Slow speeds after power cut

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 13:40:25

On Friday, my house suffered a power cut lasting about 4 hours. Since then my router connects at 2624

Current Rate:          2624 kbs        448 kbs
Max Rate:         2624 kbs       912 kbs
Current Connection:
Current Noise Margin:       12.0 dB       20.0 dB
Current Attenuation:       59.4 dB       31.5 dB
Current Output Power:       18.3 dBm       11.9 dBm

The download speed is currently about 600kbs, should this recover in the next few days?

Simon · Jan 26, 2009, 13:45:59

Conversely, I had a power cut on Saturday, and my router resynced quite a bit faster than it was before. Have you tried rebooting it, Glenn?

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 13:56:30

Yep, I rebooted and the connection speed increased to what it is above, but the download speed reduced by 50%, it was on a 1250 profile. BT Speedtest site won't let me do another test for a while at the moment.

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 14:33:58

Something has happened in the past 40 minutes

Not bad for a sync of 2624

Rik · Jan 26, 2009, 15:13:36

Good old profiles from the look of it Glenn. Is your noise margin still at 12?

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 15:28:10

Yes it's manually set at 12, I got back onto the BT speedtester, it still shows a 1250 profile

Rik · Jan 26, 2009, 15:33:00

It looks like you may have to wait another couple of days for the profile to catch up then.

Baz · Jan 26, 2009, 20:05:10

sorry to hijack, Glenn but Ive noticed a bit slowness overall in the past few days.

just got this from BT

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your 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 - 4927 kbps

I normally get over 6000 kbps on this test

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 20:09:38

I'll do you a swap

Baz · Jan 26, 2009, 20:11:07

sorry Glenn didnt mean to rub it in

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 20:58:40

It's not a problem, my connection has always been slow by most peoples standards.

Sebby · Jan 26, 2009, 21:12:57

So is 2.6Mb sync about normal for your connection, Glenn? If it's just the throughput that's suffering, it'll be the profile, which should recover on its own.

Glenn · Jan 26, 2009, 21:15:16

Seb, that's what I thought, I normally connect between 2.3 - 2.6Mb

Sebby · Jan 26, 2009, 21:16:14

Ah, okay, so it's the profile.

Rik · Jan 27, 2009, 08:38:15

Quote from: Baz on Jan 26, 2009, 20:05:10
sorry to hijack, Glenn but Ive noticed a bit slowness overall in the past few days.

just got this from BT

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your 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 - 4927 kbps

I normally get over 6000 kbps on this test

Have you checked whether your exchange is congested, Baz?

Lance · Jan 27, 2009, 13:29:30

Mine has become congested recently (actually admitted by BT)

Sebby · Jan 27, 2009, 13:33:51

BT admitted something? Now there's a first.

Lance · Jan 27, 2009, 13:36:44

I was amazed as you, Sebby.

Rik · Jan 27, 2009, 14:39:22

It will never last.

Baz · Jan 27, 2009, 15:12:55

Quote from: Rik on Jan 27, 2009, 08:38:15
Have you checked whether your exchange is congested, Baz?

http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/ is showing as all green Rik.

Rik · Jan 27, 2009, 15:14:30

Might be worth asking support, Baz, the user tools are often out of date.

Baz · Jan 27, 2009, 15:24:15

ah right. is there another way to check.

Rik · Jan 27, 2009, 15:25:34

Yes, ask support.

Baz · Jan 27, 2009, 15:27:25

right. cheers Rik. will keep an eye on it for a few days as BT is now telling me

Your 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 - 5946 kbps

Rik · Jan 27, 2009, 15:37:45

Looks to be fairly classic congestion, Baz. See what it's like this evening if you can.

Glenn · Jan 28, 2009, 12:15:57

Still showing as a 1250kps profile, should it have changed by now 5 days after the power cut?

Glenn · Jan 28, 2009, 12:16:58

Results Image not loaded

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 2720 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 1250 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 1160 kbps

Rik · Jan 28, 2009, 12:17:28

It needs five clear days, Glenn, so it should be normal tomorrow.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 06:54:44

Still a 1250 profile today The router reported an ERR_SIG_INTERRUPT this morning at 1.23.17 GMT it reconnected 600kbs lower.

Your DSL connection rate: 2048 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 1250 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 1157 kbps

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 09:51:47

That's unfortunate as it's dropped your profile to 1.75.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 11:07:24

Your DSL connection rate: 2752 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 1250 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 1086 kbps

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 11:08:19

So the profile has been retained at the earlier low level, and it looks like the clock has been re-started on updating it.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 11:52:45

I have just come across a problem that maybe related the loss of dial tone for about 3 minutes, I have reported that the phone company. I also asked IDNet support to see if there is anything they can do other than me waiting a few more days.

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 11:58:53

Usually not, Glenn, but you may get lucky.

