Quote from: Rik on Jan 28, 2009, 13:02:21
Today's is down to the router upgrade, Mark, as detailed in 'Announcements'.
ah ok,only ping times have gone whack to multiplay.co.uk
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=124
Let IDNet know.
Quote from: Sebby on Jan 28, 2009, 13:49:58
Let IDNet know.
been there got the tshirt and coat and soon walking shoes...
multiplay.co.uk
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=124
router rebooted numerous times pings ingame of 140ms well done Idnet!!!
I don't think it's as simple as IDNet:
ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 29ms
but if you're not happy then your best bet is to try another ISP.
Something seems to be amiss somewhere, Rik, my pings are not good at the moment, although I don't game so they don't affect me.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 82ms, Average = 55ms
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 81ms, Maximum = 110ms, Average = 100ms
Can't profess to know what it means, but for what it's worth:
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 39ms, Average = 37ms
I'm not seeing an issue, Ray, and we should be on the same pipe:
ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 22ms
ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 23ms
If it continues, run a longer ping, eg 10-20 pings, then let support have the result.
Strange, Rik, mine are still about 3 times higher than yours, they're usually about the same as yours. :-\
It's definitely one for support if it continues, Ray. (Do you think I have a charmed path? ;))
Quote from: Rik on Jan 31, 2009, 15:12:30
It's definitely one for support if it continues, Ray. (Do you think I have a charmed path? ;))
Yes, Rik, I reckon you've got your own private pipe into Idnet. ;D ;)
Simon brought a bit of wet string over at Xmas... :)
I'd rather have had a hamper! ;D
If I had a hamper,I,d hamper out danger ;D
You watched American Folk too, eh?
Its no picnic being me you know........we all have our crosses to bear and I dont like making a fuss
Just got these results using WinMTR: -
[attachment deleted by admin]
Thats nice Ray :dunno:
I take it this problem wouldnt be caused by the idnet new service rollout of adsl2? Just hair pullingly annoying,even webpages are crawling.
No, there is no rollout unless you're on a WBC-enabled exchange and signed up to test.
Well I have left a message on Simons answerphone regarding this problem
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=124
Don't be surprised if you don't hear before Monday, pings are not normally regarded as an emergency.
Quote from: Rik on Jan 31, 2009, 19:05:35
Don't be surprised if you don't hear before Monday, pings are not normally regarded as an emergency.
No but maybe customers taking their good money elsehwere might be? I have a national team match tomorrow for the uk,and its currently up to 200ms,i cant even barely browse the web
isnt that the barest i should be able to do on a £34 a month connection?
I just also tried pinging www.idnet.net and got
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Mark, I see from reading back through the posts that you have tried rebooting your router several times - but have you left it off for half hour or so? I know this is normally the method to clear a stale session but it can also help with other issues.
FWIW here is my ping to the same IP address in your post above:
C:\Users\Lance>ping 85.236.96.22
Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 31ms, Average = 30ms
Quote from: MarkE on Jan 31, 2009, 19:41:44
No but maybe customers taking their good money elsehwere might be? I have a national team match tomorrow for the uk,and its currently up to 200ms,i cant even barely browse the web
isnt that the barest i should be able to do on a £34 a month connection?
I just also tried pinging www.idnet.net and got
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
All we can advise is that you get in contact with IDNet, which you have.
Back to the dial up days (nearly!)... Already checked with various computers and only one turned on at a time. Browsing is also laggy. Anyone else having problems today? Download speed down from 830k/second to 45k/second.
Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 166 ms 182 ms 178 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 148 ms 165 ms 156 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 164 ms 147 ms 139 ms rt-lonap-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.91]
5 156 ms 142 ms 121 ms 212.58.238.133
6 149 ms 136 ms 141 ms virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
Trace complete.
M:\>
No problems here.
None here either
Not very good here for some reason, Rik.
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms 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 = 122ms, Maximum = 145ms, Average = 133ms
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 143ms, Maximum = 173ms, Average = 153ms
I've just re-tested, Ray:
ping www.idnet.net -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms 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 = 104ms, Maximum = 186ms, Average = 144ms
Something odd is happening, I've advised support.
>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms 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 = 29ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 36ms
I'm down to a 90ms average now...
There seems to be, Rik, I've just done a traceroute to multplay.co.uk
and this hop telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net is giving between 50 and 70% packet loss.
>tracert www.multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 46 ms 42 ms 37 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 28 ms 43 ms 42 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 31 ms 28 ms 31 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 85 ms 207 ms 78 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.9
7]
6 106 ms 230 ms 220 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82
]
7 47 ms 39 ms 38 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 153 ms 206 ms 194 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 31 ms 32 ms 33 ms po0-1-651-cr.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.11]
10 34 ms 34 ms 33 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
I've passed that on, Ray. :thumb:
Cheers, Rik. :thumb:
Getting very bad pings here also.
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms linksys [192.168.2.1]
2 530 ms 130 ms 133 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 169 ms 159 ms 145 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 173 ms 182 ms 183 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 168 ms * 153 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.97]
6 181 ms 173 ms 169 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82]
7 179 ms 176 ms 184 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 152 ms 133 ms 126 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 155 ms 166 ms 175 ms po0-1-651-cr.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.11]
10 168 ms 166 ms 155 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms linksys [192.168.2.1]
2 165 ms 174 ms 265 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 174 ms 175 ms 174 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 178 ms 181 ms 156 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 176 ms 177 ms 172 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 155 ms 156 ms 160 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
I'll give them a call tomorrow if it's still bad.
Something definitly up today. Experiencing 400+ ms pings in World of Warcraft. I'm usually 84-150ms
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Sharon>tracert 85.236.96.22
Tracing route to www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 170 ms 299 ms 155 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 151 ms 147 ms 148 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 164 ms 158 ms 175 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 319 ms 234 ms 214 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.9
7]
6 176 ms 173 ms 177 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82
]
7 168 ms 176 ms 169 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 139 ms 137 ms 142 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 160 ms 167 ms 159 ms po0-1-651-cr.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.11]
10 168 ms 177 ms 172 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Sharon>
If you have access to John Owen's PingGraph, it would be good to run that for an hour or two and let them see the results.
This is mine for the past 20 minutes.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Will pinging the address every 10 seconds cause anything bad? like DDOS type response to the continued ping requests?
No, I've done it before at Simon's request. :)
My pings are poorly today as well, averaging about 130ms :thumbd:
Can you run PingGraph for a while, Lance?
I suppose so!
The more evidence to IDNet, the better is should be in helping them find and fix.
Indeed. I've now downloaded and started it running.
I'm beginning to see a return to normal speeds, but the average is still >80ms.
This is mine so far. Notice the three major time outs :( pushed the average way up.
(http://peter.nightsdawn.googlepages.com/Ping-milliseconds-2009Feb01-1642.jpg)
Mine's a bit more erratic, only one timeout...
[attachment deleted by admin]
On Friday I had pings of between 180 and 298 :eek4: , Yesterday they were under 40 for the first time ever, I usually ping at around 80 - give or take a bit. Just down a ping and I'm back to 150+ :thumbd:.
Have just downloaded the Ping Graph and will run that for a while.
Havn't posted a screeny of my ping results from the Command Prompt because I don't know how to do it. Do plenty of cut/copy and paste but cannot seem to figure this one out :blush:
Probably the East wind and the snow. Got to blame something. Nice and white here now, as long as your indoors that is.
where do you pings too?
Quote from: DarkStar on Feb 01, 2009, 16:47:27
Havn't posted a screeny of my ping results from the Command Prompt because I don't know how to do it. Do plenty of cut/copy and paste but cannot seem to figure this one out :blush:
Right-click on the title bar of the CMD window, Ian, then Edit > Select All. That will highlight the text, hit Enter to copy it.
Seems to be poor across the board I'm on .net and ping times are up by at least a 100ms
Tracing route to www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 215 ms 152 ms 154 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 147 ms 128 ms 126 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 137 ms 152 ms 149 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 132 ms 120 ms 112 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 124 ms 113 ms 108 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
I normally get pings in the low twenties. Anyone know whats causing the delay to the first hop. When I'm doing a tracert from XP its between 2-3ms but doing it from vista 64bit it's sometimes 7-12ms. GW5 by the way.
No ideas at this time, Juice. The problem is affecting DSL4 and GW5, and has a wide geographical spread, so I'd suspect a router is acting up in some way - but I'm probably wrong. ;)
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 01, 2009, 16:48:05
where do you pings too?
A variety of places,
bbc.co.uk
idnet.net
thinkbroadband
several others as I think of them out of curiosity, all UK based.
Now have the PingGraph running, will leave it going for a while.
Ian
Here's my plot, Rik, for the last hour or so: -
[attachment deleted by admin]
Not too good here either, on gw5 in Cheshire. Well above normal times and browsing is noticeably clunky.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Sheltieuk on Feb 01, 2009, 17:15:48
Here's my plot, Rik, for the last hour or so: -
Thanks, Ray - looks very much like mine. :(
Quote from: 6jb on Feb 01, 2009, 17:16:36
Not too good here either, on gw5 in Cheshire. Well above normal times and browsing is noticeably clunky.
I'm finding the forum quite sluggish, JB, and sites with multiple servers, eg ads, are taking a long time to complete.
Just the same here Rik.
I've advised support, so it's sit back and wait now.
Sorry, by first hop I meant the delay to MY router IP. It's 2-3ms when I do a tracert from my XP PC and it's the same or sometimes 7-12ms from Vista 64bit. Just wondered if anyone knew why. I'm sure IDNet will have my pings back to normal soon. I'm just happy BT finally got to our new pipe.
Is it a Speedtouch, Juice?
It's a Zyxel P-660HWP.
Don't know, in that case. Speedtouches give a long first hop for some reason, I can only think it's similar for the Zyxel.
Just wanted to throw my name into the mix of people having problems.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 150ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 156ms
First time I've had this particular problem with IDNet. Ping times was the main reason I left Virgin for IDnet nearly 18 months ago so hope it gets sorted quickly.
I suspect it's an unexpected result of last week's upgrades, CJ, I'm sure it will be fixed asap.
for what it's worth, mine seem ok
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>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=33ms 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=44ms 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 = 30ms, Maximum = 44ms, Average = 34ms
It's getting there :)
(http://peter.nightsdawn.googlepages.com/Ping-milliseconds-2009Feb01-1748.jpg)
Seem to have improved
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms 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 = 35ms, Maximum = 83ms, Average = 55ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 36ms
Thanks for instructions Rik. :thumb:
Ian
Yep just now things are seeming a lot better:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 84ms, Average = 65ms
They were obviously waiting for me to post about it before acting ;D
I concur, times have returned pretty much to normal here.
Would it be the new router doing some load balancing juggling while spinning plates and breathing fire that cause the higher than normal pings?
Something like that, I suspect, Vader. There's a lot going on with the Hostlink and the new central connecting to the network, and new routers to support them. It could be anything in that mix, I am not going to guess. :)
Latest result:
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=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 23ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 23ms
Very much what I'd expect to see.
Mine are back to normal too!
Mine have gone back up :D
(http://peter.nightsdawn.googlepages.com/Ping-milliseconds-2009Feb01-1815.jpg)
Same here. I'm about to fire off my last email of the day to support.
This what I have got, the spike is happening approx every 25 minutes
[attachment deleted by admin]
Bit different to the pattern I am seeing, Glenn...
[attachment deleted by admin]
All gone haywire again
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping idnet.co.uk
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms 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 = 98ms, Maximum = 146ms, Average = 129ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 136ms, Maximum = 159ms, Average = 149ms
Ian
Mine look ok (on GW5)
C:\Users\Dean>ping idnet.co.uk -t
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
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=17ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 9, Received = 9, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 15ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\Dean>
Haywire reported. ;)
Now I am not one to moan as you can probably see from my post count but I am sure somebody worded the recent e-mail I recieved wrongly, downgrade surely would have been more appropriate.
I am hoping this will only be short term until the techies are back at their stations on Monday as I have generally, before the recent change been happy with the service.
C:\Users\Jons>ping idnet.co.uk
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms 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 = 119ms, Maximum = 164ms, Average = 139ms
My download speeds are also all over the place, averaging 2.5 Meg compared to the high 6 Meg prior to the upgrade. I hope this is not the norm for what we can expect from the recent changes?.
I'm sure it isn't the norm, or what was planned, but rather some sort of teething problems. Capacity has been increased with a new 155M central plus the Gigabit Hostlink, so it won't be any congestion problems, but rather, I suspect, some unexpected interaction between the new routers and the existing network. But I'm only guessing, until IDNet say something, that's all I can do.
How's your dad, I haven't seen him in lately? :)
Thanks for the response Rik, he is fine, saw him today and he was still sat in the usual spot in front of a PC monitor :). We are both in the same town so I suspect he has been experiencing the same issues so my guess is it will not be long before you hear from him, I am just suprised he has not beaten me to it!.
He is slipping :o
Just came across this thread and unfortunately im going to have to jump on the bandwagon of the bad ping brigade :bawl:
iv contacted support and asked if there is anything I can do to help remedy my problem
but yeh
gaming pings have been steadily increasing over the last months from a good 30ms average to a 70ms average
Looks like we need to do more work on getting the Centrals balanced properly. We'll be making this the priority over the next few days.
Simon
Quote from: ducky22 on Feb 01, 2009, 15:06:25
Back to the dial up days (nearly!)... Already checked with various computers and only one turned on at a time. Browsing is also laggy. Anyone else having problems today? Download speed down from 830k/second to 45k/second.
Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 166 ms 182 ms 178 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 148 ms 165 ms 156 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 164 ms 147 ms 139 ms rt-lonap-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.91]
5 156 ms 142 ms 121 ms 212.58.238.133
6 149 ms 136 ms 141 ms virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
Trace complete.
M:\>
Welcome to my world as of the past few days ...
uk server and my ping time is over 150ms and unplayable
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2561/idnetisphs8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/idnetisphs8.jpg/1/w1280.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img80/idnetisphs8.jpg/1/)
Yep back to black :mad:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 130ms, Maximum = 174ms, Average = 154ms
I'd prefer Simon's response if it said "We'll be making that the priority this evening".
I know simon_idnet has already replied but I thought I would post my results too. Currently reside In the North East. I've had gaming ping problems for 3/4 days now. Times varey but mainly between 3 and 9pm.
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 11 ms 4 ms 3 ms router [192.168.0.1]
2 103 ms 284 ms 133 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 147 ms 139 ms 132 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243
4 116 ms 111 ms 125 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 125 ms 119 ms 273 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.
7]
6 118 ms 102 ms 107 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.8
]
7 101 ms 88 ms 81 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 75 ms 66 ms 57 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 106 ms 111 ms 110 ms po0-1-651-cr.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.11]
10 83 ms 78 ms 75 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete
My latency has been fine until today, now it's abysmal :(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 87ms, Maximum = 112ms, Average = 96ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>tracert www.multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 114 ms 134 ms 108 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 120 ms 114 ms 122 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 81 ms 78 ms 79 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 101 ms 103 ms 100 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.9
7]
6 95 ms 102 ms 90 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82
]
7 78 ms 76 ms 80 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 74 ms 68 ms 59 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 176 ms 187 ms 223 ms po0-1-651-cr.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.11]
10 84 ms 85 ms 95 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Mine are high again on DSL4...
