Ping times Jan 28 onwards

[Sebby]

Have a look here and see if your router is listed.

[goingonholiday]

Thanks, this is what it says - does this provide any clues?

Downstream
Data Rate - 5248
Noise Margin - 5.6
Output Power - 19.2
Attenuation - 45.0

Upstream
Data Rate - 448
Noise Margin - 21.0
Output Power - 11.9
Attenuation - 24.0

[hellyl]

Heya

Just thought I would post to say "huuurraaah for IDnet"  We seem to be sorted, IDnet have done some technical doobries today and the pings are back to normal this evening, so far out of hubbys mouth its just tactics rather than general cursing of the pings!  We will obviously be keeping an eye on it, but rather than disapearing just because its fixed I thought I would make sure people know that IDnet are sorting out the problems and do deal with things.

Helen x

[Lance]

Thanks for that Helen!

Goingonholiday - Those numbers are useful! They show that your line is about right and hasn't suffered enough instability for BT to raise the target noise margin. Basically what you need to do is compare the downstream data rate now to after your internet next drops. If it is different then it means that it is your individual line between your house and exchange, and not idnet. If they are the same then it is either fluke or we need to do more digging.

[goingonholiday]

Excellent, thank you.  I will check if it drops again.......

[Lance]

 

[Sebby]

What Lance said.

The stats look fine to be honest, so we'll wait and see what happens.

[zappaDPJ]

I've been running PingGraph for most of the day and while my baseline latency has been exceptionally good I did experience a period where my latency went through the roof. Please bear in mind that the sampling rate is 90 seconds when viewing the graph.

I don't believe the problem tonight has anything to do with congestion because it occurred just after 10.30pm. It seems something is still not quite right but things do seem to be moving in the right direction.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Rik]

Switch to pinging 212.69.40.3, Zappa. That will give a more consistent result, ie remove other factors such as server load from the equation.

[zappaDPJ]

Will do, I'll run another one today, thanks for the advice 

[Rik]

NP. Things seem to be improving... 

[vitriol]

yes they do

[g7pkf]

think there is still a problem my pings are rubbish,they used to be much better, bbc and google used to be circa 15-20ms (as well as idnet)




C:\Users\Dean>ping www.idnet.net -t

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms 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=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=240ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=378ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=434ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=469ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=486ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 83, Received = 83, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 514ms, Average = 90ms
Control-C
^C

[Rik]

This is my latest plot, Glenn...

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Glenn]

Yes?

I haven't been pinging anything for the past 6 hours, I can start again

[Glenn]

Looks like mine have risen from 23ms average to around 40ms

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Rik]

Yes?

Glenn, Dean - they both end in N.

[Glenn]

Don't both start with D though . Added a quick plot to the post above.

[Rik]

Looks like mine have risen from 23ms average to around 40ms

Very flaky. Exchange congestion?

[Glenn]

No ppp drops, just a general rise.

http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/?exchange=Blackwater&exact=119&plugin=vp
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/THBW

[Rik]

It would be worth dropping support a line then, Glenn.

[g7pkf]

my exchange is green (it only has 300ish reidential on it)

will post an email to support later

[Simon_idnet]

my exchange is green (it only has 300ish reidential on it)

will post an email to support later

Hi Dean

Try rebooting your router as that may get you onto a different pipe. The size of your Exchange is not really relevant because it is the size of the backhaul from the Exchange *compared* to the utilisation of that backhaul that is relevant. i.e. the large metro Exchanges have multiple high-capacity backhauls whereas a small, rural Exchange might have one, small backhaul.

Regards
Simon

[Saad]

I don't know if this will help but I've attached a picture of pings that I'm getting from the Aberdeen North exchange.

http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/?exchange=Aberdeen%20North&exact=7&plugin=vp
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NSNTH

I think the pings maybe a bit on the high side, but I have no idea whether the pings I'm currently getting are reasonable or not.

Cheers,

Saad.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Rik]

Difficult to say. My pings have now stabilised, so there's nothing inherently wrong at IDNet's end for most people. It might be worth, preferably in the morning, re-booting your router to see if speeds improved, but without knowing what you would normally see, and whether your line is interleaved or not, it's hard to say they are good or bad.