Ping times Jan 28 onwards

Glenn · Feb 02, 2009, 18:09:45

I'm on DSL4 and have erratic pings too, similar to Rik

Sebby · Feb 02, 2009, 18:38:03

Quote from: Rik on Feb 02, 2009, 16:07:42
I'm surprised that the BT system isn't more efficient at doing this automatically.

You are?

Rik · Feb 02, 2009, 18:38:40

Well, maybe not.

Glenn · Feb 02, 2009, 18:40:06

More pretty pics

[attachment deleted by admin]

Rik · Feb 02, 2009, 18:41:29

I'm averaging about 106ms atm, but it's very spiky.

Mohux_Jnr · Feb 02, 2009, 18:45:15

Erratic, like the weather

[attachment deleted by admin]

mrapoc · Feb 02, 2009, 18:48:51

C:\Users\Sam>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=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms 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 = 107ms, Maximum = 137ms, Average = 124ms

180ms on my favourite cod4 server (hosted on idnet too)

neocr0n · Feb 02, 2009, 19:22:42

C:\Documents and Settings\ron>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=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms 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 = 116ms, Maximum = 165ms, Average = 129ms

Philip · Feb 02, 2009, 19:27:16

poor here as well

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Philip>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=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms 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 = 129ms, Maximum = 152ms, Average = 140ms

vitriol · Feb 02, 2009, 20:05:20

C:\Users\vitriol>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms

C:\Users\vitriol>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 24ms

Pretty good but they're not consistant.

MarkE · Feb 02, 2009, 21:44:05

Mine from multiplay

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=124

Pulling my hair out

Philip · Feb 02, 2009, 22:02:50

not so clever here Mark

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Philip>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 102ms, Maximum = 141ms, Average = 117ms

mrapoc · Feb 02, 2009, 22:04:10

I win

C:\Users\Sam>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 143ms, Maximum = 211ms, Average = 178ms

C:\Users\Sam>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 183ms, Maximum = 197ms, Average = 191ms

oohhh dear
reminds me of the ping problems last year (or so wasnt it?)

zappaDPJ · Feb 02, 2009, 22:05:39

Pretty diabolical here as well...

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 132ms, Maximum = 169ms, Average = 148ms

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms 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 = 138ms, Maximum = 162ms, Average = 149ms

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>

mrapoc · Feb 02, 2009, 22:07:33

For those interested

I was around when it happened last time too

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=24478e45bdc61167797858db2d36623e&topic=450.0

Lots and lots of ping problems there which seem quite similar

Now thats going back quite a bit (back to the days of Jeff

)

karser · Feb 02, 2009, 22:34:36

Just a quick note to say I have been experiencing these nightmare pings myself, 200-250 earlier this evening, but just now at approx 10:30pm they just dropped back to normal 25-40, I hope it holds

Philip · Feb 02, 2009, 22:41:40

seems to be picking up here too

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Philip>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 32ms

C:\Users\Philip>

mrapoc · Feb 02, 2009, 22:42:43

hmm

dropped down to my usual 60ms or so...but this still aint good enough for me

used to be 30ms about 6 months ago

Lance · Feb 02, 2009, 22:58:28

Quote from: mrapoc on Feb 02, 2009, 22:07:33
For those interested

I was around when it happened last time too

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=24478e45bdc61167797858db2d36623e&topic=450.0

Lots and lots of ping problems there which seem quite similar

Now thats going back quite a bit (back to the days of Jeff )

That's a blast from the past!

zappaDPJ · Feb 03, 2009, 02:00:41

I'm getting a continual loss of service just now (1.55am), anyone else?

Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:15 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.36.3,53 Destination:<IP address removed - Rik>,54687 - [DOS]
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:16 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.40.3,53 Destination:.<IP address removed - Rik>,56719 - [DOS]
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:16 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.40.3,53 Destination:<IP address removed - Rik>,62896 - [DOS]
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:16 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.40.3,53 Destination:<IP address removed - Rik>,54687 - [DOS]
Sun, 2009-02-01 21:06:20 - Send out NTP request to 158.43.128.66
Sun, 2009-02-01 21:06:20 - Receive NTP Reply from 158.43.128.66
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:05 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:08 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:27 - Administrator login successful - IP:***.***.*.*
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:08 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:13 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:16 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:16 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:46:11 - CHAP authentication success
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:00 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:02 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:02 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:43 - Administrator login successful - IP:***.***.*.*
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:02 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:02 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:19 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:21 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:21 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:51 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:55 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:55 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:55 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:55 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:22 - CHAP authentication success

Does anybody have any idea what was going on on Saturday as marked in bold?

MarkE · Feb 03, 2009, 02:02:18

Quote from: zappaDPJ on Feb 03, 2009, 02:00:41
I getting a continual loss of service just now (1.55am), anyone else?

Yep! and enough is enough for me thats 2 drops midgame,couldnt game at a sensible time due to ping so decided to now and still get screwed over,I will be phoning tomorrow for my Mac key

golden · Feb 03, 2009, 02:06:29

Had a dropout for about 15-20 mins just now. But came back and pings seem better

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 22ms

zappaDPJ · Feb 03, 2009, 02:09:30

My latency is also remarkably good just now, let's hope it stays like that

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.multiplay.co.uk

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 13ms

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>

idnetbarry · Feb 03, 2009, 03:36:01

Had 2 drop outs.

Wasn't doing anything important so not a problem but son would not of been impressed if he was on Xbox Live,its a school night so he was off by 8.30pm so not a problem.

Been with idnet since June 2006 and have had a top class service.

Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:49 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:54 - Administrator login successful - IP:***.***.*.*
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:57 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:57 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:58 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:58 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:25 - CHAP authentication success
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:06 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:13 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:13 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:14 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:14 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:14 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:14 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:15 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:15 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:45 - CHAP authentication success

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\NickyBarryPC>ping idnet.com

Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 16ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 16ms

C:\Users\NickyBarryPC>

jaydub · Feb 03, 2009, 07:48:38

Not a gamer, so haven't been too worried about the ping times, although browsing has been very slow since they brought on the new capacity.

Unable to make a connection this morning and had to reboot my router this morning as result.

Pings seem to be flying atm (I'm on idnet.net)

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 17ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 17ms

So looking good at the moment.

IDNet seem to be very responsive to resolving issues, however I do have to make the observation, after stints at Zen and Newnet, that IDNet do seem to be more prone to having issues in the first place.