Hi Guys,
Have just switched over to INet (awaiting activation) and was wondering what kind of latency you guys get?
Play alot of online games BFBC2, Counter-Strike, WoW and latency is a big issue for me.
If some of you could post tracert's to popular sites that would be great
Thanks ;)
I'm no gamer, so not the best person to help. If you post me some URLs, I'll gladly check them for you though. As a reference, a ping to www.idnet.net is 13-15ms for me.
Where are my manners. :blush: Welcome to the forum. :welc: :karma:
:welc: :karma:
Cheers Rik and Ray
That ping looks very nice anything near that will be fantastic.
If your line is interleaved, which mine is not, you would have to add 10-20ms to my times.
:welc: :karma:
Is it possible to apply for the line to have interleaving turned off before activation? Or is this something i need to request afterwards?
Thanks
It will start on auto, which should mean off. BT's dynamic line management software (DLM) will then tweak the line for best performance. It will start by going for maximum speed, then looking at stability. It will either use interleaving (normally the first choice) and/or increased target noise margin until it finds a stable level. You can request interleaving to be turned off, but if that produces instability, it will be turned straight back on and BT will generally not switch it off manually a second time. If you are migrating, your current settings will move with you.
Ah thats great then my current settings are interleaving OFF and the line is very stable.
Thanks for all the assistance guys :) :karma:
Our pleasure, thanks. :)
Here's some pings for you.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.246.159]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms 212.58.238.129
6 14 ms 14 ms 15 ms te12-1.hsw0.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.222]
7 14 ms 14 ms 17 ms 212.58.255.12
8 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms fmt-vip02.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.246.159]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.jolt.co.uk
Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms linx-brocade1.netrino.co.uk [195.66.225.18]
5 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms bs1-core.netrino.co.uk [84.234.19.5]
6 21 ms 41 ms 15 ms bruce.ferrago.net [84.234.17.86]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to www.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.68]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 13 ms 17 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms lonap1.enta.net [193.203.5.134]
5 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms te5-2.gs1.core.enta.net [87.127.236.42]
6 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
7 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
8 13 ms 15 ms 13 ms www.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.68]
Trace complete.
And here's a random BFBC2 UK Server IP address I found on google.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert 217.163.28.105
Tracing route to 217.163.28.105 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 13 ms 14 ms 13 ms gi8-27.mpd01.lon02.atlas.cogentco.com [149.6.148.205]
5 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms te1-2.ccr01.lon02.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.50.138]
6 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms te4-2.mpd02.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.1.18]
7 13 ms 13 ms 14 ms level3.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.14.198]
8 15 ms 13 ms 13 ms 217.163.28.105
Trace complete.
:welc: :karma:
Pinging some of the same servers...
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.jolt.co.uk
Pinging jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=123
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=123
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=123
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=123
Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 12ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping 217.163.28.105
Pinging 217.163.28.105 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=121
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=121
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=121
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 217.163.28.105:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 10ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Obviously the quality of the infrastructure local to you will have some relevance but in general pings on IDNet are lower than any other ISP I've encountered.
The lowest ping time is at 4am, the peak ping time is at 8pm, the difference between being about 8ms. Interleaving difference for me was about 10-15 ms. Most main sites I get 20-23 ms average. I can test a few games if you are interested.
Oh dear :(
Have swapped over today and latency is worse than with my previous supplier.
Line APPEARS to still be interleaved however i was told that the configuration on the line would remain.
Has anyone had this problem on mingration to IDnet?
I haven't, either in my original migration or the move to WBC. Can you give me your router stats.
ADSL Type Fast
Status No Defect
Downstream Upstream
Data rate 8128 448
Noise margin 10.9 23.0
Output power 19.7 11.9
Attenuation 31.0 19.0
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=121
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 217.163.28.105: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=121
I've checked with support. For some reason, BT put interleaving on your line, they have already requested that it be removed and that should happen tomorrow.
