Pings

Started by Jeff, Aug 20, 2006, 00:17:23

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 22
User actions

karvala

#325
Sep 12, 2006, 17:45:57
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 12, 2006, 16:43:54
Hi,

Again today the problem arised at the same time as yesterday: http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e

trace's below:

Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
  2    90 ms    73 ms    75 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45 ]
  3   131 ms   134 ms   131 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4   157 ms   125 ms   105 ms  lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
  5   325 ms   250 ms   218 ms  vlan43.redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [ 84.45.193.206]

  6    94 ms    97 ms    94 ms  gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
  7    96 ms    96 ms    92 ms  multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]

Trace complete.


  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  mygateway1.ar7 [ 192.168.1.1]
  2    22 ms    23 ms    22 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
  3   103 ms   317 ms   345 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4    24 ms    17 ms    19 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
  5    21 ms    20 ms    19 ms  212.58.238.129
  6    20 ms    21 ms    18 ms  212.58.238.36
  7    35 ms    40 ms    31 ms  pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
  8    20 ms    21 ms    21 ms  bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]

Trace complete.

Thanks,
Simon

just sent that to support. its obviously not fixed....and im again cross.

Note: pings are now bobbing from 17ms to 40ms in pings, strange how the problem *almost* goes away when i start using my connection.........

(routers been synced all day so no re-syncs to change results!!!!)

EDIT: Also connection hasnt been used all day again, oh, and pings are fine now....anyone else thing this is really strange?

Another EDIT: Oh, and this is ALMOST exactly the same time period as yesterdays issues....

Yes, the time period is similar to mine as well, i.e. during the daytime, but not much during the evenings or through the night, or even early morning.  The fact that it even has a temporal structure is odd to me, and especially one like this, that isn't obviously correlated to traffic patterns.

maxping

#326
Sep 12, 2006, 17:53:43
Quote from: maxping on Sep 11, 2006, 17:50:38
Quote from: browney on Sep 11, 2006, 07:20:59
Still low keep it up IDNet

Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 29ms


Im still hovering around the 50 mark  :(

Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 49ms


Wooohooo Miriam does it again (i think Simon was also involved)

My interleaving has finally been turned off by BT and my pings are now back to normal :D

Bring on the CoD ;)

Pinging 217.146.93.36 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:37ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:41ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:41ms TTL:123
Ping statistics for 217.146.93.36 :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 30ms

AvengerUK

#327
Sep 12, 2006, 18:00:23
"Does it only happen at that time of day or any time after that point.
Again could i ask you when the ping times are bad check your up and down
stream line attenuation and also ask someone to do a ping and tracert to
your router.
"

:/

karvala

#328
Sep 12, 2006, 18:07:43
Quote
[Wooohooo Miriam does it again (i think Simon was also involved)

My interleaving has finally been turned off by BT and my pings are now back to normal :D


Yep, they managed to get mine turned off today as well; looks like someone at BTW finally managed to get out of bed this morning.  ;D

Now I just need to get my pings to look like yours as well!

philco

#329
Sep 12, 2006, 19:26:04
If you look back at some of my posts you will see the pattern i saw was 10pm - 6pm during weekdays, evenings and weekends were ok usually. A machine on my network monitors latency and if you look at my graphs you can clearly see this pattern.

For a temporary solution the best thing you can do is disconnect and logon using the bt speed test username (username: speedtest@speedtest_domain password:any). This will reset you session and when you reconnect to idnet with your normal username and password you should be allocated to a different pipe. You may have to repeat this a few times if you still have bad pings as there is no guarantee you will be connected to a different pipe. As far as know pipes are allocated on a round robin basis to balance the load so its pretty much random.

This of course this is only guess work as i don't know the exact configuration idnet uses to balance pipes. Would be much better if they found the cause of the problem though....

maxping

#330
Sep 12, 2006, 19:40:21
Quote from: philco on Sep 12, 2006, 19:26:04


For a temporary solution the best thing you can do is disconnect and logon using the bt speed test username (username: speedtest@speedtest_domain password:any). This will reset you session and when you reconnect to idnet with your normal username and password you should be allocated to a different pipe.

Turning the modem off for 30 mins was the advise CS gave when some users had ping problems (pinging over 100ms and never dropping back) , this worked for me would it also work in this situation?

karvala

#331
Sep 12, 2006, 20:21:38
Quote from: philco on Sep 12, 2006, 19:26:04
If you look back at some of my posts you will see the pattern i saw was 10pm - 6pm during weekdays, evenings and weekends were ok usually. A machine on my network monitors latency and if you look at my graphs you can clearly see this pattern.