Sebby · Jan 29, 2009, 12:41:18

Quote from: Rik on Jan 29, 2009, 11:08:19
So the profile has been retained at the earlier low level, and it looks like the clock has been re-started on updating it.

Bloody profiles!

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 12:42:35

Indeed. Not BT's finest hour.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 12:51:57

Miriam has ask me to wait 3 days with the router powered on, to see if anything happens. Do BT profiles work Sunday's?

Sebby · Jan 29, 2009, 12:52:55

Yes they do, Glenn. There's no rest for some.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 13:26:41

How quiet should a "quiet line test" be? I hear a humming in the background when I try from a wireless or wired phone

Simon · Jan 29, 2009, 13:59:16

Electical? Are there any power blocks or transformers near the phone socket?

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 14:13:45

There is an electronic socket timer with toothbrush charger, about 18" from the master socket. OK I have remove that still noise, static rather than a hum

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 15:07:34

Always difficult to assess what someone else is hearing, Glenn. I expect some background white noise or gentle hum, but no crackles or loud noise.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 15:12:30

I reported it anyway, they can get BT to look into the issue and say yes or no. It is only the 3rd time in 5 years that I have reported a problem, so I think they are more than breaking even.

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 15:13:15

Reported to IDNet or BT?

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 15:16:18

OneBillTelecom

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 15:17:48

Ah.

Glenn · Jan 29, 2009, 15:23:56

They have very good rates, but as I say I have only had need of their support team once before.

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:02

Back to where it normally resides

Your DSL connection rate: 2720 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 2000 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 1852 kbps

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 10:27:24

Spot on - shame about profiles.

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 10:32:11

another 150k on the sync speed would see my profile jump 500k

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 10:32:58

I know just how you feel, I'm just below a 3M profile right now, another 96k would do it.

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 10:38:38

I wonder if removing the 2 phone extensions (I use cordless phones) would improve things? The only problem there is, the BT engineer hard wired them to the back of the master socket, not the removable front plate.

Steve · Jan 30, 2009, 10:39:02

Quote from: Glenn on Jan 26, 2009, 15:28:10
Yes it's manually set at 12, I got back onto the BT speedtester, it still shows a 1250 profile

Out of interest is this manually set by yourself or by BT

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 10:40:31

Quote from: Glenn on Jan 30, 2009, 10:38:38
I wonder if removing the 2 phone extensions (I use cordless phones) would improve things? The only problem there is, the BT engineer hard wired them to the back of the master socket, not the removable front plate.

It could well do, Glenn. As they are wired 'unconventionally' I suspect you could get away with doing it yourself.

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 10:44:56

Quote from: stevethegas on Jan 30, 2009, 10:39:02
Out of interest is this manually set by yourself or by BT

BT Steve, it was at 6, then 9 now 12, the last engineer said he would get it done to stabilise my line, along with turning on Interleaving

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 10:46:36

One of the extensions runs behind my plasma TV, it generates a lot of ADSL frequency noise when turned on.

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 10:52:59

In that case, definitely remove them.

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 11:00:55

OK I'm going in, don't call me for the 20 minutes, I don't want a 48v DC shock

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 11:03:23

Call you what, Glenn?

(I thought it was nearer 80V, btw.)

Simon · Jan 30, 2009, 11:05:31

It might clear your head, Glenn!

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 11:12:17

OK all the extensions are disconnected, the router has resync'd a little higher at 2784kbs

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 11:12:59

Not quite enough, shame.

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 11:14:59

BTW we were both wrong, it's 50v

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 11:17:29

You measured it?

Glenn · Jan 30, 2009, 11:19:18

No I googled it

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 11:20:54

That's cheating.

Baz · Jan 30, 2009, 18:56:15

mines back to

Your 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 - 4782 kbps

congestion??

BTW got this test done using FF

amazing first time in ages that its worked in FF for me

Rik · Jan 30, 2009, 18:57:15

Congestion is most likely, Baz. IDNet's got masses of extra capacity today, so I can be certain it's not an issue there.

Sebby · Jan 31, 2009, 00:36:11

I agree, it looks like exchange congestion.

Glenn · Jan 31, 2009, 11:54:26

Since removing both extensions, the number of errors over 24hr seems lower than before

DSL
Cumulative Seconds w/Errors:       795       795       5       0:03:30
Cumulative Sec. w/Severe Errors:       127       127       0       2:28:40
Corrected Blocks:       13377       13377       56       0:00:35
Uncorrectable Blocks:       7734       7734       6       0:03:30
DSL Unavailable Seconds:       0       0       0       0:00:00

Rik · Jan 31, 2009, 11:57:49

Every little helps, to coin a phrase.

