Slow speeds -- anyone else having problems?

Fox · Jul 14, 2009, 18:43:56

Ok, I have run a series of extended pings to idnet, my average is 45ms but there are some BIG spikes in there too going over 275ms. I have also repeated my traceroute using VisualRoute but using UDP rather than ICMP and it still shows high latency within IDNets network. To be honest this is getting above my level of technical expertise. Hopefully the forced reboot from yourselves has sorted out the problem but time will tell. Thanks for your help Rik.

Rik · Jul 14, 2009, 18:48:10

Did you drop to safe mode?

Gary · Jul 14, 2009, 18:50:58

Quote from: Rik on Jul 14, 2009, 18:19:49
It wouldn't affect things at this point, Gary - plus I also checked on my Max connection.

I should have known

Rik · Jul 14, 2009, 18:53:52

Fox · Jul 14, 2009, 18:55:29

Yup, rebooted, pressed f8 and selected safe mode with network support.

Rik · Jul 14, 2009, 18:58:27

Bear in mind that what your program is doing is firing off ping requests at each point along the route. All servers/routers are set to give low priority to pings, so if something is busy, you'll see a spike on it. The end point response time, though, is the one which matters.

Try manually running a tracert and ping with the -n 20 switch, see what you get from that. If you are still seeing spikes, go back into safemode and run netstat -b and cut'n'paste that result with a ping/tracert also from safe mode would you?

Fox · Jul 14, 2009, 19:22:43

C:\Users\Fox>tracert www.idnet.com

Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
2 69 ms 132 ms 43 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 40 ms 39 ms 42 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 40 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1] reports: Destination protocol unreac
hable.

Trace complete.

C:\Users\Fox>tracert www.idnet.com

Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
2 41 ms 40 ms 39 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 40 ms 42 ms 40 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 51 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1] reports: Destination protocol unreac
hable.

Trace complete.

As you can see the tracert didnt complete but the first attempt shows a spike at the second step

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms 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 = 39ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 40ms

C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=221ms 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 = 175ms, Maximum = 308ms, Average = 240ms

C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms 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 = 40ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 40ms

There are 3 ping tests done exactly 30 seconds apart. As you can see the second is horrendous. I have also done a speed test and that seems to be fine (over 6 meg), probably didnt get a spike during it?

Rik · Jul 14, 2009, 19:26:43

I really can't explain that tracert, I just double-checked and it's still fine here. However, 51 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1] reports: Destination protocol unreachable, suggests that the trace has turned back to your router. Can you borrow, or do you have, a spare router you can try?

Fox · Jul 14, 2009, 19:29:40

Unfortunately not, I just have my D-Link DSL-G624T (running the latest firmware V3.10)

Rik · Jul 14, 2009, 19:37:20

My loaner is out atm, or I'd send you that. Let support have the tracerts and pings you've posted here and see what they suggest. Did you do a netstat -b, btw?

Fox · Jul 14, 2009, 19:44:09

C:\Windows\system32>netstat -b

Active Connections

Proto Local Address Foreign Address State
TCP 127.0.0.1:49171 Fox-PC:49172 ESTABLISHED
[firefox.exe]
TCP 127.0.0.1:49172 Fox-PC:49171 ESTABLISHED
[firefox.exe]
TCP 127.0.0.1:49175 Fox-PC:49176 ESTABLISHED
[firefox.exe]
TCP 127.0.0.1:49176 Fox-PC:49175 ESTABLISHED

sorry had to elevate my permissions to do it, just shows firefox
[firefox.exe]

C:\Windows\system32>

PuncH · Jul 14, 2009, 21:52:59

just to stick my oar in...

C:\Users\JoCa>tracert www.idnet.com

Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 5 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 15 ms 15 ms 17 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\JoCa>

No probs here at all. If something was up with telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net we'd all be seeing it surely?

Rik · Jul 15, 2009, 09:44:50

We would, Jonathan.

Rik · Jul 15, 2009, 09:45:15

Quote from: Fox on Jul 14, 2009, 19:44:09
C:\Windows\system32>netstat -b

Active Connections

Proto Local Address Foreign Address State
TCP 127.0.0.1:49171 Fox-PC:49172 ESTABLISHED
[firefox.exe]
TCP 127.0.0.1:49172 Fox-PC:49171 ESTABLISHED
[firefox.exe]
TCP 127.0.0.1:49175 Fox-PC:49176 ESTABLISHED
[firefox.exe]
TCP 127.0.0.1:49176 Fox-PC:49175 ESTABLISHED

sorry had to elevate my permissions to do it, just shows firefox
[firefox.exe]

C:\Windows\system32>

Why was Firefox running?

