Pings

[browney]

If you read the whole thread you would see I no longer post much in this thread if you want to continue this PM as you're cluttering this thread

Why not have a sticky thread for graphs and a sticky for tracer's/pings then Simon would easily be able to see the data instead of having to go through pages of comments

[mrapoc]

Ok, i dont think posting any more graphs etc. here is going to help, as we have all guessed at the problem and im sure we will accomplish  more by sending any concerns to support@idnet.net or help@idnet.net

[maxping]

Ok, i dont think posting any more graphs etc. here is going to help, as we have all guessed at the problem and im sure we will accomplish  more by sending any concerns to support@idnet.net or help@idnet.net

I agree but if we do not mention that its still ongoing we are all going to think the problem has passed.

I would hate to view the forums and think great IDNet are just what im after as a gamer only to find after joining that some days the pings are through the roof .

The thread server a purpose in my view and gives potential customers a bit of a warning.

[mrapoc]

how about, putting a announcement up with a subtle warning that this could be a possible problem but could equally not. and keep "harrassing" customer support and simon directly through idnet? afterall this is unofficial and i feel more will be accomplished via idnet

[equk]

I have been in contact with idnet directly. Mainly talking to Simon about the problem but I have been posting pings and traceroute's as and when problems occur so they are timestamped. Also so Simon can look at the thread and see who has the problems and when they have the problems.

It also means Simons inbox doesn't get full of traceroutes etc. Having a support forum does help as everyone can see what's going on and post their own problems.

A few times I've spoke to or had emails from Simon starting with him saying "I've been following your threads on the forum..." So posting here does make a difference and is actively monitored/viewed by IDNet support.

[Scott]

A few times I've spoke to or had emails from Simon starting with him saying "I've been following your threads on the forum..." So posting here does make a difference and is actively monitored/viewed by IDNet support.

Absolutely right Eq ! I know for a fact Simon is regularly in here casting an eye over things. There's already a thread from Simon asking for people to post their latest pings to IDNet.net...that's an excellent way to provide the CS & TS team with required feedback and that sort of thread should be kept just for that porpoise.
Remember the occasional posts we'd see on AG forums..."MD of 'unnamed ISP' - please reply" - I guess those were born out of desperation ! First port of call is always CS either by phone or email...posting specifically to a thread asking for a reply is a bit like a message in a  bottle (Cue The Police running through your head for the rest of the day)

This thread has taken on a life of it's own (> 500 posts on it last time I checked !) and I [and t'other mods] haven't seen any need to nudge things back on track ! Keep it up guys - it's all good stuff.

[karvala]

10am, and all's quiet:-

Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 22ms

[AvengerUK]

Yep - also no issues on my end - man ill be annoyed if its indeed fixed considering i migrate tomorrow

[karvala]

Yep - also no issues on my end - man ill be annoyed if its indeed fixed considering i migrate tomorrow

Oh, I don't think it is.  It was the usual story on weekdays all last week (albeit they were a bit late to the office on Friday ), and fine on Saturday (yesterday was obviously a special case), so I'm fully expecting the usual pattern this afternoon.  But I'm always open to pleasant surprises!

[equk]

problem is back again....

Code Select Expand

traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  0.697 ms  0.675 ms  0.654 ms
2  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  2.618 ms  2.782 ms *
3  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  99.970 ms  94.394 ms  96.086 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  101.014 ms  91.912 ms  93.620 ms
5  212.69.63.5 (212.69.63.5)  95.856 ms  90.872 ms  99.034 ms
6  www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10)  93.643 ms  89.098 ms  85.438 ms

[AvengerUK]

problem is back again....

Code Select Expand

traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  0.697 ms  0.675 ms  0.654 ms
2  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  2.618 ms  2.782 ms *
3  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  99.970 ms  94.394 ms  96.086 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  101.014 ms  91.912 ms  93.620 ms
5  212.69.63.5 (212.69.63.5)  95.856 ms  90.872 ms  99.034 ms
6  www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10)  93.643 ms  89.098 ms  85.438 ms

Not for me atm, although my graph is starting to show a steady rise in average pings with some small blue spikes...but nothing anyway near your results - i suspect if i reboot my router things may be different!

[AvengerUK]

Spoke to soon....*click l8nc graph*

[maxping]

You'll have to post some from your new ISP.

[AvengerUK]

I will do indeed - hopefully it'll help CS to sort the problem out for u guys - it'll also be my last post - dont want to keep posting here after ive left like a "cheeky git"

[Scott]

Well remember and stay in touch Avenger...anything you can provide that helps identify issues for CS will always be useful ?

[AvengerUK]

Well remember and stay in touch Avenger...anything you can provide that helps identify issues for CS will always be useful ?

Of course - i hope to post some pings later (3pm ish), atm im at college thus cant change my login details! - Im hoping that my pings with Idnet today rise as they did yesterday, so i can have a "Before and after" ping, which would be more usefull to CS

[karvala]

Of course - i hope to post some pings later (3pm ish), atm im at college thus cant change my login details! - Im hoping that my pings with Idnet today rise as they did yesterday, so i can have a "Before and after" ping, which would be more usefull to CS

So of course, it looks completely fine today.   

Mine looks pretty good too, just as it did yesterday:-

Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 23ms


I wonder if the telehouse outage on Sunday did something, as mine has been fine since (and was not on the more recent weekday previous to it).  I'll give it a few more days yet, and we'll see.

[AvengerUK]

Now on Enta - pings:

18ms stable ON EVERY HOP to multiplay

Stable 19ms to my server's...

well, im happy happy happy!

[maxping]

Nice one Avenger , can you show us a latency graph?

[Jeff]

Dez, with ref to your reply my last post in here (go back a few pages!), fair enough but no personals man.

I second Scott, it`s on track and Simon is keeping a record ... in fact, see the new thread I`m starting, maybe more apt for some

[maxping]

Dez, with ref to your reply my last post in here (go back a few pages!), fair enough but no personals man.

OK no probs. 

[TimJ]

I have recently noticed that my l8nc graphs regularly look very poor during the day and so I looked in here to see if it was acommon problem and found this thread. - I have now read most of it.

This is home line that is unused during the day so poor daytime ping do not effect anyone and evening performance is great. But surely it should not be like this.

Here is one typical l8nc plot.

http://212.69.55.123/l8nc250906.png

I am a smallish rural exchange 2300 residential lines, 200 business lines.

I have no idea if this is BT exchange contention or not.

Tim

[karvala]

It isn't exchange contention; you can demostrate this for your own connection by logging in to the BT test login, which would exhibit the same high pings if it were.  This isn't surprising, since the problem affects a number of people on different exchanges, and also the problem does not correspond to typical exchage traffic patterns (i.e. if it were exchange contention, it would actually be worse in the evenings, not disappear).

[maxping]

It may be a coincidence but it starts at 9 a.m when most businesses open.

Send it to customer support & next time it happens switch the router off for at least 30 mins then try it again.

[karvala]

It may be a coincidence but it starts at 9 a.m when most businesses open.

Send it to customer support , next time it happens switch the router off for at least 30 mins then try it again.

I think the hours are too regular, along with the absence of the problem at weekends as well, to be a coincidence.  It seems very clearly business related, and it's also on either the BT Colossus network or the IDNet Fat Pipes (though quite unlikely to be latter due to traffic patterns as well, unless IDNet have pipes specifically for business customers that are showing high contention, in which case I'd be surprised if they hadn't received a fair number of complaints from the businesses).