C:\Users\Lance>ping idnet.net -n 10
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=179ms 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 = 162ms, Maximum = 182ms, Average = 174ms
Mine rose too
[attachment deleted by admin]
Attached is my latest graph, showing things settled down again about 21:50 but had a bit of a rough patch at about 22:12 for quarter of an hour or so.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Tonight's re-balancing of the Centrals seems to have worked. We'll be keeping a close eye on the situation to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Apologies for the poor performance this evening.
Simon
Thanks Simon. My pings on the whole are back to normal for my line (between 30ms and 35ms) but I'm still getting short periods - 20 seconds at a time - where I get pings in excell of 100ms.
C:\Users\Sam>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=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms 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 = 47ms, Maximum = 51ms, Average = 49ms
Used to be 25-30 ms :(
My last post should read in excess, not excell! Stupid left and right hands!
I always write words that I didn't mean to, Lance. :)
I manage whole paragraphs. ;)
Pings to IDNet seem to have stabilised at around 26ms for me, that is over the past 5 hours
I've got PingGraph running again. Most pings are in the 22-26ms range, with a few spiking to ~30ms and a very few (2 in 25 minutes) spiking to 50ms.
I think that's about right Rik, my general impression is that most are slightly up from normal,however my really longer ones are more frequent than yours
Can you run PingGraph (or similar) and let support have the results, Steve?
Aye
Gone up the spout again,
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms 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 = 135ms, Maximum = 175ms, Average = 164ms
Have ping graph running but cannot figure out how to get the pictures on to here. Help :blush:
Can you explain it from start to finish, I can and do test live Malware but cannot do this :eyebrow:
I have PingGraph set to send pictures to the desktop as I did with RouterStats but cannot get any further.
Ian
When you have located the picture, Ian, hit additional options in the reply window (not quick reply) and use the attach option.
Right, found a way to do it but not sure that its the right way ;D
will post the last one on next reply
Ian
[attachment deleted by admin]
And now the last one
Ian
[attachment deleted by admin]
I'd suggest you send these to support, Ian, they will be monitoring themselves, but every bit of evidence will help.
I've sent support these 2 ping graphs. I think it shows their erratic nature at present.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I've sent my first report across, Steve, but things seem to have deteriorated since about 11:25, so I suspect they are doing more work atm.
I have some large spikes +250ms around 11.20 & 11.40
I've got another batch from about 11:45 for about 4 minutes.
Here we go
[attachment deleted by admin]
Here's mine...
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Rik on Feb 02, 2009, 11:11:10
When you have located the picture, Ian, hit additional options in the reply window (not quick reply) and use the attach option.
I knew to go to Additional Options Rik, I just couldn't find the pictures. Found out why though, I use Sandboxie and when I closed the browser they were in there to be recovered, talk about a senior moment :blush:
Perhaps I should go back to bed.
Or perhaps I need an intake of food to feed whats left of my brain.
Actually I put it down to falling asleep after breakfast with the kittens on my lap ;D
Ian
My pings are all over the place too.
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 99 ms 99 ms 99 ms speedtouch.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 199 ms 132 ms 136 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.97]
3 164 ms 177 ms 157 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 169 ms 175 ms 179 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 144 ms 158 ms 372 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.9
7]
6 162 ms 137 ms 141 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82
]
7 165 ms 167 ms 169 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 152 ms 143 ms 148 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 130 ms 119 ms 117 ms po0-1-650-cr1.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.6]
10 177 ms 167 ms 156 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
Quote from: DarkStar on Feb 02, 2009, 12:02:59
Actually I put it down to falling asleep after breakfast with the kittens on my lap ;D
That works for me, Ian. :)
Quote from: golden on Feb 02, 2009, 12:05:26
My pings are all over the place too.
If you can run PingGraph and let support have the output, it will help narrow down the search. Let me know if you need to get hold on PingGraph.
[ted@localhost ~]$ ping www.idnet.net -c 10
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=163 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=172 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=142 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=178 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=157 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=155 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=157 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=169 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=170 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=156 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9165ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 142.612/162
Couple of speed tests too :bawl:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Not good, Ted. Let support have that BT test.
They're probably all snowed under at the moment :out:
:grn:
They're all there today - tomorrow might be different, though. Luckily, everything can be done from an ADSL connection.
I thought I might submit a ticket but was afraid of a frosty response.
You should snow they would treat your ticket fairly, they are most likely getting a flurry of them anyway
:grn: :grn:
Quite the opposite, JB, you'd get a warm greeting and red hot service. :)
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 02, 2009, 12:30:27
You should snow they would treat your ticket fairly
It must be catching. ;D
:grn:
Look again ;D
I'll drift over to IDNet later and plough my way throught the ticket system.
:clever: :rofl:
I used to run a firewall called BlackIce - shame they dropped it really. :)
Quote from: 6jb on Feb 02, 2009, 12:33:18
I'll drift over to IDNet later and plough my way throught the ticket system.
What? And tell them your connection has gone all flaky
I see you lot are really crystallising your thinking this morning. :)
Yeah it's getting worse again. Here's my current gw5 plots.
(http://garagos.net/wajn/filedump/pings_21cn_2.png)
Pretty obvious where the troubles began. Note each data point is an average of 144 measurements.
(http://garagos.net/wajn/filedump/pings_7day.png)
The raw data of the past week (each point is 10 minutes apart). Fairly shambles right now as you can compare directly to what it was like before.
At least the thing is stable, that's what matters most to me.
Try dropping your PPP session and re-connecting.
I'll power the main router off for 40 minutes tonight out-of-hours and then start it up again.
Here are my latest graphs, largely settled now but earlier on was a bit dodgy.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I've had a reply from Simon who states "that they are having problems with their pipes into BT becoming unbalanced.This meant that some routes became congested which has caused performance problems. We are monitoring closely in order to alleviate the problems."
Amazing how implementing extra capacity can lead to congestion. However they've sorted it before :fingers:
The last I heard was that they are manually forcing people onto different pipes as they reconnect. I'm surprised that the BT system isn't more efficient at doing this automatically.
I don't think BT and their systems are efficient at doing anything. :thumbd:
Neither does Simon. :)
I don't know where the fault lies today, with the weather and everything but my latency is still all over the place today.
Between 80-180 :(
no online gaming for me.
Have you tried dropping PPP and re-connecting?
I tried dropping PPP but came back just as bad most pings are now in three figures again
IDNet were forcing people onto different pipes when they reconnected. This is all supposed to be done automatically by BT's system, but it's just not happening. :(
Update from IDNet:
Some users are still experiencing periods of higher latency (pings) than normal whilst we continue to rebalance our network following the new capacity added on Friday. Apologies to those affected, optimisation is taking a little longer than expected but we are making progress and hope to reach optimum performance within the next 24 hours.
Unless I'm mistaken, most of the replies on bad pings are related to gw5, I've only just had a look at my ping now since website loading was somewhat slow and it's going through gw2:
C:\Documents and Settings\Aaron>tracert www.multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 526 ms 131 ms 170 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 155 ms 165 ms 151 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 153 ms 148 ms 145 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 169 ms 138 ms 118 ms te4-4.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [87.127.236.97]
6 103 ms 109 ms 122 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82]
7 88 ms 92 ms 98 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
8 155 ms 143 ms 135 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
9 177 ms 164 ms 146 ms po0-1-651-cr.ixnlon.as35028.net [85.236.110.11]
10 110 ms 111 ms 120 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Aaron>tracert www.idnet.co.uk
Tracing route to www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 101 ms 117 ms 125 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 129 ms 143 ms 135 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 110 ms 103 ms 116 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 151 ms 143 ms 74 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 72 ms 72 ms 83 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
I'm on DSL5, Aaron, but my pings are erratic, occasionally down in the low 20s as I'd expect, but at other times they lurch up into the 150s. Hopefully, it will all settle down in the next day or so.
I'm on DSL4 and have erratic pings too, similar to Rik
Quote from: Rik on Feb 02, 2009, 16:07:42
I'm surprised that the BT system isn't more efficient at doing this automatically.
You are? ;)
Well, maybe not. ;D
More pretty pics
[attachment deleted by admin]
I'm averaging about 106ms atm, but it's very spiky. :(
Erratic, like the weather :laugh:
[attachment deleted by admin]
C:\Users\Sam>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=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms 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 = 107ms, Maximum = 137ms, Average = 124ms
180ms on my favourite cod4 server (hosted on idnet too)
:bawl:
C:\Documents and Settings\ron>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=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms 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 = 116ms, Maximum = 165ms, Average = 129ms
poor here as well
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>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=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms 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 = 129ms, Maximum = 152ms, Average = 140ms
C:\Users\vitriol>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms
C:\Users\vitriol>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 24ms
Pretty good but they're not consistant.
Mine from multiplay
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=124
Pulling my hair out :bawl:
not so clever here Mark
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 102ms, Maximum = 141ms, Average = 117ms
I win :D :mad:
C:\Users\Sam>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 143ms, Maximum = 211ms, Average = 178ms
C:\Users\Sam>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 183ms, Maximum = 197ms, Average = 191ms
oohhh dear
reminds me of the ping problems last year (or so wasnt it?)
Pretty diabolical here as well...
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 132ms, Maximum = 169ms, Average = 148ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms 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 = 138ms, Maximum = 162ms, Average = 149ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
For those interested
I was around when it happened last time too
http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=24478e45bdc61167797858db2d36623e&topic=450.0
Lots and lots of ping problems there which seem quite similar
Now thats going back quite a bit (back to the days of Jeff :laugh:)
Just a quick note to say I have been experiencing these nightmare pings myself, 200-250 earlier this evening, but just now at approx 10:30pm they just dropped back to normal 25-40, I hope it holds :fingers:
seems to be picking up here too ;D
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 32ms
C:\Users\Philip>
hmm
dropped down to my usual 60ms or so...but this still aint good enough for me
used to be 30ms about 6 months ago :'(
Quote from: mrapoc on Feb 02, 2009, 22:07:33
For those interested
I was around when it happened last time too
http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=24478e45bdc61167797858db2d36623e&topic=450.0
Lots and lots of ping problems there which seem quite similar
Now thats going back quite a bit (back to the days of Jeff :laugh:)
That's a blast from the past!
I'm getting a continual loss of service just now (1.55am), anyone else?
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:15 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.36.3,53 Destination:<IP address removed - Rik>,54687 - [DOS]
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:16 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.40.3,53 Destination:.<IP address removed - Rik>,56719 - [DOS]
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:16 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.40.3,53 Destination:<IP address removed - Rik>,62896 - [DOS]
Sat, 2009-01-31 18:05:16 - UDP Packet - Source:212.69.40.3,53 Destination:<IP address removed - Rik>,54687 - [DOS]
Sun, 2009-02-01 21:06:20 - Send out NTP request to 158.43.128.66
Sun, 2009-02-01 21:06:20 - Receive NTP Reply from 158.43.128.66
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:05 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:08 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:27 - Administrator login successful - IP:***.***.*.*
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:08 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:08 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:13 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:16 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:16 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:46:11 - CHAP authentication success
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:00 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:02 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:02 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:43 - Administrator login successful - IP:***.***.*.*
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:02 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:02 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:19 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:21 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:21 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:51 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:55 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:55 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:55 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:55 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:22 - CHAP authentication success
Does anybody have any idea what was going on on Saturday as marked in bold?
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Feb 03, 2009, 02:00:41
I getting a continual loss of service just now (1.55am), anyone else?
Yep! and enough is enough for me thats 2 drops midgame,couldnt game at a sensible time due to ping so decided to now and still get screwed over,I will be phoning tomorrow for my Mac key
Had a dropout for about 15-20 mins just now. But came back and pings seem better
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 22ms
My latency is also remarkably good just now, let's hope it stays like that :)
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 13ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Had 2 drop outs.
Wasn't doing anything important so not a problem but son would not of been impressed if he was on Xbox Live,its a school night so he was off by 8.30pm so not a problem.
Been with idnet since June 2006 and have had a top class service.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:49 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:54 - Administrator login successful - IP:***.***.*.*
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:57 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:43:57 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:58 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:44:58 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:45:25 - CHAP authentication success
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:06 - LCP down.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:13 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:54:13 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:14 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:55:14 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:14 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:56:14 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:15 - Initialize LCP.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:15 - LCP is allowed to come up.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:57:45 - CHAP authentication success
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\NickyBarryPC>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 16ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 16ms
C:\Users\NickyBarryPC>
Not a gamer, so haven't been too worried about the ping times, although browsing has been very slow since they brought on the new capacity.
Unable to make a connection this morning and had to reboot my router this morning as result.
Pings seem to be flying atm (I'm on idnet.net)
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 17ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 17ms
So looking good at the moment.
IDNet seem to be very responsive to resolving issues, however I do have to make the observation, after stints at Zen and Newnet, that IDNet do seem to be more prone to having issues in the first place.
Had drops outs around 2am this morning according to the router logs but pings are looking now:
Ian
[attachment deleted by admin]
Just guessing here, but I'm wondering whether IDNet re-booted their routers in the small hours as part of the resolution.
I was wrong, something happened but IDNet don't yet know what and are waiting to hear from BT.
By 10pm last night, my pings were up in the 190ms region on DSL4, then about 10 minutes later they dropped right off to around 30ms, so I think someone must have adjusted something.
Mine seem to be close to normal now, with occasional spikes. It's still being tweaked this morning.
Not sure if this is related to pings, but I'm noticing quite a bit of lag when posting on the forum - up to 20 seconds from hitting the 'Post' button, to the post appearing.
That seems to be a server issue, Simon, it had started last week.
Just to add to the list then. ::)
Indeed. :(
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 341 ms 196 ms 81 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 39 ms 39 ms 40 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 42 ms 42 ms 41 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 41 ms 39 ms 44 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 42 ms 41 ms 41 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.overclock3d.net [212.69.36.86]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 105 ms 256 ms 148 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 111 ms 126 ms 120 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 124 ms 135 ms 145 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 125 ms 131 ms 122 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 121 ms 132 ms 113 ms oc2.overclock3d.net [212.69.36.86]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 276 ms 79 ms 85 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 90 ms 85 ms 108 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 106 ms 97 ms 99 ms 195.66.224.125
5 69 ms 74 ms 82 ms 209.85.252.40
6 122 ms 126 ms 119 ms 209.85.251.190
7 153 ms 146 ms 150 ms 64.233.174.187
8 151 ms 127 ms 118 ms 64.233.174.18
9 81 ms 88 ms 103 ms 66.102.9.99
Trace complete.
some of mine
My internet went down for about an hour? at like 1ish... thinking this was sorting the problem.
However, pings are back to 150!
Tracing route to www.dustworld.net [193.238.84.199]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.2.1
2 147 ms 241 ms 154 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 154 ms 152 ms 159 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 163 ms 156 ms 156 ms ae0-4.rt2.the.uk.goscomb.net [193.203.5.197]
5 208 ms 159 ms 158 ms ge-0-0-479.rt0.iph.uk.goscomb.net [77.75.109.98]
6 145 ms 169 ms * dustworld.net [193.238.84.199]
7 138 ms 186 ms 153 ms dustworld.net [193.238.84.199]
Trace complete.
