Additional speedtest.net server

[Steve]

Another server at www.speedtest.net

[Rik]

About normal for me:

[Simon]

[Rik]

You wish.

[Ray]

Looks good. 

[Sebby]

Does this mean speedtest.net just might be a useful site now?

[Rik]

It's looking a bit more accurate - for most of us anyway.

[Ann]

Sometimes when I go there, the page loads except for the actual test bit which is blank.  And so it stays.  Weird.

[Rik]

It doesn't want to upset you, Ann.

[D-Dan]

Wish the BT profiler would hurry up and get me back to where I should be. Still, I shouldn't complain.

[Rik]

How long has it been, Steve?

[12g]

Lookin good for me too!!

[Rik]

Your ping's a wee bit high...

[Simon]

Does that mean it's wee-ping? 

[Rik]

You did enjoy the steak.

[12g]

Your ping's a wee bit high...

Thanks Rik,
Can that be altered? although this is the best sync we have ever had!!

[Rik]

It depends on a number of things, particularly distance to the server. What result do you get from a manual ping to IDNet?

To carry this out, hist Start > Run, then type CMD and hit enter. In the resulting window, type ping www.idnet.net -n 10 (note the space between n and 10). Hit enter, then let me know what your average is.

[Ann]

I can't complain today really, except for the ping and that doesn't bother me  

[Rik]

The ping seems reasonably accurate for me, but for others it seems to go too high, Ann. My charmed line - rubbish speed but consistent with it.

[12g]

Thanks Rik,


Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 58ms, Maximum = 145ms, Average = 80ms

[Rik]

There's a few spikes there - I see a 22ms average with a range of 19-26ms. That's on an interleaved line, ~50 miles from London.

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=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 21ms


From the look of it, you may be suffering from some exchange congestion, or a BT node issue. How far are you from London, and is your line interleaved?

[Ann]

My average is 35.. interleaved.  so not as bad as it might be.

[Rik]

That's reasonable, you probably have deeper interleaving than I do to maintain your speed.

[RA-1972]

This is with aol which i suppose is not bad , but i will be back soon.









Edit: Image sorted

[Ann]

Not bad at all.. and so good they did it twice!!

[D-Dan]

How long has it been, Steve?

Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I'm not overly concerned. BRAS is slowly improving. It's risen from 4,500 to 5,500 in the last couple of weeks. Got a recent increase in sync (unprompted) which should mean another jump to 6,000. Just playing the waiting game ATM.

Steve

[Steve]

The Derby server didn't last long or its shut down for the holiday.

[Lance]

Maybe Sunday is its day off!

[Steve]

Its probably searching for Easter Eggs

[Rik]

Trouble is, they may not be chocolate.