Ping time a little disappointing

budfox · May 29, 2009, 22:42:48

Hi all.

First post on here after switching from Zen.
Nothing wrong with Zen of course, but I wanted an extra 5 Gigs download for my money.

My question is about Ping times as measured by Speedtest.net
With Zen, they were consistently 50ms. Now, with ID they are around 90ms.

If I ping Google.co.uk via a command prompt I get an average of 37ms. Not sure what it was with Zen.
I wonder why there's a difference?

I'm not sure if I or anyone else would notice a near-doubling of Ping time in normal internet use, but I have to say my new connection feels sluggish compared to Zen. My download speeds haven't really varied, managing about 5.5Mb/s at all times of the day though.

I have of course checked the above over a couple of weeks, using the same machine, so nothing is a 'one-off'

Thanks for any ideas.

Lance · May 29, 2009, 23:37:15

Welcome to the forum and idnet. I'm afraid i can't think of anything but the one thing i do know is that pings on speedtest.net should be ignored as they are highly inaccurate. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with some more ideas!

Steve · May 29, 2009, 23:54:42

As Lance says speedtest.net pings are not accurate but from my own experience if its persistently higher by a reasonable margin then I believe it. I would check that BT have not slipped interleave on during your migration. I would suggest you look at your router stats to see if this is the case. If you need further help and advice Rik et al will around tomorrow and of course the only people who can check your line and exchange data idnet support

The google ping looks ok but for consistency I would use www.idnet.net I have interleave off and its usually around 20-30 ms depending on local BT exchange congestion.

Lastly welcome to the forum

Sebby · May 30, 2009, 00:18:34

As others suggest, do not trust speedtest.net, but 30ms to Google.co.uk does seem fairly high, but it will depend on the interleaving depth. It's probably worth having a word with IDNet.

Rik · May 30, 2009, 09:05:55

Hi Budfox and welcome to the forum.

As everyone's said, the only reliable test is a manual ping, but I've got a feeling that interleaving has been turned on. Can you post your downstream sync speed, noise margin and attenuation, please, together with the error count from your router and how long it's been 'up'.

Steve · May 30, 2009, 09:20:17

Here's mine for what its worth for comparison,

PING google.co.uk (72.14.221.104): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=31.586 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=30.955 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=31.434 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=30.361 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=4 ttl=246 time=31.373 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=5 ttl=246 time=30.944 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=6 ttl=246 time=31.044 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=7 ttl=246 time=30.756 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=8 ttl=246 time=28.993 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.221.104: icmp_seq=9 ttl=246 time=31.341 ms

--- google.co.uk ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 28.993/30.879/31.586/0.717 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=16.324 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=17.742 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=16.830 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=17.446 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=16.360 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=16.776 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=17.221 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=18.127 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=18.165 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=16.369 ms

--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 16.324/17.136/18.165/0.677 ms

Rik · May 30, 2009, 09:22:55

While we're comparing size...

ping www.google.co.uk

Pinging www.l.google.com [209.85.227.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=247
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=247
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=247
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 209.85.227.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 31ms, Average = 30ms

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms 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

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 23ms

budfox · May 30, 2009, 17:44:53

Quote from: Rik on May 30, 2009, 09:05:55
Hi Budfox and welcome to the forum. As everyone's said, the only reliable test is a manual ping, but I've got a feeling that interleaving has been turned on. Can you post your downstream sync speed, noise margin and attenuation, please, together with the error count from your router and how long it's been 'up'.

I'd be happy to do so. How do I do it?

p.s - If this involves specific instructions for my router then it's a trusty ol' DG834G

Thanks all.

Rik · May 30, 2009, 17:53:38

That should be easy(ish) then. For the stats, just login to the router and hit the stats button, ie

From the web interface http://192.168.0.1
Router Status
"Show Statistics" Button

The error count is a bit harder, as I only know how to get at it for the AR7 chipset routers.

budfox · May 30, 2009, 18:01:25

There you go. I wonder if they are any good...

Rik · May 30, 2009, 18:04:27

Interleaving is on, the 7616 sync speed indicates that. That will be adding 10-20ms to your pings, depending upon interleaving depth. For that sync, attenuation and noise margin, I suspect you don't need interleaving, so contact support and ask them to get it switched off.

budfox · May 30, 2009, 18:06:36

OK, thanks.

Haven't got a clue what it means mind you, but I shall give them a call on Monday.

Cheers

Rik · May 30, 2009, 18:11:46

Interleaving sends the data in a 'shuffled stream' which is good if there are errors on the line, but it adds a time overhead to the packets, which is why ping times go up. Interleaving can be turned to a variety of depths (the size of the shuffle), the higher it is, the more time you lose to it. My line needs to be interleaved, but at a relatively light level, so I lose about 10ms.

Kitz has a good piece on interleaving:

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/interleaving.htm