Ping times Jan 28 onwards

sobranie · Feb 05, 2009, 21:07:47

Pinging to idnet.com over the last 10 minutes reveal an average of 33 and
to google an average of 43.
Note I was moved to .gw6 earlier on this week which might have some bearing on the matter at this stage of the game.

Burvs · Feb 05, 2009, 21:41:42

I'm getting bad times too.
Have rebooted the router many times.

PING www.l.google.com (66.102.9.147): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=134.520 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=136.869 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=150.485 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=182.357 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=158.727 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=120.357 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=6 ttl=247 time=274.881 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=7 ttl=247 time=152.569 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=8 ttl=247 time=128.210 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=9 ttl=247 time=182.542 ms

PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=100.218 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=100.321 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=97.948 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=148.791 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=127.677 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=146.038 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=166.651 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=117.062 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=102.949 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=129.539 ms

PING www.wireplay.co.uk (194.154.191.32): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=134.790 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=143.137 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=175.979 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=129.380 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=150.995 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=147.362 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=6 ttl=58 time=91.512 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=7 ttl=58 time=127.365 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=8 ttl=58 time=137.740 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=9 ttl=58 time=168.334 ms

PING core1.multiplay.co.uk (85.236.96.22): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=0 ttl=124 time=153.102 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=1 ttl=124 time=159.694 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=2 ttl=124 time=59.872 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=3 ttl=124 time=109.966 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=4 ttl=124 time=141.570 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=5 ttl=124 time=140.942 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=6 ttl=124 time=161.057 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=7 ttl=124 time=163.927 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=8 ttl=124 time=156.809 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=9 ttl=124 time=136.443 ms

MarkE · Feb 05, 2009, 21:44:01

yep Router rebooting is not doing a thing here,currently near 800ms to gaming servers...............................based in the uk

karser · Feb 05, 2009, 21:54:37

After a router reboot yesterday it was fine, seemed back to normal, today after several reboots including a full 30 min one its all over the place, pings from 27-170.

Simon · Feb 05, 2009, 21:58:18

We are assured that IDNet are continuing to try to rectify these problems, but feel free to contact them if your pings are not improving. Sorry that we can't be of any more help here.

Welcome, Burvs.

Glenn · Feb 05, 2009, 22:07:23

I had an email from Simon (IDNet) around 30 minutes ago ask to reboot the rooter, which I did twice, sadly little changed. He is trying to rebalance the centrals yet again, it must be very frustrating for him and his team to have had the pipe installe,d only to find it is not working as advertised.

Philip · Feb 05, 2009, 22:12:30

seem to be settling down again

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=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms 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 = 30ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 31ms

C:\Users\Philip>

Glenn · Feb 05, 2009, 22:24:29

Seems to be settling now, still higher than normal, but far better than 40 minutes ago

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms 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 = 35ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 39ms

karser · Feb 05, 2009, 22:33:16

Seems to be fine now as others have said, just hope it holds this time

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 24ms

drummer · Feb 06, 2009, 03:02:13

After a few days of bonkers pings, it seems to have settled in the last few hours:

C:\Documents and Settings\^_^>ping www.idnet.net -n 32

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 32, Received = 32, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 11ms

Throughput/speed wasn't affected in the slightest so I'm not that bothered about the Ping Tings...

Don't get my pink "average" though.

[attachment deleted by admin]

golden · Feb 06, 2009, 03:05:43

Quote from: drummer on Feb 06, 2009, 03:02:13
After a few days of bonkers pings, it seems to have settled in the last few hours:

C:\Documents and Settings\^_^>ping www.idnet.net -n 32

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 32, Received = 32, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 11ms

Throughput/speed wasn't affected in the slightest so I'm not that bothered about the Ping Tings...

Don't get my pink "average" though.

bloody hell, you in London? wish I lived there :p 22ms here in west wales

golden · Feb 06, 2009, 10:33:33

Here we go again...

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms 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 = 108ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 128ms

uxbod · Feb 06, 2009, 10:37:51

GW5 is okay :-

Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 212.69.36.10, timeout is 2 seconds:

!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/39/52 ms

golden · Feb 06, 2009, 10:45:06

Hm a router reboot brought the pings back down to 22/23ms. I dont understand! no way can it be my end.