I wonder if IDNet merely reversed whatever they were trying to do when it broke everything, which has meant that pings are back to how they were?
Or the mass re-connections after the outage have unbalanced the network again? I really don't know. :(
Could be.
Really nasty latency at the moment also.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Sharon>tracert www.idnet.com
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 170 ms 171 ms 429 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 168 ms 161 ms 162 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 170 ms 174 ms 169 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 172 ms 165 ms 162 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 169 ms 171 ms 167 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Sharon>
I'm seeing the same sort of numbers, Shazzy.
similar here
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=355ms 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 = 178ms, Maximum = 355ms, Average = 246ms
Ok things have gone truly pear shaped now, went to browse today & was slow as hell, saw my ping times were up, & thought I'd better try some speed tests, this really isnt good.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results/id/123367215162998231047.html
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/403458171.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>ping www.multiplay.co.uk
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 161ms, Maximum = 170ms, Average = 167ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms 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 = 162ms, Maximum = 165ms, Average = 163ms
0.3Mbps download on an 8mb connection & pings over 160, which is as bad as 56k pings used to be.
You need to let IDNet know, we can't do anything to help from here. :(
I've just reset my PPP session (no reboot) and pings have dropped back to 24ms average. :thumb:
Just got off the phone to IDNet...
Problem would of been sorted today, however a router went down at lunch time which has caused it to take abit longer - people should sort to see normal pings today, however some will not experince this untill tomorow - and it may even creep into Thursday. Hope this helps.
Thanks for that. :thumb:
Sorry for sounding a bit stupid... but what do you mean by restarting your 'PPP' session?
:dunno:
Easiest way to restart PPP is turn off and on your router.
It's still nasty for me here. I'll keep an eye out. 200ms+
Quote from: conneh on Feb 03, 2009, 15:22:51
Sorry for sounding a bit stupid... but what do you mean by restarting your 'PPP' session?
:dunno:
It's not stupid. :) There are two elements to your connection, the ADSL link, the connection between you and the exchange (which governs your speed), and the PPP session, your connection into IDNet and thus the web. It was the PPP which failed due to the router issue. Some routers will allow you to reset the PPP session independently of the ADSL connection. If you can do this, it has the advantage of not disturbing the connection speed.
Ah ok :)
Thanks
NP. :)
Things were not at all good from my end today. In addition to high latency I started getting a lot of packet loss, 15% on average but as much as 30% to some locations and this was after a router reset. However having spoken to Simon (IDNet Support) he suggested another router restart and the results are plain to see (below).
If you are still having problems try rebooting your router now.Before:
QuoteMicrosoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping multiplay.co.uk -n 50
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 43, Lost = 7 (14% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 142ms, Maximum = 163ms, Average = 157ms
c:\Users\zappaDPJ>
After:
QuoteMicrosoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.multiplay.co.uk -n 50
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 13ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Thanks, Zappa, that's about the difference I saw.
hey all didn't want to start a new topic.
my ping is up 300 or so.
used to ping about 30/40 to London from Brighton (where I am), now im pinging more like 340.
Is something up? My download/upload is slowing as well...
I take it this isnt a problem on my end - a router reset didnt help :(
thanks.
Yep, something's up - you may want to have a read of the rest of the thread. Rebooting your router may sort it. :)
Oh, and :welc: :karma:
Welcome to the forum, Joel. :welc: :karma:
There has been a problem with the IDNet network at lunchtime today, which kicked everyone off for an hour. Details are hard to come by at the moment, but it involved the new router which was installed last week. As a result of this, as best I can judge, the previous work at re-balancing the network went out the window as everyone re-connected pretty much at the same time.
I have found, as have several others, that re-initiating the PPP session (or re-booting the router) has cured both throughput and ping times. If it still isn't working for you, have a word with support.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 03, 2009, 15:26:02
It's not stupid. :) There are two elements to your connection, the ADSL link, the connection between you and the exchange (which governs your speed), and the PPP session, your connection into IDNet and thus the web. It was the PPP which failed due to the router issue. Some routers will allow you to reset the PPP session independently of the ADSL connection. If you can do this, it has the advantage of not disturbing the connection speed.
Rik,
This resetting PPP session. I have a Netgear DG834, if I open up the connection status I see Connect and Disconnect. Do I simply Disconnect and then Connect? I have only had a Netgear a couple of weeks, havn't sassed it out properly yet.
Resetting the PPP got me back to "normal" pings (50ms)
Turns out I also have interleaving which is going to be off in next 24 hours..
didnt know it increased ping by like 30ms
It can be much worse than that, Sam, depending on the depth in use.
ack
C:\Users\vitriol>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=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms 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 = 165ms, Maximum = 168ms, Average = 167ms
Going to try a router reboot. Post back again soon.
Quote from: DarkStar on Feb 03, 2009, 16:43:38
Rik,
This resetting PPP session. I have a Netgear DG834, if I open up the connection status I see Connect and Disconnect. Do I simply Disconnect and then Connect? I have only had a Netgear a couple of weeks, havn't sassed it out properly yet.
On a Netgear, Ian, you have to do the whole re-sync thing, unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to just drop the PPP.
Quote from: vitriol on Feb 03, 2009, 17:00:41
Going to try a router reboot. Post back again soon.
We'll be here. (I hope :fingers: :))
my net connection is seeming slugish so was wonder if Idnet were still having issues here are some examples of my ping times.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms 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 = 165ms, Maximum = 175ms, Average = 170ms
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 151ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 160ms
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>im thinking they may be just a little high as they are normaly at 30ms ish
ah, I just popped to the router - everything went off (not in my control), and then I am now back to normal speed.
Ping is important to me, I do a lot of gaming :P
I think the problem resolved itself, and this is, without a doubt, the first time I have had a problem, which isn't solved by a router reboot, in 2 years.
Good work guys.
And thanks for the karma :D
Have you tried rebooting your router, Colin?
C:\Users\vitriol>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=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 22ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms
Wonder how long it will last?
\mick>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms 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 = 40ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 40ms
Is this OK? :dunno:
Mine's been good for about three hours now.
I wonder if it would be a good idea for IDNet to force everyone to reconnect to balance the centrals. Enta used to do it and it did work.
Quote from: trophymick on Feb 03, 2009, 17:07:05
Is this OK? :dunno:
Probably, Mick. Do you know what your 'normal' ping time is?
Quote from: Sebby on Feb 03, 2009, 17:08:08
I wonder if it would be a good idea for IDNet to force everyone to reconnect to balance the centrals. Enta used to do it and it did work.
I thought they did at lunchtime. >:D
:zip:
Quote from: DarkStar on Feb 03, 2009, 16:43:38
Rik,
This resetting PPP session. I have a Netgear DG834, if I open up the connection status I see Connect and Disconnect. Do I simply Disconnect and then Connect? I have only had a Netgear a couple of weeks, havn't sassed it out properly yet.
I have a DG834 (GSP) and can and do disconnect as suggested above, going through CHAP authentication from the start. Does that not do the trick?
I don't know, tbh, Dave. The Netgear's I have had, like Ian's, only offered a connect/disconnect and I think that dropped the line and forced a resync.
reboot sorted it out rik
It does do the trick, Dave, but I believe it also causes you to lose sync. That in itself is not a bad thing as long as you don't do it too many times consecutively, which the exchange may see as instability.
Have rebooted my router a few times today, even unplugged it and left it for a while... These are my results.
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=124
Request timed out.
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 141ms, Maximum = 163ms, Average = 154ms
:thumbd:
You need to talk to IDNet, then, they can manually move you to a different pipe.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/403555260.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
This is about normal for me at the moment, not much variation. (except for a total loss of service :whistle:) I'm happy with it, considering my location :thumb:
Quote from: Sebby on Feb 03, 2009, 17:15:16
It does do the trick, Dave, but I believe it also causes you to lose sync. That in itself is not a bad thing as long as you don't do it too many times consecutively, which the exchange may see as instability.
and Rik re Netgear rebooting.
Sync seems to hold, at least the green light stays on and "Show Stats" polling remains steady. But I have an oddball DG834GSPv3 Branson special.
In that case, all bets are off. :D
Quote from: Rik on Feb 03, 2009, 17:27:47
In that case, all bets are off. :D
Are you laughing at my oddball?
No, at the thought of betting on a Netgear. ;D
Odd but rebooting the router fixed it, despite connecting to the same gateway as before. Pings are good now :)
Same gateway, different central. ;)
Opened up connection status on my Netgear and Disconnected, waited 10secs or so and then Connected. Result below:
Ian
[attachment deleted by admin]
Is that about normal for you, Ian? That's similar to what happened to me, though I average around 24ms.
Mine was similar when I got home, rebooted the router,ping rates down nicely but still seeing a great variation in individual ping times which I presume is down to congestion.
Possible, Steve. I've got a few spikes now, but nothing untoward.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 03, 2009, 18:29:13
Is that about normal for you, Ian? That's similar to what happened to me, though I average around 24ms.
That is low for me, until this week I had never seen pings below 60>80. Tracert below
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>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 192.168.0.1
2 38 ms 122 ms 121 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 36 ms 37 ms 36 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 37 ms 36 ms 36 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 36 ms 37 ms 36 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 35 ms 35 ms 36 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Speed is also back to normal - 200>250mbps. It was a quarter of that this afternoon.
Ian
Sounds like you've moved off the congested central. :)
Quote from: Rik on Feb 03, 2009, 18:37:23
Sounds like you've moved off the congested central. :)
Good, I just hope it stays this way
Ian
When I was with a centrally challenged ISP, we used to log on, check ping, log off, log on, check ping, etc till we got a central that was reasonable. One smart guy automated the process and eventually we all used the routine. I guess BT round robin the logons among an ISP's centrals.
I posted some poor ping times here,I have deleted them as I forgot the WHS was running utorrent :blush:
a lot better since my router reboot
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>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=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms 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 = 29ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 30ms
C:\Users\Philip>
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 33ms
C:\Users\Philip>
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 03, 2009, 19:18:19
When I was with a centrally challenged ISP, we used to log on, check ping, log off, log on, check ping, etc till we got a central that was reasonable. One smart guy automated the process and eventually we all used the routine. I guess BT round robin the logons among an ISP's centrals.
I think I know which ISP you are talking about as I was once with them too. ;)
If that were true, it would be virgin on the ridiculous.
Here's mine, after router reboot:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
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=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms 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 = 34ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 34ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 33ms
Looks fine for an interleaved line, Simon. :)
i am having bad pings and some packet loss also
its been happening now for about a week
very bad on WoW,Cod4,cod5
i have reboot router ect still the same tho sometimes its lower for a short period of time then they get high again
nothing running in background that i could see
>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 www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 422 ms 204 ms 68 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 92 ms 100ms 97 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 92 ms 93 ms 94 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 95 ms 96 ms 94 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 93 ms 97 ms 93 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
14 months of near perfect service since joining, until you set about 'improving' the system!
About an hour per day of slow or nil communication since 28/1
Worst so far today, with huge ping time (compared with typical < 90ms):
speedtest.net results:
Date Time D/L U/L Ping Server Dist
1/30/2009 2:42 PM GMT 6234 kb/s 364 kb/s 86 ms London < 50 mi
2/3/2009 4:08 PM GMT 378 kb/s 134 kb/s 374 ms London < 50 mi
2/3/2009 4:12 PM GMT 252 kb/s 172 kb/s 369 ms London < 50 mi
2/3/2009 4:14 PM GMT 279 kb/s 353 kb/s 195 ms Maidenhead ~ 50 mi
2/3/2009 4:23 PM GMT 266 kb/s 346 kb/s 229 ms Limerick ~ 400 mi
2/3/2009 4:58 PM GMT 689 kb/s 280 kb/s 369 ms London < 50 mi
2/3/2009 5:00 PM GMT 396 kb/s 310 kb/s 240 ms Barcelona ~ 700 mi
2/3/2009 5:01 PM GMT 701 kb/s 290 kb/s 431 ms Oslo ~ 700 mi
2/3/2009 5:02 PM GMT 497 kb/s 140 kb/s 403 ms Dublin ~ 300 mi
2/3/2009 5:04 PM GMT 363 kb/s 284 kb/s 305 ms New York ~ 3500 mi
2/3/2009 5:05 PM GMT 614 kb/s 275 kb/s 477 ms Torshavn ~ 800 mi
2/3/2009 6:16 PM GMT 4859 kb/s 375 kb/s 90 ms London < 50 mi
2/3/2009 6:44 PM GMT 5762 kb/s 377 kb/s 94 ms London < 50 mi
Usual download exceeds 5000 kb/s, and very steady during test, and typically 375 lb/s upload, similarly steady, latency ~ 90 ms.
Currently download speed back to near normal for me, but noticeable speed flicker during test, ie not quite back to best.
Hope you get back to normal status before too long.
:welcome: goshawk.
I should point out that while you have a valid complaint, we are not IDNet themselves, but an unofficial support forum, so you should air your grievance direct to IDNet, either by email or telephone. :)
Oh, by the way, the latest advice is to reboot your router, which may help with the ping issues.
Quote from: Simon on Feb 03, 2009, 23:29:27
:welcome: goshawk.
I should point out that while you have a valid complaint, we are not IDNet themselves ...
Understood, and anyway not a complaint! If anything more a tribute. Day after day rock solid at a bit over 5000 kb/s sometimes hitting 6000kb/s, having been told that max likely speed on my connection would be 6mb/s, when signing-up.
Just sharing experience.
Trust me, there's been a lot of shared experience this week, Goshawk. :whistle: Welcome to the forum. :) :welc: :karma:
I must admit ping times looking pretty good at the moment :thumb:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 16ms
Pinging idnet.com [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=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms 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 = 15ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 15ms
Mine have been right back to normal today, Steve, 21-24ms range.
Welcome, Goshawk! :karma:
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>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=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms 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 = 27ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 32ms
Got that 10 seconds ago after having interleaved set to off
Now..
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>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=93ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms 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 = 91ms, Maximum = 119ms, Average = 100ms
See my other post, Sam, things seem to be a bit spiky at the moment.
Anything else running on the network which you've fogotten about? That's the stupid mistake I made yesterday when checking ping times I'd forgotten the serving with P2P running at that time or has interleave gone automatically straight back on?
Mine have been much better today apart from a few occasional spikes.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Mine were good earlier today...
[attachment deleted by admin]
What program are you all using to log pings?
Nah I made sure utorrent wasnt running :laugh: :P
PingGraph, Sam.
http://www.vwlowen.co.uk/moreinternet/files.htm
Quote from: Rik on Feb 04, 2009, 17:02:04
Mine were good earlier today...
Mine have started to get more spikey over the last 20 minutes or so, Rik.
Same here, I'm running a new graph as we type. :(
Things seem to have been patchy for an hour or so and are now settling again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Hi
Can someone explain to me what pings are. Can I take it that the lower it is, the better it is?
