frutrating to suffer this again from another ISP after the months of hassle I had with my last ISP with the same problem thats all..
 

AvengerUK

#58
Jan 09, 2007, 21:29:43
Quote from: Jobe on Jan 09, 2007, 21:26:42
I do respect Idnet telling us of the problems, But I was told the very same thing by a few Virgin insiders before I moved ISP's.

I knew in the end that it was going to take a lot longer to fix the problem with Virgin. Infact I know it will take Virgin until March to fix this (Or so they say), but they also told me back in September it would be done by December.

The only difference here is that idnet have made it public!

Don't get me wrong I like Idnet alot as a ISP, there tech support is second to none (5 rings then a human) and I have never had a problem with them for the 2 months I have been with them, so far the last week or so it's been going down hill. It's just frutrating to suffer this again from another ISP after the months of hassle I had with my last ISP with the same problem thats all..
 

Suprisingly, i am also suffering a second time - Enta had the exact same problem, and i mean exact!, that lasted forever, then i escaped! - But, IDnet's problems are extremely small compaired to that!

Lance

#59
Jan 09, 2007, 21:31:56
and in my experience, when idnet have said they are going to fix a problem, they have done so on time (give or take a day or so!!!).
Lance
_____

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

maxping

#60
Jan 09, 2007, 22:17:27
Quote from: Jobe on Jan 09, 2007, 20:54:07
This is terrible, any info on when Idnet will fix these issue's?  I am pinging Jolt now over 250ms.

If you read through the thread you would have seen the post from Simon (the owner of IDNet) who explained everything.

QuoteI came from Virgin who had the same problem of GREED and I left for that very reason; being a gamer I need low pings! This is smells like the exact same thing happening here   not happy.

Why do you say "GREED" ?
BT have a lead time of 3 months so therefor the order was already in place before the current ping issue hit , hardly "GREED" mate!


maxping

#61
Jan 09, 2007, 22:39:21
I have just run a test and my lowest ping was over 100

If this happens to you try this , it worked for me i am now getting this -

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 26ms


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enter speedtest@speedtest_domain into the username in your routers set up.
Leave the password as is it doesn't use it.
Save reboot  then enter 217.35.209.142 into the address bar and hit go, you should now get the BT page asking you to enter your phone number to test.
You don't need to do this as you have achieved your goal , now go back to your username replace it with your IDNet user name and save/reboot and give it a try.
It has worked for me every time i have used it i hope it does for you. ;)




Jobe

#62
Jan 09, 2007, 22:57:22
Quote from: maxping on Jan 09, 2007, 22:17:27
If you read through the thread you would have seen the post from Simon (the owner of IDNet) who explained everything.

Why do you say "GREED" ?
BT have a lead time of 3 months so therefor the order was already in place before the current ping issue hit , hardly "GREED" mate!




Yes I saw Simons Post; like I said above I respect them for making the issue public. But that's all it is to me, I've been told this before a few times by another isp. I will sit back and wait, just like everyone else has to.

And about the second quote, that's what it is, more customers leading to capacity problems, other words taking on more ppl than there pipe can cope with. They would not of placed the order if they did not know they were going to have this problem by taking on more customers. I mean why else place an order for an upgrade if you were keeping the capacity to a certain limit? IMO they should have stopped taking on more ppl until the upgrade was placed to avoid any issues with existing customers. 

When I first joined Idnet I was told that this problem of "taking on more than they can cope with" was not going to happen by Idnet themselves on the phone, I mean it was the first thing I asked before joining. You can't blame me for being just a little peeved about it all. I don't spend hr's leeching everything there is to leech online, I just play game's for a few hr's every night. 

Peace out ! 

Thanks for the above tip, I will try that tomorrow around 8pm ;)

houseparty

#63
Jan 09, 2007, 23:33:33
hi

i know idnet are a good isp, but ive been having high pings for months now on and off, and i told Simon ages ago , i thought there where too may people now onIdnet pipes network.

It nows seems i was correct, for the last 4 or 5 months ive put up with high pings and the net being so slow, now again,i must say Ident are a good isp, but im wondering if its time too move on.

Ive been paying 25 pouinds a month for a service which is near unless too me(as i like to play online games and i cant with this connection) so i then dropped it too 17.99 a month 2 gig a month service.

I went round too a friends house the other day he has a 1 meg ntl internet connection and it was alot faster than my asdl max connection,pages loaded qiuckly no hanging etc it was really nice too be on the internet. Using my internet connection at the momnet is not enjoyable, and its been like that for a few months now.

Simon is a great guy and i do really like Idnet i know they are one of the best ISPs out there, it dont surprise me that Simon posted here letting us  know there are problems, but im now wondering if i move too another isp, im paying alot of money (im not at work)for a poor internet connection, and its really starting too bug me.

houseparty

AvengerUK

#64
Jan 09, 2007, 23:42:13 Last Edit: Jan 09, 2007, 23:44:02 by AvengerUK
NO ISP will EVER say: "No, were not taking orders anymore as were nearly full" - Its just not how buisness works. Best any ISP can do, is order ahead - and it would seem IDnet have done this. They must of ordered the new pipe way before christmass!


"i know idnet are a good isp, but ive been having high pings for months now on and off, and i told Simon ages ago , i thought there where too may people now on Idnet pipes network."

I havent had any issues since i returned HOWEVER if there has been an issue, it would be with balancing.