Rik · Feb 06, 2009, 10:54:05

No, but the reconnection may have moved you to a different central. For reasons I fail to understand, the automatic balancing system that BT deploys failed to work. When the new central was made live last Friday, what happened was that everyone then re-connected to a single central, causing that to be congested while the rest of the network was idle. IDNet started rebalancing by locking off access to the congested central and, as people reconnected, they were forced onto the spare capacity. The failure of the router on Tuesday (? it's been a long week) undid all that work, and they are having to start again.

My average ping is currently 24.3ms.

talos · Feb 06, 2009, 11:18:27

Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-06 11:07:03)
Download: 1812 Kbit/s
Upload : 382 kbit/s
Connects : 2553 conn/min
Ping: 44 ms

Well I'm happy, for the moment

uxbod · Feb 06, 2009, 11:42:06

Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-06 11:41:01)
Download: 4225 Kbit/s
Upload : 375 kbit/s
Connects : 2581 conn/min
Ping: 31 ms

golden · Feb 06, 2009, 11:53:35

When its working, its really damn good

Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-06 11:51:28)
Download: 1916 Kbit/s
Upload : 317 kbit/s
Connects : 975 conn/min
Ping: 22 ms

On a 2MB long line by the way and had World of Warcraft running in the background.

Rik · Feb 06, 2009, 11:55:26

This covers the past hour or so, starting well but now degrading...

[attachment deleted by admin]

davej99 · Feb 06, 2009, 13:03:52

I have always wondered why gamers call for such low latency. Here are some rough numbers and I may be wrong.

A ping of say 40ms is equivalent to two video frames at 50Hz. A blink is 300-400ms

Finger movement reaction times in the very simplest game, the ruler drop test, are typically 200ms.

In more complex situations, such as driving and braking, an alert driver can apply the brake in no better than 700ms.

A cricket ball traveling at 90mph covers 40 metres in a second and takes about 500ms stump to stump. So a player would have to strike after about 400ms. If you shortened the pitch by 5 metres, or 100ms in time, that's like facing a 120mph ball. So imagine if you shortened by twice that, by say by a 200ms ping, it has to be broken teeth.

So do gamers have a point?

Rik · Feb 06, 2009, 13:05:45

Never having played a game in my life, Dave, I have no idea, but there does seem to be an issue for them when pings lengthen, as there is for VOIP users.

davej99 · Feb 06, 2009, 13:10:08

I agree Rik, but the cricket analogy suggests that pings probably have to go out a good bit, say over 100ms. A 200ms ping is like doubling a players best reaction time.

uxbod · Feb 06, 2009, 13:11:37

Quote from: davej99 on Feb 06, 2009, 13:03:52A ping of say 40ms is equivalent to two video frames at 50Hz.

So what happens if your opponent has a ping of 20ms ? By the time the frames have been rendered the player will have moved

VoIP is especially sensitive to latency but by buffering and using QoS then this can be flattened out a bit.

Rik · Feb 06, 2009, 13:16:16

Quote from: davej99 on Feb 06, 2009, 13:10:08
I agree Rik, but the cricket analogy suggests that pings probably have to go out a good bit, say over 100ms. A 200ms ping is like doubling a players best reaction time.

I don't usually monitor pings, Dave, as they don't affect me much, but because of the problems, I've been keeping an eye on them. Mine have gone from a 24ms average to regular excursions into the mid-100s, and some instances in excess of 200ms, so I can see how that might impact others.

davej99 · Feb 06, 2009, 13:20:36

Quote from: uxbod on Feb 06, 2009, 13:11:37
So what happens if your opponent has a ping of 20ms ? ......

20ms is faster than the brain can perceive and process, so I doubt you can notice and certainly react to differences in two frames at 50 Hz. Complex games are not just about simple reaction, like catching the ruler, but require considerable mental dexterity and experience and that takes a longer reaction time.

However, if your opponent is playing at 20ms and you are playing at 220ms, you don't have a cat in hell's chance. What counts is the differential ping to make the game fair. Otherwise it is like shortening the cricket pitch half way through the game. Even if you were playing at 120ms and the difference was 100 ms you would probably be at a serious disadvantage.