Up until today, my ping rate via the speedtest.net site was always averaging somewhere between 75ms and 102ms on each test, looking back it once was 56ms back in August last year. The highest it's been a couple of times is about 153ms, excluding yesterday when it was 349ms, a reboot of the router fixed that though.
Today it is 41ms.
So what should I expect it to be?
There's no simple answer to that question, unfortunately. Pings are a bit like blood pressure, they vary naturally throughout the day. Your ping time will depend on several factors including distance to the site you are pinging (check with an Australian site and you'll see what I mean as an extreme), the level of traffic (contention) at your exchange at the time, the level of traffic on the site you are pinging and the importance that that site gives to ping traffic. As IDNet's services are based at Telehouse in London, the closer you are to London, the better your pings will be to www.idnet.net. I use that site as the reference point because the routing is simple, and extended times will quickly show up a fault at IDNet, or BT congestion.
The other variable is whether your lines has interleaving on. If it does, this will add anything up to 30ms to a ping, depending on depth. I do have interleaving on, but my pings to IDNet are usually around 24ms on average.
I see what you mean having just tested via Adelaide. (I'm in London and always use the London test icon)
So my next question, what is interleaving?
It's used when a line is prone to errors, and it splits data into packets, so instead of sending squentially, eg 1-2-3-4-5-6, it might send as 1-4-2-5-3-6. The idea is that if any data is lost, there's less to re-send so the overall speed of the line is better, but the result is an increase in latency, due to the overhead of splitting and reassembling the data, so pings increase.
Incidentally, don't trust the ping times reported by speed test sites, always do manual pings yourself, or use PingGraph, mentioned above.
Not looking too good at the moment :(
Wasn't too bad this morning, gradually started getting worse late afternoon
Ian
[attachment deleted by admin]
Am having some really poor ping results since the weekend,previously it's always been around the 20-25ms mark,but this week i've been hitting the 120-140 mark :bawl:
Can only suggest a router reboot, if you haven't done so, and if no joy, contact IDNet in the morning. Sorry guys! :-\
Yep, I agree with what Simon said.
Anyone know what the pink line represents?
[attachment deleted by admin]
It's the average ping time, Drummer, which seems odd for that graph.
This is much better. :thumb:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Agreed, Ray. I'm seeing some spikes, but my average ping is 23ms.
Not as good as mine. Two shots - first thing this morning :) and just now ???
Ian
[attachment deleted by admin]
Talk to support, Ian, they are not aware of any issues.
Mine is 24ms with interleaving on ;D
Quote from: Rik on Feb 05, 2009, 10:38:16
Talk to support, Ian, they are not aware of any issues.
I would do if I could get through to them, "this number is not available"
My speed has now gone through the floor for the first time since I came over to IDNet. Was fine this morning but at 12:50 everything hung without the connection light going out and I've been crawling ever since. BT Speedtest is as normal for my connection - throughput 1744, Think Broadband speedtest 584.
Routerstats is nice and stable as always, pings getting worse by the hour.
Will try ringing again after dinner, if no luck I'll e-mail them.
Ian
Just spoke to Miriam, who thought you might have been speaking to Tim, Ian. Not sure what happened with the phones, but I got through straight away. :)
Quote from: Simon on Feb 05, 2009, 13:39:14
Just spoke to Miriam, who thought you might have been speaking to Tim, Ian. Not sure what happened with the phones, but I got through straight away. :)
Yes I have been speaking to Tim and Simon, Tim rang me and couldn't understand why I couldn't get through either.
But, main thing is my pings have now dropped to 30>40 which is as low as they ever go and my speed is back to normal so I am a happy bunny :thnks:
With customer service like that I'm not going to be throwing my toys out of the pram and going elsewhere ;D
Ian
Success. :thumb:
Note: Anyone having problems with IDNet's phones...
If you ring and get straight to 'please record your message', try re-dialling. At least some of the staff are working from home today and the calls are being forwarded, which seems to have confused the system a little.
Update:
Now found and fixed. :)
Even after a reboot mine look high :(
cisco877#ping idnet.net
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 212.69.36.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 64/65/68 ms
Have a word with support, they can check if there's anything specific affecting your connection.
As always super speedy response :)
QuoteI can confirm that you are connected to us via one of our Centrals
that is not congested (we are experiencing some congestion on other
links). At the present time all we can suggest is that there seems to
be a higher than usual level of Internet traffic, maybe due to so many
schools being closed and lots of people working from home - it may
that your Exchange is experiencing some congestion.
It fits with some of the patterns I've seen here this week.
My pings were in three figures again just now, reconnect x2 has brought them back down to near normal again.
I'm running a tad higher than normal, Steve, 27-37 rather than 21-25, but nothing as bad as you're seeing.
Its fine again now having reconnected and I did check nothing was running in the background this time.
20 - 30 minutes ago I was up in the 150ms range, then without touching a thing, it dropped back to 32 - 35ms, still up on this mornings times but ok
Might be worth people checking the status page on Idnet, BT have a major service outage affecting the Paddington area of London.
Thanks, Ray. :thumb:
This is getting silly, 5pm everyday the pings go through the roof, been fine all day but come tea time...150 guaranteed :mad:
I'm back to a 200ms average >:(
Same here.
Ditto :S
I did a 30 minute offline to see if that helped, but no such luck yet. I'd post another pretty graph but I think you can all anticipate what it would look like.
Quote from: Mohux_Jnr on Feb 05, 2009, 17:33:52
This is getting silly, 5pm everyday the pings go through the roof, .......
Ditto. Pings rise to circa 200 from 40's. Speeds drop from 6500 to 3500-4500.
I have noticed this trend for about a year. I have speculated, without foundation, that late in the day biz users overlap with early in the evening domestic users. Tech support tell me it is exchange congestion, but it seems others see a similar trend.
This?
[attachment deleted by admin]
This is the result of about a years worth of ThinkBroadband speed checks versus time of day.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Could I ask that anyone seeing ping problems pass on their information to IDNet, so that any issues internal to their network can be traced. It may be that this is down to BT exchange congestion, but the more data that they have, the more readily IDNet can look at their own system.
PingGraph or similar is ideal, or multiple ping repeats, eg ping www.idnet.net -n 100. If we all use idnet.net as the target, it will eliminate as many outside factors as possible.
Thanks.
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 05, 2009, 18:08:39
This is the result of about a years worth of ThinkBroadband speed checks versus time of day.
Got something a bit bigger, Dave?
Just sent the support team mine
[attachment deleted by admin]
QuoteTech support tell me it is exchange congestion
I think its because the man at idnet that sits there all day typing in 20 to everybodies ping requests goes home for his tea ;D.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 05, 2009, 18:10:04
Got something a bit bigger, Dave?
I have had it enlarged. :o
I can read that now. :)
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 212.69.36.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/36 ms
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 166 ms 182 ms 159 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 583 ms 512 ms 262 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 150 ms 145 ms 132 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 144 ms 135 ms 135 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 125 ms 122 ms 123 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 104 ms 97 ms 89 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 100 ms 93 ms 95 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 104 ms 100 ms 338 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 96 ms 95 ms 90 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 95 ms 102 ms 101 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 158 ms 147 ms 136 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 132 ms 133 ms 148 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 142 ms 131 ms 135 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 150 ms 171 ms 162 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 114 ms 127 ms 121 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
:(
yer back to a high latency again.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Sharon>tracert www.idnet.com
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 158 ms 197 ms 169 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 155 ms 157 ms 145 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 176 ms 159 ms 153 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 170 ms 161 ms 120 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 147 ms 178 ms 177 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Sharon>
Target Name: gameserver.killercreation.co.uk
IP: 81.19.219.120
Date/Time: 05/02/2009 20:19:41 to 05/02/2009 20:21:56
1 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 179 ms 329 ms 194 ms 180 ms 204 ms 188 ms 200 ms 187 ms 192 ms 205 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 179 ms 203 ms 206 ms 181 ms 436 ms 183 ms 209 ms 187 ms 183 ms 197 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 180 ms 205 ms 200 ms 174 ms 200 ms * 202 ms 192 ms 189 ms 195 ms ae0-4.rt2.the.uk.goscomb.net [193.203.5.197]
5 182 ms 207 ms 203 ms 169 ms 198 ms 181 ms 210 ms 195 ms 191 ms 189 ms tele-north.killercreation.co.uk [77.75.109.198]
6 172 ms 205 ms 201 ms 168 ms * 182 ms 201 ms 202 ms 189 ms 192 ms gameserver.killercreation.co.uk [81.19.219.120]
Ping statistics for gameserver.killercreation.co.uk
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 9, Lost = 1 (10.0%)
Round Trip Times: Minimum = 168ms, Maximum = 205ms, Average = 190ms
This is to my game server
Thanks, Myst. Any idea what your 'normal' ping would be?
Fluctuates between 52-60 as a rule
Thanks. :thumb:
holy sh*t!!
pinging 380 to maidenhead, 470 to London!!!
What on earth is going on???!!! ???
This is typical for me over the last few days, sorry they're in the wrong order for the time frame.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>tracert www.idnet.com
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 167 ms 168 ms 167 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 92 ms 86 ms 100 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 256 ms 160 ms 164 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 123 ms 127 ms 137 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 153 ms 168 ms 165 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
I'll add mine to the list :)
Quote
Pinging www.l.google.com [66.102.9.147] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=1657ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=1649ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=1171ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=890ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 66.102.9.147:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 890ms, Maximum = 1657ms, Average = 1341ms
Rebooted, now
Quote
Pinging www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 66.102.9.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 39ms, Maximum = 343ms, Average = 128ms
C:\Users\Matt>ping www.google.co.uk
Pinging www.l.google.com [66.102.9.147] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=247
Reply from 66.102.9.147: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 66.102.9.147:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 37ms, Maximum = 60ms, Average = 52ms
And a couple run from the diagnostics of my router for good luck:
Quote from: Google.co.uk PINGPinging 66.102.9.147 with 64 bytes of Data:
Receive reply from 66.102.9.147, time=70ms
Receive reply from 66.102.9.147, time=70ms
Receive reply from 66.102.9.147, time=90ms
Receive reply from 66.102.9.147, time=50ms
Receive reply from 66.102.9.147, time=90ms
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Quote from: Overclock3d.net PINGPinging 212.69.36.86 with 64 bytes of Data:
Receive reply from 212.69.36.86, time=80ms
Receive reply from 212.69.36.86, time=30ms
Receive reply from 212.69.36.86, time=50ms
Receive reply from 212.69.36.86, time=30ms
Receive reply from 212.69.36.86, time=60ms
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Don't know if it will help, but there it is.
Thanks, Kempez, and :welc: :karma:
Pinging to idnet.com over the last 10 minutes reveal an average of 33 and
to google an average of 43.
Note I was moved to .gw6 earlier on this week which might have some bearing on the matter at this stage of the game.
I'm getting bad times too.
Have rebooted the router many times.
PING www.l.google.com (66.102.9.147): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=134.520 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=136.869 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=150.485 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=182.357 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=158.727 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=120.357 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=6 ttl=247 time=274.881 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=7 ttl=247 time=152.569 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=8 ttl=247 time=128.210 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.9.147: icmp_seq=9 ttl=247 time=182.542 ms
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=100.218 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=100.321 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=97.948 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=148.791 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=127.677 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=146.038 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=166.651 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=117.062 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=102.949 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=129.539 ms
PING www.wireplay.co.uk (194.154.191.32): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=134.790 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=143.137 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=175.979 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=129.380 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=150.995 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=147.362 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=6 ttl=58 time=91.512 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=7 ttl=58 time=127.365 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=8 ttl=58 time=137.740 ms
64 bytes from 194.154.191.32: icmp_seq=9 ttl=58 time=168.334 ms
PING core1.multiplay.co.uk (85.236.96.22): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=0 ttl=124 time=153.102 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=1 ttl=124 time=159.694 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=2 ttl=124 time=59.872 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=3 ttl=124 time=109.966 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=4 ttl=124 time=141.570 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=5 ttl=124 time=140.942 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=6 ttl=124 time=161.057 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=7 ttl=124 time=163.927 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=8 ttl=124 time=156.809 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=9 ttl=124 time=136.443 ms
yep Router rebooting is not doing a thing here,currently near 800ms to gaming servers...............................based in the uk
After a router reboot yesterday it was fine, seemed back to normal, today after several reboots including a full 30 min one its all over the place, pings from 27-170.
We are assured that IDNet are continuing to try to rectify these problems, but feel free to contact them if your pings are not improving. Sorry that we can't be of any more help here.
Welcome, Burvs. :karma:
I had an email from Simon (IDNet) around 30 minutes ago ask to reboot the rooter, which I did twice, sadly little changed. He is trying to rebalance the centrals yet again, it must be very frustrating for him and his team to have had the pipe installe,d only to find it is not working as advertised.
seem to be settling down again
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>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=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms 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 = 30ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 31ms
C:\Users\Philip>
Seems to be settling now, still higher than normal, but far better than 40 minutes ago
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms 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 = 35ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 39ms
Seems to be fine now as others have said, just hope it holds this time :fingers:
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 24ms
After a few days of bonkers pings, it seems to have settled in the last few hours:
C:\Documents and Settings\^_^>ping www.idnet.net -n 32
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=11ms 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=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms 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
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=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
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
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
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=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 32, Received = 32, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 11ms
Throughput/speed wasn't affected in the slightest so I'm not that bothered about the Ping Tings...
Don't get my pink "average" though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: drummer on Feb 06, 2009, 03:02:13
After a few days of bonkers pings, it seems to have settled in the last few hours:
C:\Documents and Settings\^_^>ping www.idnet.net -n 32
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=11ms 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=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms 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
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=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
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
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
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=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 32, Received = 32, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 11ms
Throughput/speed wasn't affected in the slightest so I'm not that bothered about the Ping Tings...
Don't get my pink "average" though.
bloody hell, you in London? wish I lived there :p 22ms here in west wales
Here we go again...
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms 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 = 108ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 128ms
GW5 is okay :-
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 212.69.36.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/39/52 ms
Hm a router reboot brought the pings back down to 22/23ms. I dont understand! no way can it be my end.
No, but the reconnection may have moved you to a different central. For reasons I fail to understand, the automatic balancing system that BT deploys failed to work. When the new central was made live last Friday, what happened was that everyone then re-connected to a single central, causing that to be congested while the rest of the network was idle. IDNet started rebalancing by locking off access to the congested central and, as people reconnected, they were forced onto the spare capacity. The failure of the router on Tuesday (? it's been a long week) undid all that work, and they are having to start again.
My average ping is currently 24.3ms.
Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-06 11:07:03)
Download: 1812 Kbit/s
Upload : 382 kbit/s
Connects : 2553 conn/min
Ping: 44 ms
Well I'm happy, for the moment :thumb:
Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-06 11:41:01)
Download: 4225 Kbit/s
Upload : 375 kbit/s
Connects : 2581 conn/min
Ping: 31 ms
When its working, its really damn good :)
Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-06 11:51:28)
Download: 1916 Kbit/s
Upload : 317 kbit/s
Connects : 975 conn/min
Ping: 22 ms
On a 2MB long line by the way and had World of Warcraft running in the background.