Mine are unbelievable at present- adslmax non interleaved
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=0 ttl=121 time=11.553 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=1 ttl=121 time=11.517 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=2 ttl=121 time=9.419 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=3 ttl=121 time=10.087 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=4 ttl=121 time=9.893 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=5 ttl=121 time=10.687 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=6 ttl=121 time=9.872 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=7 ttl=121 time=9.567 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=8 ttl=121 time=9.352 ms
64 bytes from 217.163.28.105: icmp_seq=9 ttl=121 time=10.407 ms
ping www.idnet.net -t -n 10
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 17ms
Interleaving off.
Thanks Rik you are a star :)
Not I, mate, support had already spotted it and put in the modify order when I called. They're good like that. :)
Hi guys,
I just switched today for similar purposes as Kelevra- and I am experiencing the same difficulties with latency (higher than previous ISP).
#
Stream Type
Actual Data Rate
Up Stream
448 (Kbps.)
Down Stream
7648 (Kbps.)
* [Go Top]
# Operation Data / Defect Indication:
Operation Data
Operation Data
Upstream
Downstream
Noise Margin
6 dB
22 dB
Attenuation
25 dB
--- dB
TRACERT:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping www.bbc.co.uk
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk [212.58.244.143] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=57
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=57
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=57
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 212.58.244.143:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 31ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>
Box of chocolates for anyone who can help :thumb:
Foz
Is interleaving turned on?
:karma: :welc:
:welcome: It may be interleaving is on, can you get the adsl stats from your router,you'll need to telnet for them?
:karma: :welc:
Welcome to the forum, Fozy (can I put an 'n' in that, please ;)). :welc: :karma:
BT seem to have been having a bad hair day. Have you spoken to support. If not, I can take up your case in the morning.
I sent them an email with tracerts and what not because the offices were closed, if you can do anything to speed it along I'd love it!
I can't do anything to shift it until tomorrow, I'm afraid, but I'll have a word with support in the morning if you want me to.
Yea if you could please, you are a god!
Flattery will get you everywhere. ;D
:welc: :karma:
Quote from: fozy994 on Jun 08, 2010, 19:22:15
I sent them an email with tracerts and what not because the offices were closed, if you can do anything to speed it along I'd love it!
Support have requested interleaving be turned off, so retest tomorrow when it will be off, ideally, do so with a cabled connection, with wireless turned off in the router and with the computer running in safe mode with networking support. If all is well, try again in 'full' Winodws mode, if that's OK, turn wireless back on. Your router is apparently off at the moment, it would be better if you ran it 24/7.
Ok thanks will give it a shot, yea thats the eco power saving mother who switches every switch off given half the chance :mad:
Find some glue ;D
Or a big sign. ;D
or a fist
;D
We're way more subtle than that, Fozy. ;)
Popping home from work at lunch so I will check my latencys out :fingers:
:fingers:
Still the same :s
Can you do a series of manual pings (ping <server> -t -n 20) to www.idnet.net and any servers you use frequently.
Would BT have put a new profile on the line?
If interleaving has actually been turned off surely the ping should have lowered at least a little.
That's why I asked for some tests that I can talk to support about. Interleaving may have been turned off, but something may have triggered it to turn back on again.
Mine should have been changed as well so i will check when home and update here with results.
Ok this is my tracert (i sent ping last time)
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>tracert www.bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.246.159]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms . [192.168.2.1]
2 31 ms 31 ms 32 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 32 ms 31 ms 32 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 32 ms 32 ms 31 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 31 ms 32 ms 32 ms 212.58.238.129
6 33 ms 33 ms 32 ms te12-1.hsw0.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.222]
7 39 ms 36 ms 32 ms 212.58.255.12
8 33 ms 33 ms 32 ms fmt-vip02.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.246.159]
PINGS
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping www.idnet.net -t -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 30ms
That looks about average for an interleaved line, let me see what I can find out for you.
Unfortunately mine seems none the better :(
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Tracing route to www-tmmdi.l.google.com [66.102.9.147]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.2.1
2 34 ms 33 ms 36 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.
