How to reduce ping/latency?

[netgem21]

Hi guys

Just migrated my account to a new line and while the speed has improved dramatically, the ping/latency has increased. My previous line was used exclusively for ADSL and there were no extension sockets. The new line is used with voice calls/microfilters - could this be the reason for increased ping/latency? As an online gamer, this can be an issue. How can I reduce it and is it worth upgrading to SuperMax?

Thanks



(See signature for pingtest on previous line)

[Lance]

I think you need to do a proper ping test from the command prompt.

The variation between the two above could simply be explained by them being different servers, or a server load variation.

[netgem21]

I think you need to do a proper ping test from the command prompt.

The variation between the two above could simply be explained by them being different servers, or a server load variation.

Thanks Lance, can you give me the command for that?

[netgem21]

I think you need to do a proper ping test from the command prompt.

The variation between the two above could simply be explained by them being different servers, or a server load variation.

Don't worry, I've found it. On another note, I just pinged my router and these are the results I got:


Ping has started...

PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=2.464 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=3.762 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=2.951 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=1.832 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=15.528 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=2.281 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=2.106 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=2.738 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=9.958 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=255 time=4.261 ms

--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.832/4.788/15.528/4.226 ms

There are some spikes there, is that normal for a wireless connection?

Thanks

[Happy Surfer]

I'm not 100% sure on the subject but if u are getting lag spikes pinging the router then I'd assume that it is wireless interferrence affecting the connection

[Glenn]

If you are gaming, then a wired connection will be far less prone to the spikes you are seeing when pinging your router. If you can't run a cable to where the PC/laptop/Mac is, then take a look at homeplugs, these work well http://www.ebuyer.com/product/179960

[netgem21]

Cheers guys...

One more thing - Home SuperMax. Is it worth going for to improve performance?

[Steve]

Home supermax will give you exchange priority therefore you will see less variation in ping times throughout the day and from my own personal experience having suffered from exchage congestion it reduced the overall ping time.

[netgem21]

If you are gaming, then a wired connection will be far less prone to the spikes you are seeing when pinging your router. If you can't run a cable to where the PC/laptop/Mac is, then take a look at homeplugs, these work well http://www.ebuyer.com/product/179960

Thanks Glenn, think I might get the Netgear XAVB1004. Are these things really as good as they say they are?

[Steve]

Do really need the 4 port switch? The powerplugs will add some latecy to the circuit compared to a direct ethernet cable but throughput in my experience is more sustained than with wifi.

[Glenn]

The throughput on my homeplugs is around the 190mbs mark +/- 5mps, I don't know how much extra latency they added.

[Steve]

I think the figures here are something I would agree with as they seem comparable to when I tested a large file LAN transfer.

Some of the plugs have QoS settings which will prioritise traffic and thus give some control over latency

[Rik]

One more thing - Home SuperMax. Is it worth going for to improve performance?

It knocked about 8ms of my (interleaved) ping, equating it to the fast path connection on my other line.

[Glenn]

I was just going by the displayed figures.

[Steve]

I think the units in the table I gave surely must be wrong as 200mbps is 25mb/s, what I was trying to say is you don't get the speeds they advertise over a sustained file transfer from one room to the next but they are certainly better than wireless.

[esh]

I use all three methods of connectivity so I can comment somewhat.


Firstly, wireless will show strong ping variation with a small amount of packet loss. This is just life. I use a high-grade Intel wireless adapter, and some fairly generic homeplugs, and Cat5e (self-made) ethernet cable and these are the kind of values I can quote you from experience

Wireless: 5ms, with spikes to 30ms, 0.1% packet loss
Homeplug: 3ms, very few spikes, 0% packet loss
Ethernet: 0.1ms, no spikes, 0% packet loss

Secondly, changing routers can affect your ping a small amount. Moving from some dastardly Netgear box (15-20ms ping to DSL gateway) to a dedicated VM router, I get 7-12 ms.

I am using SuperMax.

Homeplug quoted values are nonsense. The plugs I have sync at 80mbps (they are quoted at 85mbps) but the data transfer rate only achieves 30-35mbps.