This covers the past hour or so, starting well but now degrading...
[attachment deleted by admin]
I have always wondered why gamers call for such low latency. Here are some rough numbers and I may be wrong.
A ping of say 40ms is equivalent to two video frames at 50Hz. A blink is 300-400ms
Finger movement reaction times in the very simplest game, the ruler drop test, are typically 200ms.
In more complex situations, such as driving and braking, an alert driver can apply the brake in no better than 700ms.
A cricket ball traveling at 90mph covers 40 metres in a second and takes about 500ms stump to stump. So a player would have to strike after about 400ms. If you shortened the pitch by 5 metres, or 100ms in time, that's like facing a 120mph ball. So imagine if you shortened by twice that, by say by a 200ms ping, it has to be broken teeth.
So do gamers have a point?
Never having played a game in my life, Dave, I have no idea, but there does seem to be an issue for them when pings lengthen, as there is for VOIP users.
I agree Rik, but the cricket analogy suggests that pings probably have to go out a good bit, say over 100ms. A 200ms ping is like doubling a players best reaction time.
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 06, 2009, 13:03:52A ping of say 40ms is equivalent to two video frames at 50Hz.
So what happens if your opponent has a ping of 20ms ? By the time the frames have been rendered the player will have moved :) VoIP is especially sensitive to latency but by buffering and using QoS then this can be flattened out a bit.
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 06, 2009, 13:10:08
I agree Rik, but the cricket analogy suggests that pings probably have to go out a good bit, say over 100ms. A 200ms ping is like doubling a players best reaction time.
I don't usually monitor pings, Dave, as they don't affect me much, but because of the problems, I've been keeping an eye on them. Mine have gone from a 24ms average to regular excursions into the mid-100s, and some instances in excess of 200ms, so I can see how that might impact others.
Quote from: uxbod on Feb 06, 2009, 13:11:37
So what happens if your opponent has a ping of 20ms ? ......
20ms is faster than the brain can perceive and process, so I doubt you can notice and certainly react to differences in two frames at 50 Hz. Complex games are not just about simple reaction, like catching the ruler, but require considerable mental dexterity and experience and that takes a longer reaction time.
However, if your opponent is playing at 20ms and you are playing at 220ms, you don't have a cat in hell's chance. What counts is the differential ping to make the game fair. Otherwise it is like shortening the cricket pitch half way through the game. Even if you were playing at 120ms and the difference was 100 ms you would probably be at a serious disadvantage.
It does make it fun, especially if you have the lower ping >:D
You can check your reaction time here (http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php).
Reactions poor,I blame the ping times :blush: :out:
:rofl:
Careful, Steve, or Simon will be along to give you a slap! ;D
I know poor golfers that blame their Pings too.
I've banned myself from taking *anything* personally ever again!
[dons flame proof suit]
S
:lol:
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 06, 2009, 14:25:28
I've banned myself from taking *anything* personally ever again!
[dons flame proof suit]
S
We were going to change your user name to 'Basher'. ;D
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 06, 2009, 14:25:28
I've banned myself from taking *anything* personally ever again!
:rofl:
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 06, 2009, 14:25:28
I've banned myself from taking *anything* personally ever again!
[dons flame proof suit]
:pig: :back: :leer:
I'm of the opinion that gamers only blame their pings when they loose. Got to blame something :whistle: ;D
Ian
I blame my total lack of talent for the game
An honest man. :thumb:
Quote from: talos on Feb 06, 2009, 14:51:56
:pig: :back: :leer:
My problem is that I care. We all at IDNet care deeply about the service we try to provide and we get upset when we fall short of the mark. We are working hard to prevent the problems tat we've had recently and so, we will get there.
Simon
I wouldn't describe the service as tat, Simon. ;)
:pmsl:
I think you should have fired yourself, Simon, then you'd have been out for a Ducky. ;D
:grn: ;D :karmic:
:ithank:
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 06, 2009, 13:03:52
I have always wondered why gamers call for such low latency. Here are some rough numbers and I may be wrong.
A ping of say 40ms is equivalent to two video frames at 50Hz. A blink is 300-400ms
When I used to play division 2 Q3 tournaments I ran my monitor at 120Hz, it is significantly smoother and would say it helped my game. Game frame rates were between 150 and 350 fps. And yes, I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 and 120fps quite easily in action games. I'm not sure if this just comes from playing it a lot or the strange way the doctors tell me my brain interprets images (I have non-binocular vision).
The problem with ping in games is thus; it is that you react slower
than you realise. If I have 200ms ping, I have to aim
where the opponent will be in 200ms, not where they are now and just have the result delayed slightly. Obviously once you get past 350ms, predicting that far ahead gets nigh on impossible. The *larger* problem is if your ping varies significantly, and then you cannot predict ahead with any consistency. Pings matter little in strategy games, but action games is a real killer.
Packet loss is an even greater issue. Whereas on your screen you see the opponent moving smoothly, as one would expect, most games run on a snapshot methodology. All opponents and items appear in fixed positions (this is huffman compressed delta encoding) and then the game smoothly interpolates between. The crunch is, if you aim at an opponent *between* snapshots, the server will not register a hit. Hence, losing packets means losing snapshots, and you are in big trouble. Q3 tend to run between 20 and 30 snapshots per second. This is not as much as it sounds in high-level clan games.
All I am saying is, even if my ping is 200 but my reactions is also 200, that does not nullify one another (they are additive, not unison). I have to react in 200ms and then compensate a further 200ms. If my opponent is slower reactions with 300ms, but a ping of 20ms, then they are often better by the matter of reflex alone. One player has to think ahead. The other can just panic and mash the button in the direction of the big bad enemy, not that I use this tactic of course ;)
I did once beat someone on my 56k modem with 350ms ping against their 12ms T-1 line. That was satisfying.
Quote from: esh on Feb 06, 2009, 16:11:13
I did once beat someone on my 56k modem with 350ms ping against their 12ms T-1 line. That was satisfying.
I played games on 56k for years, Got called a HPB loads of times in the game Tribes, I loved sniping with a high ping and was good at it :)
But now, i've been used to a 19ms ping in all games for years and last night i played with a 250ms ping and couldn't hit anything :(
Of course, the 13 cans of Carlsberg didn't help any either. ;D :out:
Quote from: esh on Feb 06, 2009, 16:11:13
..... All I am saying is, even if my ping is 200 but my reactions is also 200, that does not nullify one another (they are additive, not unison). I have to react in 200ms and then compensate a further 200ms. ...
Thanks to the gamers for their insight into the effect of long ping times. You have your personal delay and you have the system delay. This is not unlike shooting pheasants; so long to aim; so long for the shot to get to the bird. As Esh points out these add up and skillful gamers, like skillful shooters aim well ahead of the bird. If everyone has the same gun and is the same distance from the bird, or put another way has the same ping, then the game is fair. With different pings it must be hell.
But the question is what ping really makes a difference between skilled gamers. How about a 100ms? On the ruler drop test you would miss it all the time. May be 50ms?
You see I was thinking if you wanted to be the gamers ISP of choice, what kind of ping should you be assuring. If you figure a large bandwith is not generally needed, but low latency is, could there not be a gamers login using thin fast pipes? Having everyone on the same service might not be the best idea.
Who knows the answer? I know I don't. But a special gamers service seems like a good product idea; a magic bullet. Any takers?
I'm a gamer, but not a FPS type, I race a driving game, rfactor, ping times don't affect as much as the shooters. The main thing that may happen is a car will 'warp', that is instead of the car carrying on in front of you, it jumps about the track as the server has to predict where the car should be. It can result in collisions and even take people out of the race, but that will only happen rarely.
pings have been fine most of the night but as off 5mins ago, they are now high again. :(
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 132 ms 129 ms 171 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 138 ms 150 ms 144 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 148 ms 156 ms 160 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 114 ms 92 ms 79 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 130 ms 136 ms 141 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Paul,
I'm still in the 24 - 32ms range
Mine is all over the place :(
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 129 ms 101 ms 145 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 120 ms 123 ms 126 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 155 ms 160 ms 159 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 137 ms 131 ms 129 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 96 ms 107 ms 101 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 138 ms 226 ms 154 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 63 ms 70 ms 78 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 100 ms 101 ms 100 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 107 ms 100 ms 107 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 123 ms 124 ms 133 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 159 ms 148 ms 148 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 166 ms 150 ms 132 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 152 ms 174 ms 158 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 148 ms 141 ms 152 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 136 ms 134 ms 145 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 131 ms 291 ms 136 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 129 ms 112 ms 116 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 108 ms 136 ms 136 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 104 ms 108 ms 118 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 126 ms 114 ms 120 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 06, 2009, 20:28:01Who knows the answer? I know I don't. But a special gamers service seems like a good product idea; a magic bullet. Any takers?
I'd be the first in the queue. I had five glorious years with Pipex when they were still Pipex. During that time my router was rebooted twice, once for a pre-planned infrastructure upgrade which put me out of business for 10 minutes and once to redecorate the living room. My latency to leased UK gaming servers was 35ms rising to 55ms at peak but rarely if ever any more than that.
I can tell you for sure that adding 50ms to a good player's latency will be noticed as far as FPS games are concerned. MMORPGs are a little more tolerant of higher latencies but even so ping anything over 150ms and you will start to have problems.
It's very hard to quantify just how catastrophic it is to people who do not participate in online gaming but in some cases days or even weeks of hard work can be thrown out of the window just because of high latency. World of Warcraft players lagging on a Polarity Shift at Thaddius or a Lava Wall at Sartharion will know exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't just effect the individual player, it has consequences for the other 24 players involved as far a WoW is concerned.
So the short answer is yes, any ISP offering assurances of low latency for online gaming could make a massive financial killing.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Glenn>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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 = 24ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 28ms
Have you tried a reboot?
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 06, 2009, 21:49:17
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Glenn>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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 = 24ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 28ms
Have you tried a reboot?
Yep, still high.
I did email idnet last night with trace routes and got no reply today.
Getting packet loss now :(
I'm get rightly peeved with this.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms 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 = 117ms, Maximum = 170ms, Average = 138ms
:bawl:
This is going on for over a week now. Starting to feel more like an ISP problem than a problem the ISP is having, if you know what I mean. I have turned off my router for long periods of time (like 2 hours) and it has gotten temporarily better but back to this s*** now. Come on Idnet, don't make me want to look for other providers.
Problems been on & off for me too today, but one thing that wont help is that theres a new patch just been released for cod:waw today, its 500mb & all the download servers are jammed solid, so there will be a lot of traffic today & probably for most of the weekend, making it harder for idnet to isolate the problem & causing more congestion.
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Feb 06, 2009, 21:47:48
I'd be the first in the queue. ........ I can tell you for sure that adding 50ms to a good player's latency will be noticed .............. in some cases days or even weeks of hard work can be thrown out of the window just because of high latency. ............. So the short answer is yes, any ISP offering assurances of low latency for online gaming could make a massive financial killing.
Sounds like a separate low latency product might fly. After all these guys need a break.
(I am not a gamer).
I've just done a test of 50 pings to idnet and got the following result (I won't bore with the detail):
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 41ms, Maximum = 193ms, Average = 123ms
Between 30-40 is typical for my line. Time to run ping graph I think!
Similar here with high ping times >100, reconnected and back to my normal times again.
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 16ms
I've not disconnected but since I've started ping graph I'm back to about 30 with the odd high ping here and there. I'm going to leave it running for a while I think.
What I don't see very well with ping graph is the variation in ping times over a short period of time. If I perform the standard dos ping test x4 recently I often see 2 with normal ping times and the other 2 can be way off. I do not recall seeing this variation before the problems started a week ago.
I think ping graph is good for identifying trends, but as you say, it doesn't necessarily pick up that the reply time changes within a few milli-seconds.
It really has gone a bit bonkers. I'm not an online gamer so ping speeds aren't that crucial, but I've noticed everything goes a bit sluggish when pings go through the roof.
Are these two screenshots normal? The first is late evening and the second is early morning.
More confused than anything if truth be told.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Well the second graph is ideally what most gamers would like to see,I get the same graph more or less from about 12am onward,usually sits at around 11ms then come mid afternoon/evening it bumps up.
the first graph is typically what I and a few others have been getting most evenings where even web browsing is sluggish and online fps gaming is nigh on impossible.
That's pretty much still the picture from my location, very low latency at off-peak and erratic but generally very high latencies at peak.
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Feb 07, 2009, 04:20:45
That's pretty much still the picture from my location, very low latency at off-peak and erratic but generally very high latencies at peak.
Ditto, in Cheshire on GW5.
Ping. ping ping..........ping ping ping.............piiinnnggg...png..png..ping. :nana:
My pings have never been so good. ;D
Quote from: psp83 on Feb 06, 2009, 21:52:36
Yep, still high.
I did email idnet last night with trace routes and got no reply today.
Hi Paul
I've searched and cannot find an email from you, please could you resend?
Thanks
Simon
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 07, 2009, 10:47:26
Hi Paul
I've searched and cannot find an email from you, please could you resend?
Thanks
Simon
Hi simon, its probly from an address not on your records, it will be from my psp83.com address. I will resend again now thou.
There's obviously something going on and yes I have had downtime in the last few weeks, but I must say that my pings have been very stable throughout.
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 20ms
ATM, my average is 24ms with a range from 21-47.
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 07, 2009, 10:47:26
Hi Paul
I've searched and cannot find an email from you, please could you resend?
Thanks
Simon
I've resent the email now, Just checked my mailbox. Got this message back from my hosts.
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent has not yet been delivered to one or more of its recipients after more than 24 hours on the queue on hp13.hostpapa.com.
The message identifier is: 1LVAd5-0003Sw-GO
The subject of the message is: high pings.
The date of the message is: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:15:14 -0000
The address to which the message has not yet been delivered is:
support@idnet.com
Delay reason: SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<support@idnet.com>:
host mx2.idnet.net [212.69.40.49]: 450 <*****@psp83.com>:
Sender address rejected: Greylisted for 5 minutes
No action is required on your part. Delivery attempts will continue for some time, and this warning may be repeated at intervals if the message remains undelivered. Eventually the mail delivery software will give up, and when that happens, the message will be returned to you.
So just incase it happens again, i will also forward you the email from my work email address.
Try support@idnet.net if you still have problems, Paul.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 07, 2009, 11:22:59
Try support@idnet.net if you still have problems, Paul.
I will forward the email to that address from my work emaill account just incase it happens again,
Quote from: jameshurrell on Feb 07, 2009, 11:14:06
There's obviously something going on and yes I have had downtime in the last few weeks, but I must say that my pings have been very stable throughout.
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 20ms
Thanks for your input, James, and :welc: :karma:
Quote from: psp83 on Feb 07, 2009, 11:20:16
I've resent the email now, Just checked my mailbox. Got this message back from my hosts.
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent has not yet been delivered to one or more of its recipients after more than 24 hours on the queue on hp13.hostpapa.com.
The message identifier is: 1LVAd5-0003Sw-GO
The subject of the message is: high pings.