For a temporary solution the best thing you can do is disconnect and logon using the bt speed test username (username: speedtest@speedtest_domain password:any). This will reset you session and when you reconnect to idnet with your normal username and password you should be allocated to a different pipe. You may have to repeat this a few times if you still have bad pings as there is no guarantee you will be connected to a different pipe. As far as know pipes are allocated on a round robin basis to balance the load so its pretty much random.

This of course this is only guess work as i don't know the exact configuration idnet uses to balance pipes. Would be much better if they found the cause of the problem though....

That makes some sort of sense, but if it were a bad pipe, why does nobody seem to experience it during the evenings, nights, and possibly weekends?  It seems to be a daytime phenomenon, although I'd need to do more tests to definitely confirm that.  As I mentioned in a previous post, if it were a configuration problem, or even a bad pipe, I wouldn't expect it to show the temporal pattern that it does.  It's almost as though something is happening while someone is at work.

For me, rebooting isn't necessary to effect a transformation; I haven't rebooted since my earlier pings of >100ms to bbc.co.uk, and at present they're reliably <20ms.  My latency graph for today shows a clear point, almost as if someone flipped a switch, at which it suddenly started to behave itself.

All of the tracert results can be replicated with reverse tracerts as well, and pings outward with pings inward, so it doesn't seem to be a directional problem either.  It's all very strange.

philco

#332
Sep 12, 2006, 20:59:08
Yes maxping turning your router off for 30 minutes is the easier way of clearing your session, it just takes a little longer.

@karvala. Yes it is only a problem during work hours and although use the words "bad pipe" i don't mean that is physically broken or misconfigured (although it is possible). It could be simple case of more business users connected on that pipe causing it to become conjested during the day. It may not even be a bad pipe but a bad interface on the gateway that the pipes connect to. Only idnet have the answers and i am just guessing a little based on what i have seen over the last 5 weeks on my own connection and what people have posted here in the forums.

maxping

#333
Sep 12, 2006, 20:59:36
Quote from: karvala on Sep 12, 2006, 20:21:38


For me, rebooting isn't necessary to effect a transformation; I haven't rebooted since my earlier pings of >100ms to bbc.co.uk, and at present they're reliably <20ms.  My latency graph for today shows a clear point, almost as if someone flipped a switch, at which it suddenly started to behave itself.



I also see a point where the pings drop as interleaving was switched off.

I have been running a few tests using "virtual ping" and "All seeing eye" and all seems well.

I pinged the bbc and changed the setttings to 100 loops.

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 28ms

karvala

#334
Sep 12, 2006, 22:53:15 Last Edit: Sep 12, 2006, 23:00:39 by karvala
Quote from: maxping on Sep 12, 2006, 20:59:36
I also see a point where the pings drop as interleaving was switched off.

Sure, but to be clear, mine wasn't when interleaving was switched off, and doesn't just show a drop in ping times, but a sudden transformation from wildly varying ping times to normal ping behaviour.

Quote
I have been running a few tests using "virtual ping" and "All seeing eye" and all seems well.

That's good, and I hope it remains like it, but try it tomorrow during the day (some time early afternoon, for example), or let a l8c run all day.  Hopefully, yours will still be okay, but it's worth checking because the problems don't tend to show up during the evening; mine, for example, is also fine at the moment (see below), but you can count on it not being so tomorrow afternoon. ;)

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.126] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.126:
    Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 16ms

maxping

#335
Sep 13, 2006, 00:08:17
Quote

That's good, and I hope it remains like it, but try it tomorrow during the day (some time early afternoon, for example), or let a l8c run all day.  Hopefully, yours will still be okay, but it's worth checking because the problems don't tend to show up during the evening;



I don't use the pc for gaming during the day unless its a bad weekend then i may do a bit of gaming.
If it keeps this stable during the evenings i will be happy.

karvala

#336
Sep 13, 2006, 14:09:32
Looks like they forgot to go to work today.  ;D  All quiet on the western front:-

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249


Sure enough, I notice Avenger's latency graph is also flat, so it seems clear that it's the same problem that does/doesn't affect us at various times, and possibly some others as well.  Anyway, let's hope it stays like this all afternoon. :)

AvengerUK

#337
Sep 13, 2006, 17:05:44
my pings are currently 300ms + ...

Danni

#338
Sep 13, 2006, 17:22:48
Mine are their normal ~45ms...

No disconnections since 4.50am, hopefully there'll be no more :)
IDNet Customer (ex-partner's name): 6th January 2006 - 23rd March 2007
IDNet broadband Customer (my name): 11th June 2008 - 21st April 2010

Now with Be for internets, IDNet for phone.

maxping

#339
Sep 13, 2006, 17:50:58
As i made enough posts showing my bad pings i will even the balance showing my now great pings, any potential customers who are gamers will see IDNet are Worth the money  ;)

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:36ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 30ms

karvala

#340
Sep 13, 2006, 18:35:36
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 13, 2006, 17:05:44
my pings are currently 300ms + ...