3 33 ms 31 ms 32 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [21
4 40 ms 32 ms 30 ms 195.66.224.125
5 37 ms 32 ms 33 ms 64.233.175.27
6 57 ms 49 ms 54 ms 209.85.250.216
7 50 ms 55 ms 46 ms 72.14.232.235
8 63 ms 56 ms 49 ms 64.233.174.14
9 46 ms 50 ms 50 ms lm-in-f147.1e100.net [66.102.9.147]
Hi guys
I've spoken to support about both your cases. Fozy, you're router can't be pinged, Kelevar yours is pinging from IDNet at 50ms. In both your cases, a modification order has been applied to remove interleaving from your lines.
Which ISPs did you migrate from?
My router has been on all today :[
ADSL24
It's set not to respond to pings, ie it's in stealth mode.
Quote from: Rik on Jun 10, 2010, 18:08:21
It's set not to respond to pings, ie it's in stealth mode.
stealth mode is a b*****d, you can never find the bloody thing to disable it! :hehe:
:back:
;D
I also migrated from ADSL24 where interleaving was definitely off :)
My suspicion is that BT do it as a matter of course but that may be just paranoia.
Quote from: Steve on Jun 10, 2010, 21:02:08
My suspicion is that BT do it as a matter of course but that may be just paranoia.
Mine was off when I moved from Nildram, but it was on when I switched to IDnet. I had to ask for it to be turned off. I think it must be on by default.
Suddenly my latency has dropped, I did ask IDnet to make sure interleaving was not on as i have a 7150 profile with a 8128 sync on ADSL Max, with a 13.6 snr so a good line. Today my pings are much lower even though IDNet said interleaving was not on on my line at all. Yesterday it was 30ms these are todays results, bear in mind this is over wifi. my SNR has also dropped to 11.6 :dunno:
Edit: Confirmed I have always been fast path, so maybe some Exchange work?
Ping has started…
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=18.826 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=19.786 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=19.286 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=18.820 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=19.146 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=17.187 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.627 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=18.185 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=18.681 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=17.021 ms
hm, be interesting to know what they did, your previous ping is similar to what we have with interleaving off...
Possibly a change of VP when migrating. It shouldn't have happened, but it can.
Well what ever has happened I'm not complaining ;D
Will check mine when im home tonight and update you guys again. ???
Toes crossed. :fingers:
When I migrated (router was down 10 mins) the interleaving automagically got turned on.... damn you BT!
That said, my latency is pretty fine at the moment, far better than I remember it:
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
Cripes. That is through two routers, a switch, and a server as well.
This is why we are so confused as to why our latency has jumped so high :(
Is this specific to anything? In my experience pinging your ISP or UBR or whatever is pretty much irrelevant to gaming pings unless your ISP ping is utterly dire with packet loss. Usually the packet size on the game server end is limited so you end up with much larger pings than you'd expect anyway, plus they are often in a different country.
Even with 8ms to idnet.net, my T2 pings are still 80-120 (packet size primarily) and GW and the likes generally hover around 200 (european servers).
Pings to European gaming servers completely baffle me. They seem to highlight major inconsistencies within the infrastructure. When Pipex were Pipex, pings through the French Telia network were consistently around 40ms for me. When I switched to Be they rose to around 120ms and with IDNet I'm getting around 180ms. However that said today my latency through the same network at peek time is currently 40-50ms which is extremely rare and very strange.
Pings to UK and even US based gaming servers are on the other hand superb. I rarely ping more than 35ms to any populated local server and usually it's half of that. Pings to US servers are usually 90-120ms. It seems somewhat odd that the World of Warcraft US realms ping lower than those in France.
I have no idea why the inconsistency, I do know that NTL users often have very low latency through Telia if they have a service at all >:D Perhaps it's something to do with network peering, I really don't know.
I would have thought it has to be peering or routing, Zap.
Forgive my ignorance, these are areas that I know nothing at all about, but who has control over these things? Is it something that's tweakable?