The date of the message is: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:15:14 -0000
The address to which the message has not yet been delivered is:
support@idnet.com
Delay reason: SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<support@idnet.com>:
host mx2.idnet.net [212.69.40.49]: 450 <*****@psp83.com>:
Sender address rejected: Greylisted for 5 minutes
No action is required on your part. Delivery attempts will continue for some time, and this warning may be repeated at intervals if the message remains undelivered. Eventually the mail delivery software will give up, and when that happens, the message will be returned to you.
So just incase it happens again, i will also forward you the email from my work email address.
Hi Paul
A 5xx SMTP response is a permanent error code. We gave a 4xx response which is the Greylisting. It might be worth querying this with your mail host.
Regards
Simon
Doesn't Simon_idnet ever sleep or rest? ;D
No, he is Superman - and I have a signed photo to prove it. ;D
I want on. :blush:
If you ask him nicely... :)
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 07, 2009, 11:25:54
Hi Paul
A 5xx SMTP response is a permanent error code. We gave a 4xx response which is the Greylisting. It might be worth querying this with your mail host.
Regards
Simon
Talk to my hosts? haha, nice joke there :P they are the Tiscali of webhosting and i'm changing this week if i get time so no point :)
I will just email idnet from my work address from now on.
Things have sorted themself out - to an extent.
I was told it would be sorted by Thursday and it may creep into Friday... However i still have 150ms!
Lovely.
I'm averaging 25ms, with spikes to 86 maximum.
Mine were fine running at an average of 23-25ms from o8:00 and went haywire at 12:43 now running anywhere between 35ms and 180ms.
Same here, Ray, things have worsened since my last post. A reset of the PPP session effected no improvement.
I'm going to go and worry about lunch. ;D
I only worry about lack of lunch ;D
Quote from: Rik on Feb 07, 2009, 13:46:52
I'm going to go and worry about lunch. ;D
You're late, Rik, had mine an hour ago, I was hungry. ;)
Had brunch at 10.45. A nice alld day Brekkie in Walton...luverly ;D
Quote from: Sheltieuk on Feb 07, 2009, 13:55:58
You're late, Rik, had mine an hour ago, I was hungry. ;)
I was, I'm much better now. :)
Frustrating is not the word, games unplayable all week unless you play at 4am and having to reboot the router every hour is becoming tiresome.
Any news on when we can expect a resolution?, I keep hearing it is down to congestion but surely it is no worse than before the upgrade?.
[attachment deleted by admin]
As I understand it, the problem has been that since the new central was connected, everyone has ended up on a single pipe, and IDNet have been having to rebalance manually. Unfortunately, the router failure on Tuesday undid all the work until that point, and they have had to start again from scratch.
Certainly, since PPP dropped for me just before lunch, pings have become bad, ie averaging 150ms rather than 24ms.
I am still averageing 34ms. It has been at this forever, I must be lucky.
You're on the frequent flyer connection, Alf. :)
Things certainly seem sluggish today and logoff/on some times changes thinks for better/worse. This does feel like some central are congested. I guess we will have to let Simon and the IDNET Team finish the job.
I agree, Dave.
Pings at the moment are about the worst I have seen. My browsing is sluggish and it is impacting on my VOIP calls.
I really hope that this can be rectified within the next week or I will be forced to look for another ISP, something that I don't want to do.
I can log into my router in Spain and ping bbc.co.uk five times more quickly than from here in Cheshire. Rebooting the router makes no difference.
I really hope a solution is forthcoming.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I've just re-booted my router and got back to normal, JB. Might be worth a try. IDNet are working on peering today, so possibly it's some sort of caching process getting in the way? (Can you tell I have no idea why it worked? :D)
Funny you should day that, Rik, I noticed that Telia has dropped out of the routes I was using to Utah, USA, and most other transatlantics. So clearly a lot of work is going on and maybe that is for the better. I was working on my roots too.
Mine have long been pink, Dave. :)
I think we had better stay away from jokes about pink roots.
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 07, 2009, 15:36:40
Funny you should day that, Rik, I noticed that Telia has dropped out of the routes I was using to Utah, USA, and most other transatlantics. So clearly a lot of work is going on and maybe that is for the better. I was working on my roots too.
I brought the Roots 30th anniversary DVD last week, it arrived today ;)
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 07, 2009, 15:39:43
I think we had better stay away from jokes about pink roots.
Trust me, the hair in the picture is thinner nowadays. :)
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 07, 2009, 15:40:13
I brought the Roots 30th anniversary DVD last week, it arrived today ;)
We haven't seen any deliveries since Wednesday. There will be a mass of mail to deliver next week.
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 07, 2009, 15:40:13
I brought the Roots 30th anniversary DVD last week, it arrived today ;)
Why have you bought a DVD about a long gone car maker?
:rofl: :karmic:
Thanks for that, Rik. Who says banal chatter can't be rewarding.
Not me, I do it all day, Dave. :)
Their history dear fellow, now if you can find me a RootEs Sunbeam Alpine cheap but in great condition ;D
Quote from: Rik on Feb 07, 2009, 15:49:01
Not me, I do it all day, Dave. :)
OK. I'll call by Holyrood and see you in action.
C:\Documents and Settings\rgt>tracert www.idnet.com
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 157 ms 143 ms 132 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 162 ms 162 ms 162 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 132 ms 139 ms 142 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 122 ms 133 ms 135 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 167 ms 154 ms 155 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
The above is after a reboot of router at about 15.30. Was similar yesterday. I am not that bothered but I know how gamers must be feeling........
Re-booting the router just worked for me, Rich. :dunno:
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 07, 2009, 15:52:00
OK. I'll call by Holyrood and see you in action.
I'll be well screened. :)
Quote from: Rik on Feb 07, 2009, 15:54:36
Re-booting the router just worked for me, Rich. :dunno:
It does for a while Rik, but then ping times drift upwards again after an hour or two. Maybe that is connected with what Simon is doing, so I'll sit tight and wait.
Can you run PingGraph, JB. If so, let IDNet have the results of that.
back up again
450 to maidenhead.
Can someone please tell me what is going on?? In simple terms...
Not exactly, Joel. IDNet have been working on their peering today, which seems to have caused some of us to lose PPP for a few minutes at arounf 12:40. Following that, my ping times went from ~24ms to around 160ms. I tried dropping PPP to force a fresh connection, but that didn't help. Simon suggested that I do a full re-boot of the router and that reverted things to normal, though he's at a loss to explain why as I re-connected on the same pipe and there is no congestion on the network today.
If a re-boot doesn't work for you, drop an email to support, ideally with a series of ping results or a PingGraph or similar plot.
Simon said, "None of our pipes are congested today." That is not the same as saying there is no congestion on the network is it? :dunno:
I took it that's what he meant.
My ping times have been a complete joke for last 3 days! i am a regular pc gamer and its just killed any activity for MP gaming wotsoever. i sit next to a phone exchange as usually have average pings of 20ms to uk servers. now i am seeing 150....175ms. and dataflow is terrible ontop.
Tried ringing IDnet on friday at 4pm.... they all went home! "office opening hours till 6 PM" - no one there to answer mid afternoon friday! i try to ring them on monday... unless they are avoiding answering customers. Nothing is wrong with any of my equipment. Its a monthly contract, so they better hurry up and make this right, or i will just move to another isp. i need normal service back plz. my ip is <removed - Rik>
Quote from: davee on Feb 07, 2009, 16:43:07
My ping times have been a complete joke for last 3 days! i am a regular pc gamer and its just killed any activity for MP gaming wotsoever. i sit next to a phone exchange as usually have average pings of 20ms to uk servers. now i am seeing 150....175ms. and dataflow is terrible ontop.
Tried ringing IDnet on friday at 4pm.... they all went home! "office opening hours till 6 PM" - no one there to answer mid afternoon friday! i try to ring them on monday... unless they are avoiding answering customers. Nothing is wrong with any of my equipment. Its a monthly contract, so they better hurry up and make this right, or i will just move to another isp. i need normal service back plz. my ip is <removed- Glenn>.
One of the VPs on one of our Centrals has managed to attract double the normal number of login sessions. A reboot of your router should get you onto another VP whilst we try to get this sorted out, again.
Simon
What Simon said, Davee - I've removed your IP address from your post for safety's sake. Welcome to IDNetters. :welc: :karma:
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 07, 2009, 16:47:15
One of the VPs on one of our Centrals has managed to attract double the normal number of login sessions. A reboot of your router should get you onto another VP whilst we try to get this sorted out, again.
Simon
It'll soon be summer, Simon. ;)
reboot worked for me :thumb:
Same here, Philip. :)
Quote from: Rik on Feb 07, 2009, 16:01:33
Can you run PingGraph, JB. If so, let IDNet have the results of that.
Will do Rik. I'm just about to go out for a few drinks and a curry with a group of friends and will be back late. I'll do it tomorrow if I detect problems then.
thanks, wasn't sure to put my ip up or not there.
i have rebooted my router a number of times. a few times it seemed to clear to thing momemtarily, but then the pings cruised up high again on me. i shall wait a some amount of time for idnet to fix matters, but my gaming time is also effectly money to me - as i pay for co-location on a rack server for my clans servers, so i cannot play in what i am paying out a fair amount for elsewhere, see my situ ;)
Quote from: 6jb on Feb 07, 2009, 16:55:07
Will do Rik. I'm just about to go out for a few drinks and a curry with a group of friends and will be back late. I'll do it tomorrow if I detect problems then.
Have you seen Simon's post about the central?
about normal now
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Philip>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=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms 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 = 27ms, Maximum = 28ms, Average = 27ms
C:\Users\Philip>
Quote from: davee on Feb 07, 2009, 16:55:34
thanks, wasn't sure to put my ip up or not there.
i have rebooted my router a number of times. a few times it seemed to clear to thing momemtarily, but then the pings cruised up high again on me. i shall wait a some amount of time for idnet to fix matters, but my gaming time is also effectly money to me - as i pay for co-location on a rack server for my clans servers, so i cannot play in what i am paying out a fair amount for elsewhere, see my situ ;)
IDNet are aware of the frustration, Davee, and are working over the weekend to try and fix things. Unfortunately, ever since they added a new central, BT's software seems to have conspired against them, congestion one pipe and leaving the others empty. :shake:
Quote from: Philip on Feb 07, 2009, 16:57:04
about normal now
Me too, I've been averaging 24.5ms for the past half hour. :)
Quote from: Rik on Feb 07, 2009, 16:58:13
Me too, I've been averaging 24.5ms for the past half hour. :)
:fingers: we're on the right side now
I'm straight up the middle. :)
Hello guys,
I'm experiencing the high latency issues too, have been getting 140-220 the last week or so, although yesterday it was sub 100, I'm now back up to 190+ pinging 212.69.36.3
Apologies If I am posting out of turn or if this is an already *resolved* issue and my impatience is getting the better of me, I've only ever visited the forums here when I've been having problems with my IDnet connection (thankfully not often :D)- although I believe I am observing the rules here :]
No problems, Cheeky, welcome to the forum. :welc: :karma:
As you'll see a few posts back, IDNet have been hit today by one half of one of their centrals becoming overloaded while the other half was running light. BT's software is meant to even the connections out, but hasn't. They are working to fix it.
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 07, 2009, 16:47:15
One of the VPs on one of our Centrals has managed to attract double the normal number of login sessions. A reboot of your router should get you onto another VP whilst we try to get this sorted out, again.
Simon
:welc: :karma:
Hi Rik,
Ah gotcha and thanks for the speedy response! You must live on here ;D
Thanks again,
jinx
My wife thinks I do. ;D
Reboot made absolutely no difference to mine........180 before, 180 after reboot. T.B.H within an hour they creep back up anyway so constantly rebooting in order to fix a problem obviously not my end is like pee-ing into the wind.
Walking the dog, so will shut down while I am gone and hope the cyber fairies pay my connection a visit whilst it is sleeping.
:rant2:
Let IDNet know, Mo.
My pings have been behaving themselves today, mostly around 35 > 45 except for a spell between 1200 and 1220 when they were 100 > 200 ish. Don't have a ping graph to post, accidentally switched it off instead of minimizing it :blush:
Have not had any drops or disconnections and a speed test at BBMax gave me over 2000 kbps, the first time over 2000 on my present IP Profile. So, things are looking better here, get the weekend out of the way and hopefully everyone will be back to normal
Ian
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms 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=39ms 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 = 36ms, Maximum = 39ms, Average = 37ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>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 192.168.0.1
2 112 ms 50 ms 51 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 36 ms 40 ms 37 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 44 ms 37 ms 35 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 47 ms 47 ms 51 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 36 ms 36 ms 42 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Quote from: DarkStar on Feb 07, 2009, 17:21:34
Don't have a ping graph to post, accidentally switched it off instead of minimizing it :blush:
I do that regularly, Ian. :)
Idnet are working their magic! My latency's come back down from the 200+ area to the 30's-40's wooooooooooooooooooo ;D go idnet!
:thumb:
I'm averaging 25ms for the past hour. :)
Reboot worked for me to. :)
It sounds like we're getting off the wrong half of the central. :)
This is awful! After a reboot as well.
Tracing route to www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * 130 ms 129 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 144 ms 162 ms 144 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 188 ms 192 ms 198 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 184 ms 188 ms 193 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 160 ms 180 ms 172 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Getting worse not better.
Let IDNet know, Juice, they can take a look at which central you are on and see if there's an obvious issue.
Mine's been back to normal since a reboot just after 5:00pm. :thumb:
:fingers:
:)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Looking good, Philip. :thumb:
Yep, certainly looking better. :)
Contacted IDNet and was told to reboot my router as I should eventually get away from the pipe that's giving them trouble. I left my router off for an hour and it is better but still nearly double my normal ping and the odd spikes are still affecting me. Hopefully OK by Monday as I have a clan cup match. Appreciate the hard work I'm sure the team are putting in. It's Saturday night so maybe I should just go out and get drunk, lol.
Tracing route to www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms 6 ms 3 ms 192.168.1.1
2 46 ms 47 ms 108 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 47 ms 52 ms 54 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 51 ms 56 ms 54 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 37 ms 37 ms 38 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 38 ms 38 ms 44 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Download speed and upload are going just fine, but im still pinging nearly 300 to London.
This is unbearable.
Yeh my pings have just hit the roof again "fun times"
It looks to me like a router just fell over.
I have not logged any problems since I powered up this am. Pings are better than yesterday and in the range 40-100. Though the average has crept up from 40's to 70's, like I have more company on my VP/central recently. Overall, I think we may be getting there.
What is clear is that a lot of serious gamers, many of whom rarely post, are really blindsided and pigged off with recent problems. Lets hope we can persuade them to give IDNET a chance to turn this around, as I am sure they will.
They will, Dave, but I suspect that, for some, they need to do it soon. I'm beginning to go grey following this week. ;D
Lost connectivity about 1450, couldn't get to any site - router internet light didn't go out but the ping graph showed loads of red lines so after 5 mins or so I disconnected from within the router (Netgear) and then reconnected about 30 secs later, connected in a couple of seconds, pings are now :thumb:
See the two ping graphs the first this morning and now.