Rik · Jul 15, 2009, 12:20:13

Quote from: Fox on Jul 14, 2009, 19:29:40
Unfortunately not, I just have my D-Link DSL-G624T (running the latest firmware V3.10)

Mmm. Take a look at:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/325122

Quote0x02 2 Protocol Unreachable - generated if the transport protocol
designated in a datagram is not supported in the transport layer
of the final destination;

That sounds like the router is doing something odd.

Fox · Jul 15, 2009, 15:08:31

Maybe time to get a new router? It is a few years old. I quite like the looks of the Belkin N1 Vision (F5D8632UK4A)

but any other suggestions/comments would be appreciated.

Sebby · Jul 15, 2009, 15:10:05

I'd go for a Netgear DG834Gv4.

Fox · Jul 15, 2009, 15:23:02

That only supports 802.11G and the router has four 10/100mps ports whereas the belkin has wireless N (upto 300mbs) and four gigabyte ports. All my PC's have gigabyte ethernet ports so it makes sense for me to get a router that supports it. But thanks for the suggestion anyway Sebby

Steve · Jul 15, 2009, 15:47:12

I like the idea of the gigabit router although I would be happy to buy just the router without the modem as most adsl routers will work in modem mode only and I've a few of those lying about

The wireless N bit I remain to be convinced I have 2 access points one g and one N connecting at 54mbs and 270 mbs ,the speed difference between the two I don't think is terribly noticeable especially if the g signal strength is good. The Belkin N1 vision gets a mixed bag of reviews on Amazon .

I have personally considered the Apple airport extreme which would need a separate adsl modem,it is a 1Gb router and has dual wireless at 2.5GHz and 5GHz which has its uses for reducing interference and increasing throughput on a mixed wireless network. The downside is no UPNP, people also mention the lack of a SPI firewall but I believe a lot people using Windows are running software firewalls anyway.

Gary · Jul 15, 2009, 19:28:53

The N1 looks the business but is low in features and as Steve has said has very mixed reviews, there are better routers out there. I would myself go with a SPI firewall with Intrusion prevention and Denial of service protection and use a software firewall to just see whats going in and out of your pc.

Sebby · Jul 15, 2009, 20:59:36

Indeed - I think it's just a looker.

Wooloff · Jul 19, 2009, 16:32:15

I've noticed a lot of posts over the last couple of weeks in which people are asking about slow speeds. They all seem to have similar issues as I do, router stats are fine and very poor throughput.

Is this IDNet's problem or mine? I've email support a few times now, each time being asked to reset the router or being told that my poor speeds are BT's fault because of one thing or another and to give it a day or so. Surely, with so many people with the same problem it can't just be me? As I have said in other posts, I've tried another router and done the powering down trick plenty of times. I've changed nothing in my set-up to cause the problem and I've have been suffering with poor speeds for a month now.

I can't even use Skyplayer to watch the cricket as even on low quality my connection can't keep up with it.

est1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 360 kbps

It's not something I want to do, but would moving away from IDNet help? At the moment I'm paying £25 a month for broadband and that's not cheap. In the past I have not minded this as the service as always been very good but now I'm tempted to ask for my MAC.

Any recommendations as for other things I can try or indeed other ISP's?

Thanks in advance.

Rik · Jul 19, 2009, 16:39:15

We're seeing a handful of cases where people with good profiles are getting very poor speeds. My own theory, and it's just that, is that BT are allowing VPs to become congested as they concentrate on WBC. For myself, I've noticed no loss of speed on either Max or WBC.

If you've spoken to support and they can't resolve it, and you've tried powering off the router for 2+ minutes (to ensure you don't reconnect to the pipe that became congested after a BT failure last week), then there's very little else I can think of to suggest, sorry.

If I were moving, my shortlist would be AAISP, Zen and Newnet.

Sebby · Jul 19, 2009, 16:50:06

Or better still, LLU.

Wooloff · Jul 19, 2009, 16:53:17

Thanks for the fast answers

I to think it's a congestion issue, as in the mornings the speed is fine, but any time past 10ish in the morning and it's slow as hell again.

Can I ask what WBC is? I've seen it mentioned a lot on here but I don't know what it is. Could it be something that may help me with my problem?

I'll take a look at the ISP you guys have mentioned, thanks again.