To some extent, the ISP chooses their peering points and routing, to some extent routing is also controlled by organisations like LINX, and also by the host servers. For example, Google (I think) was advertising its route on LINX when LINX had a problem, so people couldn't reach Google. Simon was able to route round LINX to get people up and running again.
Interesting, thanks Rik, I'm going to do some research on this :)
Evening,
Came home from work today and got on the PC at 6pm, pings similar to what I've been experiencing in the past.. Just got back from the gym and jumped on the PC (10:30pm) and this is what I ping:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping www.bbc.co.uk
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.244.143] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=57
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=57
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=57
Reply from 212.58.244.143: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 212.58.244.143:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 17ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>
Much better!
Will report back tomorrow at peak times to see if it sustains, not sure what's happened here but it's good so far!
What are your speeds like, Fozy?
While moving to DSL (from 56k) didn't always make my pings lower it did make them a lot more stable, and usually less packet loss. I've always had 100+ to anything in France when it comes to games. Also, don't play on servers in South America :)
Just checked pings at lunch time, still pinging well, little jumpy at times but that's a price to pay for turning interleaving off I guess.
D/L speeds around 2.2mb/s
Will update at 6pm tonight, that will be the real test!
:fingers:
Kelevra- is still having the same problem though :S Is it possible to check my lines alterations/work in the past 24hours? I don't know what could have coursed it but would be nice to know for future reference and customers.
Ask support, they may know of something, but it's more likely to be an exchange upgrade I suspect.
I'll just mention that pinging the ISP is just an indication. Were not religious about it. But if a gamer says "my pings are dreadful, I pinged my isp and got 200ms!" They mean, "my average ping is 200ms, (hopefully I've checked else where as well) and I checked what the ping is to the ISP". As if both game and ISP have the same ping, it's a problem somewhere in your connection/pc or line. If only the game has high latency, it's the game. If it's just the isp/websites, then the problem is else where. Were not saying they are the same, just adding them to the known statistics to help problem solve. :)
Knowing a little about machines helps when doing this stuff so i have checked everything :)
Checked latency in 3 different games - All higher than a non interleaved line
Checked latency to many different sites - All higher than a non interleaved line
If the issue was with the line how could i resolve that? Is this something that would have to be raised with BT? If it is the line then i guess my only real option is to move to a cable (Virgin) line?
If there is a problem with the line from the test socket to the exchange, then BT will need to be involved, via support.
How much "higher" are we talking here? Ping varies with time of day and time of year quite notably. Sometimes BT just gets congested and a reset clears things up. Again, if you have any particular games/servers to test I can try later and see what I get.
Were talking around 30-40ms higher than before.
When playing games online competitively this makes a massive difference.
What are your actual figures?
Latencies to everything have gone from 20-25ms to 50-70ms spiking often toward the 200ms mark.
I'm betting on exchange congestion coupled, perhaps, with interleaving being turned on. Does your router indicate if that's the case?
No router still indicates fast path, but it also indicated fast path when i asked for interleaving to be turned off. This is what is making me believe the line is in fact still interleaved.
Have you asked support?
Yes and they have confirmed it has been turned off. However from when the line was migrated the latencies have not changed.
I wonder if it's flipped straight back on. I'll see what I can find out.
Interleaving is definitely off, it has to be exchange congestion. Currently, your ping is 46ms.
Could it be your virtual path? It seems the problem does not lie with your pc or IDNet. You line seems fine if your not getting any errors or noise. :dunno:
Spikes to 200 sound wrong if the server is in the UK. Do you have any ideas if it is, and if so, perhaps a tracroute?
I had a ping problem a month or so ago.. Speed was fine but pings we're high through the day and got better towards the evening, It was a congested exchange that caused this.
Everything is ok now thou.
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.246.161]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 22 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms 212.58.238.129
6 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms te12-1.hsw0.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.222]
7 21 ms 14 ms 14 ms 212.58.255.12
8 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms fmt-vip04.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.246.161]
Trace complete.