[attachment deleted by admin]
It's looking like things are becoming unbalanced again
Similar here, Ian. The outage was from 14:47-15:00.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 08, 2009, 15:47:28
It's looking like things are becoming unbalanced again
In what sense, Glenn.
Ping times are on the rise again
[attachment deleted by admin]
Mine have stayed down in the 22-26ms range so far... I wonder if your PPP dropped, Glenn?
No nothing since I retrained the router this morning
INF 2009-02-08T10:14:38Z sys: Successfully logged into a password protected page
INF 2009-02-08T10:15:13Z sys: dnstest0: connection lost, reconnecting...
INF 2009-02-08T10:15:37Z sys: ppp0: Up with ipv4 service on pppoa0
INF 2009-02-08T10:15:37Z sys: ipnet0: Up on ppp0 with xxxxxxxxxxxx/32212.69.63.55
INF 2009-02-08T10:15:37Z sys: DNS up DNS1:212.69.36.3, DNS2:212.69.40.3
INF 2009-02-08T10:15:37Z sys: Pinhole added on broadband=xxxxxxxxxxx, home=192.168.1.64 appid=-1, port=63961
INF 2009-02-08T15:39:27Z sys: Successfully logged into a password protected page
Might be worth a re-boot then, but this shouldn't still be happening. :(
Mine have been fine all day apart from the problem about an hour ago.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Similar graph to mine, Ray, about 24ms average with occasional spikes.
Mine have just gone back to normal with a reboot
Here we go again !
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 212.69.36.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 144/155/168 ms
cisco877>ping idnet.net
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 212.69.36.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 136/148/160 ms
Re-boot time? :(
Does a router require 5+ reboots a day ? As in the other post everything has been very stable since the capacity and router swap. Something is wrong somewhere unless the routing is still converging.
It shouldn't do, no, but things aren't quite right at IDNet.
It seems to be settling down again
Quote from: uxbod on Feb 08, 2009, 16:16:34
Does a router require 5+ reboots a day ? As in the other post everything has been very stable since the capacity and router swap. Something is wrong somewhere unless the routing is still converging.
I can't answer that, tbh. I've re-booted my router more in the past week than I have in the past two years, and some of the time it has helped. In the absence of anything definitive from IDNet, it's the
only suggestion for self-help that I can make. :(
Bah, bad pings here as well for most of the weekend, am suffering PPP drop outs as well, it has been rock solid for a long time, sadly the upgrades recently have somewhat unsettled things, I really hope it settles down soon :)
I think we all do
just to let guys know, still bad pings also for me. extremely flucuating pings, then remains high pings.
This is my plot for the past hour...
[attachment deleted by admin]
Mine were ok for about an hour then went up again. It does feel like we all end up eventually using the same pipe
Weird and frustrating, eh Steve. :(
I agree, I just rebooted my router twice, I'm now getting 130ms + pings
That sounds like what happened to me yesterday, Glenn, Simon was watching as I re-booted, and I re-connected to the same central. :(
I cannot game with pings 150ms onwards
Its not very fun at all
When will this be sorted? Im getting a bit impatient - have they made any statements lately?
They haven't, Sam. :(
I just restarted my router because my latency was rising by the minute. Apologies for the wall of text but this paints an interesting picture. High latency, no P/L pre reset followed by low latency with some P/L after the reboot. Not what I would have expected really.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.idnet.com -n 50
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 78ms, Maximum = 172ms, Average = 138ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping www.idnet.com -n 50
Pinging www.idnet.com [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=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
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=13ms 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=14ms TTL=59
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=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms 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=14ms 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=12ms TTL=59
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=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms 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=14ms 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=14ms 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=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms 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=15ms 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=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 49, Lost = 1 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 13ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
I have setup smokeping to keep an eye on things :-
IDNET SmokePing (http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping/smokeping.cgi?target=network.IDNET)
Not seeing anything there. :(
Try again Rik ;)
No, just idnet.net and a blank screen. :(
Doh! Darn split DNS ;) *Should* be fine now !
Pings still going from bad to normal then bad quite frequently, its bad right now with 100-200ms. Rebooting hasn't resolved it in this case.
Any update from IDNet? Their last was on 2009-02-02 on the status page.
Now I have it. My pings have collapsed in the past hour.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Works now :laugh:
Im getting really frustrated as of now
Thought it would have been sorted whilst i was away at the weekend
Heya All
Just thought I would log in and say I have been suffering from similar issues as most people on here, seem to only log on here when I have a problem, which fortunately doesn't seem that often, although of late the high pings are becoming more and more of an issue. My other half is a gaming man, and needs the connection in the evening, I use a laptop on the wireless network. I am finding that I can't even surf seemingly low gfx sites without affecting the ping so he notices it in gameplay. We have done the reboots of the router, more this past few days than any other time. To be honest it doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference. Hoping things get sorted soon, same as everyone else!
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/406995616.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
thought would add my speedtest, 20 mins ago I got a 43 ms ping - very irregular. Quite hard to snipe on CODwaw with a connection interupt so I am informed! My hubbys shouts "what you doing on the net now?" will forever haunt me too!!
Helen x
Hi Helen
We all hope it gets sorted, not least IDNet I suspect.
Will the fact that everyone and their dog seems to be pinging idnet at the moment have an adverse effect? :dunno: Or am I just being dim as usual :whistle:
56bytes every 5 minutes should be no problem at all ;)
Quote from: hellyl on Feb 08, 2009, 18:14:59
Heya All
Just thought I would log in and say I have been suffering from similar issues as most people on here, seem to only log on here when I have a problem, which fortunately doesn't seem that often, although of late the high pings are becoming more and more of an issue. My other half is a gaming man, and needs the connection in the evening, I use a laptop on the wireless network. I am finding that I can't even surf seemingly low gfx sites without affecting the ping so he notices it in gameplay. We have done the reboots of the router, more this past few days than any other time. To be honest it doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference. Hoping things get sorted soon, same as everyone else!
Helen x
Hi Helen welcome :karma: :fingers:
My pings are averaging at least double the normal. I hope IDNet get this sorted sooner rather than later as I fear it could do some long term damage to their customer base and reputation.
It certainly may have an impact, Philip, but it shouldn't be too dramatic, not enough to explain, for example, an increase form 24ms to 300+ms for me. Exchange congestion and internet load may be coming into play at this time of day, though.
Quote from: Lance on Feb 08, 2009, 18:25:21
My pings are averaging at least double the normal. I hope IDNet get this sorted sooner rather than later as I fear it could do some long term damage to their customer base and reputation.
Heya Lance.
Have to agree with you there, while I am not the type to say after the first problem, right thats it I am off. The current climate being they way it is and paying a higher than average price for an internet connection, its becoming more and more tempting to go for a lower priced isp. I really don't want to up ship and move as have until recently been impressed with IDNET's connection. Its just knowing when to draw the line I suppose.
Helen x
We understand, Helen, we're all a bit frustrated this week.
I agree, Helen. I don't game so pings are critical for me, but you do notice a general slowness if they get too high. I think it is only fair to give an ISP time to sort a problem but the question is how long do you give them? Also to be taken into consideration is how the ISP has been in the past and what the known outlook is for the future (ie IDNet have just got masses of new capactity so there shouldn't be congestion).
Well i just lost all http:// for about 10 mins, MSN messenger was working fine though. ???
unless the balancing has gone to pot again :mad: sometimes you are at mercy of your upstream provider and their SLAs; so I sympathise with IDNET and their current struggles.
Apparently, today's problem was with BT. :(
That makes sense
Quote from: Rik on Feb 08, 2009, 18:42:01
Apparently, today's problem was with BT. :(
Still problems somewhere though, Pings are up and down still and i lost http:// for about 10mins (msn messenger was fine)
I can't get any more information atm, Paul. :(
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/IDNET_mini.png)
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/GOOGLE_mini.png)
HTTP was fine here, Paul. :-\
Quote from: Lance on Feb 08, 2009, 18:46:59
HTTP was fine here, Paul. :-\
I lost it too, only for a couple of minutes though ::)
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 95 ms 88 ms 80 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 123 ms 88 ms 86 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 131 ms 141 ms 137 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 103 ms 99 ms 125 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 130 ms 130 ms 124 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Time for another router reboot! :(
Could you try running PingGraph or similar, Paul, to produce a broader view?
Here is my ping graph for the last hour or so. I'm going to restart PPP to see if that helps things.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Here's mine, I didn't, but you can see the dramatic fall off and recovery.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Rik on Feb 08, 2009, 19:23:53
Could you try running PingGraph or similar, Paul, to produce a broader view?
Link please?
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms 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=32ms 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 = 32ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 33ms
C:\Users\David>
:dunno:
Im only posting in a bid to help....no more
Quote from: psp83 on Feb 08, 2009, 19:28:56
Link please?
http://www.vwlowen.co.uk/moreinternet/files.htm
Quote from: Lance on Feb 08, 2009, 19:27:22
Here is my ping graph for the last hour or so. I'm going to restart PPP to see if that helps things.
Well, I've restarted PPP and the graph looks just the same as before I reset it. So if everybody wouldn't mind getting off my VP and pipe... ;D
Your pings look fine in reply #546, David. :)
:thumb: :thnks:
If you can tell me which one you're on, Lance, I'll work out whether I'm the problem. ;)
Someone let us know if this is likely to be fixed or not. Cos I'm about ready to move if not. I'm on GW5, is there a particular problem there?
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms 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 = 148ms, Maximum = 171ms, Average = 158ms
From my experience resetting the PPP/restarting router or whatever doesnt seem to help that much
may as well sit it through until pings drop temporary/idnet fix it
When i reset my PPP/session, sure, sometimes i get low pings - but these only last for like 20 mins :bawl:
I hope we get an update soon, or a fix cause im getting close to giving Zen a try :thumbd: dont want to do that
Yep its been a bad day again eh :bawl:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=124
Cod4 is suffering
As is the server hosted on idnet
I cant hit anything (gotta blame somethin eh)
For those who dont game, i find anything over 40ms horrible to play with as will most gamers
Oh come on,who changed the status form Sub optimal back to good,please pull the other one,such gross lies :no:
http://www.idnet.net/support/status.jsp
Quote from: mrapoc on Feb 08, 2009, 21:47:12
For those who dont game, i find anything over 40ms horrible to play with as will most gamers
I just played to clan matches on 150ms mate,about as much fun as trying to run through cement
This is not a problem local to GW5 - I'm on DSL4 and also having problems. My ping graph is showing an average ping of just under 80 based on just over 3 hours.
Quote from: mrapoc on Feb 08, 2009, 21:47:12
Cod4 is suffering
As is the server hosted on idnet
I cant hit anything (gotta blame somethin eh)
For those who dont game, i find anything over 40ms horrible to play with as will most gamers
coooooooo yes, I am not the gamer, but hubby is and if I hear anymore, "what website you on now - dont go on there till half time!" I totally agree anything over 40 is bad, anything over 100 is terrible, the nagging and moaning I hear from hubby is terrible! He plays in a clan all very serious and organised, he doesnt play every night of the week, but at the moment hes drops to let others play just because of his pings, hes a very sad cod player at the mo, all together now awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Here are my latest ping results, much lower than earlier.
C:\Users\Lance>ping idnet.net -n 10
Pinging 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=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms 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=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms 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 = 28ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 31ms
If only it was consistently like this.
C:\Documents and Settings\vitriol>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=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 21ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 22ms
Much better than Saturday night, trying to play on Xbox Live was a joke, infact it was so bad I turned the Xbox off and talked to the missus!!!!!
Since 11.30pm it appears to have stabilised :-
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/IDNET_mini.png)
Hmmm strange
Straight from the router
Pinging [212.69.36.10] 30 times with: 64 bytes of data
ping successful: icmp_seq=0 time=32 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=1 time=26 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=2 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=3 time=25 ms
From Dos
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Glenn>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=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms 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 = 98ms, Maximum = 141ms, Average = 118ms
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 161 ms 170 ms 155 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 165 ms 153 ms 159 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 65 ms 64 ms 70 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 114 ms 119 ms 131 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 112 ms 103 ms 96 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
That doesn't make sense, at least to me. :(
Been excellent here since yesterday afternoon.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Rik on Feb 09, 2009, 10:41:50
That doesn't make sense, at least to me. :(
Doesn't to me either ???
Not too dissimilar here, Ray.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 09, 2009, 10:44:25
Doesn't to me either ???
That's a relief. :) The only thing I can think of is a DNS issue in Windows.
I get 20ms pinging idnet.net from the router and 23ms from Windows.
Fairly comparable, Ray.
Router:
ping successful: icmp_seq=0 time=23 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=1 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=2 time=26 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=3 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=4 time=25 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=5 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=6 time=25 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=7 time=25 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=8 time=25 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=9 time=20 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=10 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=11 time=23 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=12 time=25 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=13 time=25 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=14 time=26 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=15 time=26 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=16 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=17 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=18 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=19 time=22 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=20 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=21 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=22 time=23 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=23 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=24 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=25 time=22 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=26 time=22 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=27 time=22 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=28 time=24 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=29 time=23 ms
Windows:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
ping www.idnet.net -n 10
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
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=33ms 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 = 31ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 31ms
C:\Users\David>
I wonder if you line is interleaved, David?
Shall I check router Rik ?
What is interleaving? What are its pros and cons? Can I request it to be switched off?
Interleaving is a feature of Up to 8Mb Broadband technology which uses powerful error-correction algorithms to improve broadband speed and stability on long or noisy phone lines. It is employed on BT broadband lines.
Whilst interleaving increases both the speed and stability of your broadband service, it can also increase the delay (latency) of a broadband connection by up to 40ms. Whilst not noticeable to most users, this can adversely affect some highly delay-sensitive applications such as certain online games.
Though not recommended, if you wish interleaving to be permanently switched off on your line, please contact us, allowing five working days for the change to be enabled. If you subsequently find your line performance has worsened and decide you would like interleaving re-enabled, then please contact us as above.
Im none the wiser ,oh yes I am
Look at:
http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=J02&THISPAGE=J42&NEXTPAGE=J02
You want the DSL channel in the second block of data.
This last post was sent to my phishing manager Rik,turned red and an alarm sounded when I clicked on it :dunno:
Im thinking it was the link ?
Broadband Link – Summary
Connection Information
Broadband Connection: Built in modem - ADSL
Current Status: Fully Operational
DSL Connection Details
Broadband Link
DSL Line (Wire Pair): Line 1 (inner pair)
Protocol: G.DMT Annex A
DSL Channel: Interleaved
DSLAM: Country: {0xB5} Vendor: {TSTC} Specific: {0x00}
ATM PVC Info: 0/38
ATM Encapsulation: Routed LLC
ISP Details
ISP Connection
Connection Type: PPPoA
User Name:
IP Address Range: <IP address removed - Rik>
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.255
Gateway: 212.69.63.55
Primary DNS: 212.69.40.3
Secondary DNS: 212.69.36.3
Host Name
Domain Name:
MTU: 1500
Spoof MAC Address:
Taken phone number off Rik just noted it was on the page :no:
So was your IP address. ;) The page you are looking for is Broadband link - Summary, at the top of the menu.
QuoteThe page you are looking for is Broadband link - Summary, at the top of the menu.
