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!!