Baz · Feb 01, 2009, 08:21:28

Quote from: Rik on Jan 30, 2009, 18:57:15
Congestion is most likely, Baz. IDNet's got masses of extra capacity today, so I can be certain it's not an issue there.

just got my weekly email of router logs and it shows this, bit long sorry

Sun, 2009-01-25 02:00:01 - Send E-mail Success!
Sun, 2009-01-25 15:06:44 - Send out NTP request to 158.43.192.66
Sun, 2009-01-25 15:06:44 - Receive NTP Reply from 158.43.192.66
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:06:44 - Send out NTP request to 158.43.192.66
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:06:43 - Receive NTP Reply from 158.43.192.66
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:44:00 - LCP down.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:44:07 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:44:07 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:45:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:45:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:46:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:46:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:47:05 - CHAP authentication failed
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:47:05 - LCP down.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:47:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:47:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:48:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:48:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:48:56 - CHAP authentication failed
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:48:56 - LCP down.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:49:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:49:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:50:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:50:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:51:08 - Initialize LCP.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:51:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Wed, 2009-01-28 13:51:35 - CHAP authentication success
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:21:38 - LCP down.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:21:40 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:21:40 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:22:40 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:22:40 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:23:40 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:23:40 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:24:30 - CHAP authentication failed
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:24:30 - LCP down.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:24:40 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:24:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:25:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:25:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:26:32 - CHAP authentication failed
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:26:32 - LCP down.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:26:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:26:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:27:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:27:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:28:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:28:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:29:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:29:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:30:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:30:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:31:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:31:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:32:41 - Initialize LCP.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:32:41 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Thu, 2009-01-29 12:32:50 - CHAP authentication success
Fri, 2009-01-30 13:57:59 - LCP down.
Fri, 2009-01-30 13:58:01 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 13:58:01 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 13:59:01 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 13:59:01 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:00:01 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:00:01 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:01:01 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:01:01 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:02:01 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:02:01 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:03:02 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:03:02 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:03:22 - CHAP authentication success
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:03:57 - LCP down.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:04:04 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:04:04 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:04:58 - CHAP authentication success
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:05:05 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:05:05 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:05:09 - CHAP authentication success
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:05:39 - LCP down.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:06:05 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:06:05 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:07:05 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:07:05 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:08:05 - Initialize LCP.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:08:05 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Fri, 2009-01-30 14:08:23 - CHAP authentication success
Fri, 2009-01-30 19:45:51 - Administrator login successful - IP:*********
Fri, 2009-01-30 21:30:12 - Administrator login successful - IP:*********
Fri, 2009-01-30 22:12:32 - Administrator login successful - IP:*********
Sat, 2009-01-31 11:06:43 - Send out NTP request to 158.43.192.66
Sat, 2009-01-31 11:06:42 - Receive NTP Reply from 158.43.192.66

is this anything to do with the recent work thats been done.

Steve · Feb 01, 2009, 08:32:21

Baz,Not sure about Wednesday but the new router and related issues could possibly account for Thursday and Friday.

Baz · Feb 01, 2009, 08:34:00

cheers Steve, will see if any one else has more ideas

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 10:53:45

Those times coincide with the outages on all three days, Baz.

Baz · Feb 01, 2009, 11:02:17

Thanks Rik.

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 11:03:40

I trust you have no ill effects from the drops, Baz?

Glenn · Feb 01, 2009, 11:32:34

If he has, he will bounce back

Baz · Feb 01, 2009, 11:38:04

never noticed any Rik, a tad slow sometimes thats all but could be due to everyone in the house using it at same time.

Have to say though and should have mentioned this ages ago, whereas I had bother with my last ISP, IDnet seem to be far better in the PS3 internet access area, My son is over the moon that it works better....well done IDnet, if indeed you did something or is it the norm

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 11:39:12

Good. For me, it was just a few minutes loss of service each day, if I hadn't been watching, I'd probably not have noticed.

Steve · Feb 01, 2009, 11:51:57

Quote from: Baz on Feb 01, 2009, 11:38:04

Have to say though and should have mentioned this ages ago, whereas I had bother with my last ISP, IDnet seem to be far better in the PS3 internet access area, My son is over the moon that it works better....well done IDnet, if indeed you did something or is it the norm

It is probable that your previous ISP was throttling the ports your PS3 required, which is common practice for many of the budget ISP's, in order that their over subscribed networks can offer a degree of service when demand is high, this is most noticeable on evenings and weekends.Idnet do not use any port throttling or bandwidth control methods.

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 11:53:00

Nor do they oversubscribe their network, of course.

Baz · Feb 01, 2009, 11:58:07

Well that was mentioned at the time Steve but was told no throttling was in place. They weren't a budget ISP either, were very good overall until things started to go wrong for me. I never really tested the PS3 while with them mainly as it wouldnt work, but yes it could be as you say. Soon as I got settled with IDnet tried again and ...........

makes you wonder about these things