Terrible ping times

Rik · Jun 06, 2010, 18:04:40

My pings have gone crazy this afternoon:

ping www.idnet.net

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=471ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=482ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=494ms 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 = 314ms, Maximum = 494ms, Average = 440ms

Of course, it might just have something to do with the fact I was uploading a large file at the time. This is how they looked after...

ping www.idnet.net

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms 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 = 13ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 14ms

DorsetBoy · Jun 06, 2010, 18:21:31

Awful isn't it

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms 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 = 12ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 12ms

Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms 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 = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms

Pinging idnetters.co.uk [212.69.36.28] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.28: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.28:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 12ms

Pinging kitz.co.uk [188.65.112.30] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=56
Reply from 188.65.112.30: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 188.65.112.30:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 13ms

quandam · Jun 06, 2010, 18:23:31

I would post your question to IDNetters. They have experts there that will no doubt be able to help, in particular Rik is the bizzo on matters such as these

Rik · Jun 06, 2010, 18:25:17

quandam · Jun 06, 2010, 18:26:35

Thanks Rik

You took it really well!

Rik · Jun 06, 2010, 18:27:46

The Michael?

Glenn · Jun 06, 2010, 18:30:35

The problem is receding like the Columbia Glacier

Rik · Jun 06, 2010, 18:32:22

Or my hairline.

quandam · Jun 06, 2010, 18:35:02

Quote from: Rik on Jun 06, 2010, 18:27:46
The Michael?

or P***? maybe?

Rik · Jun 06, 2010, 18:38:07

That comes in about half an hour, I've only just taken the tablet.

pctech · Jun 06, 2010, 18:44:59

Have to say I've done pings and traceroutes to several locations and tried to stream some video off servers in the States and it runs very smoothly indeed.

quandam · Jun 06, 2010, 18:46:49

Quote from: Rik on Jun 06, 2010, 18:38:07
That comes in about half an hour, I've only just taken the tablet.

Glenn · Jun 06, 2010, 18:48:00

Quote from: pctech on Jun 06, 2010, 18:44:59
Have to say I've done pings and traceroutes to several locations and tried to stream some video off servers in the States and it runs very smoothly indeed.

Now try the same thing whilst uploading a 70mb file, Mitch

pctech · Jun 06, 2010, 18:50:12

I don't have cause to do that much uploading at the minute but it would suffer because of the contention

Technical Ben · Jun 06, 2010, 19:50:23

The ping of 30ms is very acceptable. At 400-500ms though, software might start to generate errors. After just a little alcohol your reaction time is less. So, you'll be driving in your computer games like your drunk!!!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TechyBen#p/a/u/2/WgatlFBXnpk
Oh, that is not me talking BTW!

pctech · Jun 06, 2010, 19:53:25

From what I've been taught 100 ms or lower is what you should aim for when designing a network, a little bit over is ok but too much over that and the user will start to notice.

coreservers · Jun 06, 2010, 21:38:24

I've an idea Rik.... get interleaving taken off!

Steve · Jun 06, 2010, 21:53:31

Technical Ben · Jun 06, 2010, 22:52:15

Quote from: coreservers on Jun 06, 2010, 21:38:24
I've an idea Rik.... get interleaving taken off!

You joke, but it worked for me. Halved my ping times. I'd rather pay for the reliable and fast (latency) connection over the high bandwidth (mistakenly advertised as "fast", when it's not a measurement of speed, by other ISPs) any day.

Bill · Jun 06, 2010, 23:03:24

Too high an (FEC) error rate on my line to get away with FASTPATH... but I don't do gaming so I'm not complaining:

PING idnet.co.uk (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=25.574 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=26.875 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=26.228 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=26.643 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=26.838 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=26.110 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=25.751 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=25.947 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=25.821 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=26.008 ms

--- idnet.co.uk ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 25.574/26.179/26.875/0.436 ms

Not too bad for interleaved

Rik · Jun 07, 2010, 05:53:19

Quote from: coreservers on Jun 06, 2010, 21:38:24
I've an idea Rik.... get interleaving taken off!

It is.

Steve · Jun 07, 2010, 07:27:46

I've not checked mine for a while.I do struggle a bit on wifi with adslmax not as fortunate as those on adsl2+

PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=9.892 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=10.365 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=11.141 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=13.395 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=10.895 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=11.209 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=11.200 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=9.906 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=9.073 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=9.444 ms

Perhaps I ought to complain.

Gary · Jun 07, 2010, 08:10:09

I have interleaving turned off with a 8128 sync on adslmax over wifi and my pings are always in the region of 30ms of so always have been even with an ethernet connection, guess its where I live and the route taken.

PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=35.168 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=30.766 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=35.370 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=33.756 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=34.258 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=37.269 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=34.341 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=34.365 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=33.888 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=34.662 ms

Technical Ben · Jun 07, 2010, 16:57:04

Nice Pings there Stev! Mine are in the region of 20ms. Wish I got that to the servers I needed it on.

I think we should have a little "customer hall of fame" for longest line, fastest download, and most forum posts!

Steve · Jun 07, 2010, 17:01:41

Mine have been as good as that since Saturday evening . Its odd that I had no internet connection for 3 hours that evening,no one can tell me why but the ping times have been better since.