Congested exchanges can do weird things to your line!
Servers are in the UK,France,Germany etc
I would expect a increase of around 10-15 ms to a server beyond France. To be honest guys it plain and simply looks like the line is still interleaved in some shape or form. Whats it called when you can decrease latency but not actually turn interleaving off? I had sky do it at an old address.
Not sure of another way of decreasing latency apart from having traffic priority at the exchange.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 39 ms 37 ms 36 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 36 ms 36 ms 37 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 37 ms 38 ms 37 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 38 ms 37 ms 38 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 37 ms 36 ms 37 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Sonas>
Mines always above 35ms, but then I have to have interleaving on, or it's disastrous
Which package are you on?
Could it be down to the additional routes? I have no idea how interleaving works. But could other lines along the connection have it turned on? Or does it stay off along the entire pipe? I could see latencies slowly increasing across the board as BTs equipment slowly degrades, and just pumps up the error bar to cope.
Interleaving, I think, only applies between the exchange and the router, Ben. After that, if I'm right, it's all in a series of melting pots along with other customers traffic. I don't think it would be practical to apply interleaving end to end, and I can't ask today.
That's what I meant. Were probably going to see lower latencies, due to slower connections after the exchange. Between the customer and the exchange is only one part of the picture. I know some ISPs use different paths or whatever. But not sure what IDNet can realistically do to speed things up. Until better technologies become available. I do remember some of the new types of connection actually track the virtual paths, and routes taken. So they can swap them for faster ones (IE do you go via london, or around it? etc).
The real problem, Ben, seems to lay in the bit from the exchange to IDNet, inclusive. All of that is under BT's control and IDNet can do nothing about it. Once we reach their network, they can route us in several ways, to get the best possible results.
Quote from: Rik on Jun 19, 2010, 12:52:55
...Once we reach their network, they can route us in several ways, to get the best possible results.
Best for them. ;)
Don't care about latency any more. I've officially had it with online games. A bit how people can get fed up with "match fixing" or "stupid sponsors/managers" in football or Cricket. I like games, I just hate the competitive and commercialised mess they have become. :shake:
Hey guys, firstly, apologies for the major bump haha!
Cut to the chase, after this thread my net was spot on, 18-20ms, loved it. Last week it has just suddenly jumped to 30-35ms and peak times 40ms+
Tracert:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Sam>tracert www.bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.246.91]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms . [192.168.2.1]
2 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 29 ms 30 ms 31 ms telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
4 30 ms 29 ms 32 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms 212.58.238.153
6 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms te12-1.hsw1.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.234]
7 30 ms 36 ms 32 ms 212.58.255.12
8 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms bbc-vip012.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.246.91]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Sam>
Just wondering if anyone could have a look see if anything has been altered on my line as I would like it back the way it was.
Thanks
Sam
At a guess you've been switched from Fastpath to Interleaved.
As .Griff. has said , support will know.
This fast-mode/interleaved change is very subtle. Isn't there anywhere I can log onto like BT Speedtester that will tell me one way or another?
The only way I know apart from asking support is router statistics i.e Fastpath or interleave and also looking for evidence of forward error correction.
Quote from: esh on Oct 18, 2010, 09:56:54
This fast-mode/interleaved change is very subtle. Isn't there anywhere I can log onto like BT Speedtester that will tell me one way or another?
Router stats will give you this information. You need to "telenet" into your router if supported. It will then show it under one of the very last tabs.
The setup here is a bit complex. The router is connected to an ADSL "modem" via PPPoE, and since that ethernet link is used for PPPoE I can't get a TCP connection to the modem's interface to see it's status. Sigh. It would be nice if there were a more convenient way of doing this kind of thing.
I've something similar with an adsl modem(Draytek Vigor 120) / router (AEBS) PPPOE connection. I can telnet in to the modem once I've reconfigured the router into bridge mode with a static IP address. The modem has a limited DHCP server and then gives an address to my wifi laptop