Lets use another ISP as an example, Enta who are rated higher than IDnet on some compairison sites. With Enta, Congestion quickly came upon them, and they ordered a new central - But, this order wasnt as "Pre-planned" - as in it wasnt ordered months in advance before they actually needed it (i waited 2 months before giving up, and that was with speeds of 200kbs...) , it would seem IDnet have "pre-Planned", but due to circumstances with recent downfalls of other ISP's there customer base has suddenly climbed quickly.

Its just a simple matter of waiting. I made the mistake of leaving with the last ping problem (which was ages and ages ago) - only to fall into a huge problem a month later!

Note: pings have been fine my end for atleast an hour!

maxping

#65
Jan 10, 2007, 00:11:35
Quote from: Jobe on Jan 09, 2007, 22:57:22
IMO they should have stopped taking on more ppl until the upgrade was placed to avoid any issues with existing customers.

The order was placed in November but BT have a 3 month lead time in November there were no ping issues its just unfortunate they have started now. 



QuoteThanks for the above tip, I will try that tomorrow around 8pm ;)


It worked for me i have just come from my fave server and my pings have been fine since doing the BT log in trick.

AvengerUK

#66
Jan 10, 2007, 01:02:45
Max, "It worked for me i have just come from my fave server and my pings have been fine since doing the BT log in trick." - my pings have also been fine since you posted your BT login thing...

Co-incidence, OR perhaps it does work and my pings just got better 5 or so minutes after..?

I'll give it a go tomorrow night, and see what happens, better to have more people try it :)

maxping

#67
Jan 10, 2007, 01:07:44
Bill posted that using the BT log in is  the same as turning the router off for 30 Min's but takes a lot less time. 
As you can see my pings have remained low since using the BT log in.

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

ou7shined

#68
Jan 10, 2007, 02:20:33
Quote from: simon on Jan 09, 2007, 14:18:15

The sudden increase in traffic has been due to an unforeseen influx of customers recently.


Oh shoot! That means it's al my fault then. Sorry guys. I'll get me jacket. :'( Maybe that's why I hold the record (I think) with a max ping of 826. :o
Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

ou7shined

#69
Jan 10, 2007, 15:22:23
 :'(

Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

DorsetBoy

#70
Jan 10, 2007, 16:23:02
To put everything into perspective.............I visited my local Maplins store today and in conversation with some of the staff it became very clear that they and many of their customers are experiencing the same problems with speeds/pings/erratic connectiions.
Having spoken to 6 people there,all on different ISP's it is clear that there is a problem that is affecting the "net" in general.

AvengerUK

#71
Jan 10, 2007, 16:54:01
Quote from: DorsetBoy on Jan 10, 2007, 16:23:02
To put everything into perspective.............I visited my local Maplins store today and in conversation with some of the staff it became very clear that they and many of their customers are experiencing the same problems with speeds/pings/erratic connectiions.
Having spoken to 6 people there,all on different ISP's it is clear that there is a problem that is affecting the "net" in general.


The problems called "BT"  :D

maxping

#72
Jan 10, 2007, 20:27:22

Mohux_Jnr

#73
Jan 15, 2007, 11:11:19 Last Edit: Jan 15, 2007, 11:14:20 by Mohux_Jnr
This is my results taken this morning, I am an online gamer and have noticed huge fluctuations in ping lately, my download speeds are top notch and exactly the reason I signed up but the primary role of my PC is gameplay, and spikes of over 1000, always at the same location are making me think twice. I also requested before xmas for interleaving to be disabled on my line but this appears to have been overlooked.
To me it appears that every ISP has problems with at least one of its services, Eclipse was poor download speed but good pings, IDNET the opposite, I just want someone who can achieve both  :'(.
Rant over, it can get filed now with the other 10,000 posts on high ping !.

C:\Documents and Settings\Jon>tracert www.idnet.net

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

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms 
  2    36 ms    38 ms    35 ms  telehouse-gw-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.41]
  3   825 ms  4093 ms   938 ms  212.69.63.10
  4  1209 ms    60 ms  1713 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    51 ms    53 ms    52 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

ou7shined

#74
Jan 15, 2007, 14:41:51
Woah that's one justified rant - 4093 ms  :o. I caught my pings peaking as high as 800 about a week ago but they seem to have magically finally settled down to around 30 again. I really hope yours gets sorted out soon, otherwise it's spawn kill city for you mate. :angel:
Rich.

Klaatu barada nikto!

Simon_idnet

#75
Jan 15, 2007, 23:11:23
Hi Guys

Traceroute readings showing router ping times don't have any bearing on server response times. In Mohux_Jnr's traceroute you can see two routers giving readings of over 1 second and yet the server at the end of the line was responding within 51 milliseconds. If a router was holding up traffic then all points after that router would show higher readings (than the router).

Routers treat ping requests that are aimed directly at them (as traceroutes and other utilities such as Visual Ping do) as the lowest priority. Hence pings that travel through a router to a destination server get normal priority and are therefore usually lower/faster.

Hope that helps.
Simon

Bill

#76
Jan 15, 2007, 23:34:04
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Mohux_Jnr

#77
Jan 17, 2007, 00:57:42
Thanks for the response and the correction and I am sorry I did not see the previous post regarding routers and traceroute, up until recently I have always used a DSL PCI modem so live and learn.
Could you tell me if the ping command returns a true value or are you infact just pinging the router, I use a DG834 and I remember seeing a utility on the setup page for pinging a destination directly from the router?.
Regards
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4 All
User actions