Oh dear; still now?  I saw your l8c graph, which was okay up until around 3pm.  If it follows the normal pattern, it should be alright again by about now, and mine is certainly okay at the moment:-

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.115] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.115:
    Packets: Sent = 60, Received = 60, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 17ms

AvengerUK

#341
Sep 13, 2006, 19:28:00
Yes its ok now, once i got my new router settled in...which took 2 hours! - perhaps i should of read the manual  ::)

maxping

#342
Sep 13, 2006, 19:34:34
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 13, 2006, 19:28:00
Yes its ok now, once i got my new router settled in...which took 2 hours! - perhaps i should of read the manual  ::)

Na mate you did it the way most of us do , play with it first then when it goes t*ts up read the manual :D

mrapoc

#343
Sep 14, 2006, 07:38:27
lol yea

AvengerUK

#344
Sep 14, 2006, 16:59:30
QuoteHi, my pings have been like the below all afternoon:

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert multiplay.co.uk

Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2   138 ms   132 ms   133 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
  3   139 ms   122 ms   113 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4    97 ms   129 ms   112 ms  lonap2.enta.net [ 193.203.5.135]
  5   142 ms   143 ms   157 ms  te5-1.telehouse-east.bdr.enta.net [87.127.236.33
]
  6   111 ms   108 ms    97 ms  te1-2.redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [87.127.236.29]

  7   140 ms   134 ms   134 ms  gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
  8   160 ms   163 ms     *     www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22 ]
  9   154 ms   154 ms   153 ms  www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert demonhost.eu

Tracing route to demonhost.eu [194.50.80.120]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    97 ms   113 ms   105 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
  3   130 ms   132 ms   116 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4   116 ms   109 ms   125 ms  lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
  5   249 ms   207 ms   107 ms  te4-1.telehouse-north.core.enta.net [87.127.236.
38]
  6    87 ms    84 ms    99 ms  84-45-244-74.no-dns-yet.enta.net [84.45.244.74]

  7   108 ms   115 ms   118 ms  194.50.80.120

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net

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

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    80 ms    82 ms    80 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
  3   107 ms   110 ms   130 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4   110 ms   103 ms   118 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5   110 ms   100 ms   112 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert jolt.co.uk

Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2   125 ms   128 ms   118 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
  3   153 ms   160 ms   150 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4   100 ms    97 ms    98 ms  g2-2-501.cr01.hx2.bb.pipex.net [ 193.203.5.14]
  5   186 ms   152 ms   195 ms  v3952.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.137.9]
  6   137 ms   141 ms   140 ms  g3-1-5.er01.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.140.14]
  7   132 ms   131 ms   132 ms  ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net [212.241.24
1.14]
  8   154 ms   163 ms   148 ms  secure.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>

Im sure this isnt related to ADSL max, due my router's been off for 2 hours or so and the problems still there.

Thanks,

Also my speeds are currently 200kb/s

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Danni

#345
Sep 14, 2006, 17:17:08
Mine are about the same... but there is a thunderstorm going on right now so I'll try again once it's over.
IDNet Customer (ex-partner's name): 6th January 2006 - 23rd March 2007
IDNet broadband Customer (my name): 11th June 2008 - 21st April 2010

Now with Be for internets, IDNet for phone.

karvala

#346
Sep 14, 2006, 17:56:57 Last Edit: Sep 14, 2006, 18:02:16 by karvala
Hmm, mine aren't too bad at the moment, although pretty variable as can be seen:-

Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
    Packets: Sent = 13, Received = 13, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 86ms, Average = 31ms

This is an extra hour later than the others, though, which can make a big difference at this time of day, so it may have been worse earlier.

EDIT: And in fact it's deteriorated in the last couple of minutes:-

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
    Packets: Sent = 26, Received = 26, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 58ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 116ms

AvengerUK

#347
Sep 14, 2006, 18:07:33 Last Edit: Sep 14, 2006, 18:19:36 by AvengerUK
Currently on CSS, my average ping atm is 101ms

Edit: Now 150ms and no reply from idnet :( - and when we thought it was fixed...it aint..........

i make that...2months? (just under i think) - "wahoo"

karvala

#348
Sep 14, 2006, 18:28:55
Well now, just 20mins after the last lot, and it's looking fine again here.  It's just crazy:-

Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
    Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 19ms

mrapoc

#349
Sep 14, 2006, 18:45:36
well im still getting the problem but much rarer and not as severe

i am now getting my usual ping of <20 but yes every now and again it jumps up to 100+ but more likely to jump to say 50
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 22
User actions