That is all that comes up on summary page Rik.found stats etc :dunno:
The screen should look something like this, David.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Thats the page I posted Rik ???
So it is, I must get my eyes tested. :blush:
You have interleaving on, so it might be worth asking support to get it turned off.
I will send you an appointment ;D
Still it was a good tour around the router :thumb:
I will ask them :thnks:
Contacted support with luck it will be off tomorrow,allow 24 hours,so with BT I will allow a week,will I notice any difference ? :dunno:
BT are usually quite fast on this one, David. Your ping times will probably drop by about 20ms when it's been done.
That sounds good what will it result in, I assume a more stable connection ?as I never play on-line gaming will the over all effect be that noticeable ?
I don't think you'll notice much, David. Only gamers and those using VOIP are really troubled by ping times. Interleaving can actually speed up throughout if the line is error prone, but if that is the case, the BT software will probably switch interleaving back on.
Another learning curve for me......Thanks Rik apprecited :thumb:
>:(
Everytime I log on in recent days, my ping has been way too high. Cannot possibly go on to my COD4 servers with pings like these:
PING 193.200.158.60 (193.200.158.60): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=0 ttl=122 time=190.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=170.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=122 time=145.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=122 time=165.0 ms
--- 193.200.158.60 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 145.0/167.5/190.0 ms
Can anyone shed any light on how long this is going to go on? I may have to look to going to another ISP, and I really don't want to do that!
snaggie Have you tried rebooting your router? but for a definitive answer you will be best contacting the IDNet support team
All we can say is that IDNet are working on the problem as fast as possible. If you contact them, they can see whether you're on a congested pipe and, if necessary, move you to another. (The irony is that, since they added more capacity, they've suffered from congestion on some pipes while others remain empty.
Quote from: snaggie on Feb 09, 2009, 15:42:27
>:(
Everytime I log on in recent days, my ping has been way too high. Cannot possibly go on to my COD4 servers with pings like these:
PING 193.200.158.60 (193.200.158.60): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=0 ttl=122 time=190.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=170.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=122 time=145.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=122 time=165.0 ms
--- 193.200.158.60 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 145.0/167.5/190.0 ms
Can anyone shed any light on how long this is going to go on? I may have to look to going to another ISP, and I really don't want to do that!
ping idnet.net and posts the results for that please.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 09, 2009, 15:46:11
All we can say is that IDNet are working on the problem as fast as possible. If you contact them, they can see whether you're on a congested pipe and, if necessary, move you to another. (The irony is that, since they added more capacity, they've suffered from congestion on some pipes while others remain empty.
though dependent on where that server is it could just be slow due to a congested UK internet while the weather is bad. Hence pinging idnet.net as that should be the shortest run across the IDNET network IMHO. Current stats for that are :-
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/IDNET_mini.png)
Mine are...
[attachment deleted by admin]
Mine climbed to over 170ms at lunchtime, I only checked because I was getting data loss with pages not opening, I rebooted and they went back to the 25 - 30ms range.
What I don't understand is why the reboots sometimes work, Glenn. When I did on Friday, I re-connected to the same central, but things were better? :dunno:
I have no idea, it's not something I know anything about, but this (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/BTCentrals.htm) is interesting
Quotesnaggie Have you tried rebooting your router? but for a definitive answer you will be best contacting the IDNet support team
Thanks. Have rebooted my router, and got these results:
PING 193.200.158.60 (193.200.158.60): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=0 ttl=122 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=122 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 193.200.158.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=122 time=35.0 ms
--- 193.200.158.60 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 35.0/35.0/35.0 ms
Just what it should be. I haven't pinged IDNet yet as I do not know there IP (sorry). Still don't understand why I should have to reboot the router ? ???
I know the latest central was a 155, so I wonder about this:
Quotequote ref SIN 412 page 5
BT will support a mixture of 155Mbits/s L2TP Passthrough and 622Mbits/sec Edgeless L2TP passthrough – however customers should note that such a mix will cause an imbalance in traffic between the two central types. This imbalance is due to the different numbers of LTSs used per unit of central bandwidth within the two central designs - as new sessions are evenly distributed over LTSs within a One to Many group. This imbalance is somewhat offset by the increase of bandwidth offered by 622Mbits/sec L2TP central. The 622Mbit/sec design offers a 23% improvement in bandwidth over the equivalent number of 155Mbit/sec BT centrals. The 155Mbps design uses 2 LTSs and provides approximately 56.5Mbits/sec (of end user IP traffic) per LTS. The 622Mbits/sec design uses a total of 12 LTSs and provides 46.3Mbits/sec (of end user IP traffic) per LTS. Consequently, when mixing 155Mbps and 622Mbps centrals in the same one to many group the 155Mbits/sec centrals will be approximately 18% under-utilised i.e. when traffic has reached the full rating of the 622Mbps central the 155Mbps centrals will have reached only 82% of their rated capacity.
Nice find, Glenn. :thumb:
Quote from: snaggie on Feb 09, 2009, 16:08:44
Just what it should be. I haven't pinged IDNet yet as I do not know there IP (sorry). Still don't understand why I should have to reboot the router ? ???
What's normal for you - there's a lot of factors at play in ping times. IDNet are at 212.69.36.10.
Re-booting forces a re-connection which often moves you to a new, and less congested, pipe.
Ping provides a rule of thumb of how things are performing though it would be better to see a traceroute (tracert for windbloze users). When I was seeing the issue over the weekend I tried from a number of US sources to IDNET and they were all sub 30s.
Thank you. I pinged IDNet with the following results:
PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=30.0 ms
--- 212.69.36.10 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 30.0/33.7/35.0 ms
These timings seem very reasonable to me, and are about what they used to be. I still do not understand why I should have to reboot my router to get these results? It was never the case before about 10 days ago :-\
I've explained that IDNet has had problems of unbalanced loads following the addition of a new central, the re-boot will probably have moved you to an uncongested pipe.
Mine are ok this evening which is excellent news. Glenn's link was very educational esp the round robin and the problems associated with differing central capacities. Are we aware of what capacity the other centrals are as looking at that link mixing the two doesn't work
We're not, Steve, but I know the new one is a 155.
My pings are poor for the 3rd time today, back in the 100 - 135ms range, I have already rebooted 2 or 3 times today
My average remains below 27ms, but it's a little higher than this morning, and definitely more spiky, which I put down to exchange activity.
My pings at the moment seem fine - I've just started Pinggraph so I can watch them over the evening. :)
You do that, I'm going to watch my food and a game of rugby that I didn't get to yesterday. ;D :bye:
I wouldn't, enjoy your dinner
That bad? :)
Quote from: Rik on Feb 09, 2009, 19:29:22
That bad? :)
They played better than England if that's any good
Del by Dave - Nae mair banter. :zip:
C:\Users\vitriol>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=108ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms 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 = 108ms, Maximum = 145ms, Average = 128ms
No gaming for me tonight then :(
My pings have settled down nicely now, been like this since I posted yesterday :thumb:
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms 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
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 35ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 35ms
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 37 ms 38 ms 36 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 44 ms 36 ms 36 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 39 ms 35 ms 36 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 36 ms 36 ms 37 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 37 ms 38 ms 37 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Here is my current graph. It's important to note that there are three of us using the connection at the moment which may way upset the pings a little.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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 = 18ms, Maximum = 221ms, Average = 78ms
No games for me either tonight!
:welc: :karma:
My pings at the moment seem pretty consistent and are in their normal range of between 30 and 40ms. The only thing I can suggest is that you reboot your router.
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
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=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms 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
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 32ms
Quote from: davej99 on Feb 09, 2009, 19:52:51
Del by Dave - Nae mair banter. :zip:
It's just an effort to keep threads like this a little more concise and factual. :)
Lost http about 30 minutes ago, although Trillian remained connected to ICQ, Yahoo and MSN as I didn't lose sync.
As rebooting the router appears to be only a temporary fix for the individual customer (myself included), it's obvious that there still be gremlins within IDNet's new capacity.
Surely a daily update from IDNet posted on this forum wouldn't be that difficult and I'm slightly surprised it hasn't happened already. Nothing detailed mind, just a simple progress report in Service Announcements.
When my pings are good they're very very good, but when they're bad they're horrid...
Pinging 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=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms 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 = 14ms, Average = 13ms
Hey ho.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I too would like to see some further communication from Idnet on this issue.
Quote from: Lance on Feb 09, 2009, 22:51:52
:welc: :karma:
My pings at the moment seem pretty consistent and are in their normal range of between 30 and 40ms. The only thing I can suggest is that you reboot your router.
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
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=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms 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
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 32ms
Thanks I'd already tried that but no success. I'll log a call tomorrow, they can add it to the pile I'm sure they have. I'm running Ping Graph now so will send that to them as well
my ping times keep bouncing bad right this minute,up to 3000 yes not a typo 3000ms :/ i keep dropping off msn irc and ingame every few minutes
Mine and a few other's pings here are hovering around 25-35, its ok, but nothing near the usual 15-16 we normally get.
my ping last night...
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: psp83 on Feb 10, 2009, 08:04:15
my ping last night...
Looks very simmilar to mine from last night, this morning its very stable at an average of 25ms. Ping charts have been emails to IDnet yesterday.
Helen x
Quote from: drummer on Feb 09, 2009, 23:11:01
Lost http about 30 minutes ago, although Trillian remained connected to ICQ, Yahoo and MSN as I didn't lose sync.
The red patch on the graph, Drummer, was when something fell over and IDNet's website, the forum and mail became unavailable. The pings then time out and produce the red patch. Something similar happened on Sunday from 14:47-15:00.
We think we are making good progress with the latency problem. We're certainly receiving far fewer complaints (which must be a good sign!). One of our VPs is still showing suspiciously few active sessions which indicates that it is not being properly utilised. BT are looking into this for us.
The red patch on Drummers ping plot last night was the aftermath of a fibre cut in Amsterdam which brought down all our peers over there and caused our Redbus core router to recalculate all its paths.
If you want to run a ping plot then our Telehouse nameserver (on 212.69.40.3) is probably a better target as our website has quite a workload and so may give more variable results.
Regards
Simon
Thanks for the update, Simon. I think the world is conspiring against you at the moment. :(
Or, at least, the Dutch. ::)
Geen Terugtocht, Geen Overgave... het Netwerk is van ons :evil:
:ithank: Simon...I will leave it to you,I pinged twice but it proved double Dutch ;D
Thanks again :thumb:
Well after posting that my pings have leveled again this morning, started the ping plotter around 11am and they up and down like a yo yo, ping graphs can become a little obsessive I have found ;D. Hopefully will all be sorted soon. :fingers:
Helen x
Thanks for the info Rik and Simon. Am now using 212.69.40.3.
Thanks for the update, Simon. :)
Certainly still appears to be somewhat erratic
Edit: I never pressed post goodness knows what happened then :blush:
I have not a problem my daughters schools computers had problems on the net today so its the exchange works
Certainly still appears to be somewhat erratic, the spikes are still very evident from my end
212.69.40.3
[attachment deleted by admin]
Mine have been pretty good today. I use PingGraph to log anything over 40ms. These are they from 8:30 until now:
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:17:32, 48ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:24:02, 42ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:47:22, 238ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:47:32, 184ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:47:42, 268ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:56:02, 108ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:56:12, 106ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:57:32, 201ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:58:12, 42ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 09:59:42, 143ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 10:03:12, 209ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 10:03:22, 158ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 10:14:11, 47ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 10:25:31, 216ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:02:35, 255ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:02:45, 63ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:06:45, 258ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:06:55, 182ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:07:15, 48ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:47:25, 61ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:49:35, 103ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:49:45, 90ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:50:25, 260ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:50:35, 94ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:51:05, 153ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 14:55:15, 64ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:03:45, 62ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:13:35, 93ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:13:45, 292ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:13:55, 225ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:16:25, 90ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:20:45, 161ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:22:18, 3000ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:41:24, 45ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 15:55:37, 3000ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 16:13:04, 50ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 16:20:34, 44ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 16:35:47, 3000ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 16:38:24, 45ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 16:40:57, 3000ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 16:56:57, 3000ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:10:44, 48ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:41:54, 45ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:42:24, 43ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:43:14, 88ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:44:24, 51ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:44:34, 98ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:45:14, 45ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:50:14, 42ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 17:50:44, 53ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:02:44, 41ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:05:54, 89ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:06:14, 53ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:06:24, 45ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:06:34, 84ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:06:44, 43ms
Tue 10 Feb 2009 18:08:14, 42ms
Average was 24ms.
:bye: Dinner is calling
Quote from: stevethegas on Feb 10, 2009, 18:44:11
Certainly still appears to be somewhat erratic, the spikes are still very evident from my end
What were you pinging, Steve?
Quote from: Rik on Feb 10, 2009, 18:46:25
What were you pinging, Steve?
Sorry 212.69.40.3
Might be worth letting support have your graphs then, Steve, because they are very different from mine.
Soaring back up again :/
Tracing route to resolver1.idnet.net [212.69.40.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 147 ms 130 ms 163 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 178 ms 168 ms 167 ms telehouse-gw1-fa0-0.400.idnet.net [212.69.63.241]
4 179 ms 172 ms 168 ms resolver1.idnet.net [212.69.40.3]
Thanks for the update, Simon.
having problems also:
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 117, Received = 116, Lost = 1 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 101ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 160ms
in fairness mine are pretty steady, just 5x the normal :-)
edit: just rang my landline from mobile (this drops the sync to exchange still) so router tried sync'ing a few times b4 I hung up, it's sync'ed at almost same speed but now the ping results are:
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 127, Received = 127, Lost = 0 (0% los
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 114ms, Average = 47ms
I had reset ADSL line earlier but I didn't powercycle it (nor this time) but it seems to have done something
bbc.co.uk is back to 28ms
jolt.co.uk is 33ms
IDnet.com back to 25ms
all were ~130ms a few minutes earlier
Now on SuperMax service :-
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/idnet_mini.png)to the DNS server.
supermax here also, but am interleaved 1312/736 kbps
Need to check router when home ... VoIP has been far better tonight though :)
Its still just as bad for me, Ping is all over the place. Ah well, I'll just keep logging and sending them in to support.
wow, what was that? Had massive packetloss just then
Just lost connection ?
same thing here
See other thread started Matt.....sorry my fault for posting here sorry
To be positive, we are seeing less complaints here of slow pings which means either or both of two things:
1. The issue is being sorted by idnet and those still affected should continue to log and report to support.
2. People have used a mac code!
Connection is better tonight for me, had 10 - 15mins earlier this evening when pings was high but sorted itself out without a reboot needed, a few high spikes since then (not including the no connection issue in the other thread)
So hopefully IDnet will be back to its normal self by the end of the week.
I'd like to stay positive but setting aside the continual fluctuating latency my connection just dropped while I was in the middle of applying a security patch to a vBulletin message board and it appears I've killed it. What should have been a 30 minute job has potentially turned into days of work and I can already feel a truck load of hate and loathing coming my way from hundreds of disgruntled users. I can't say I'm too happy just now.
That sucks, as they say. :(
Sorry to hear that, Zap. Can you not revert to a backup?
I got hacked off with the constant 404's for 5-10 mins a time over the last few weeks, trying out https://www.opendns.com as we speak, so far a definite improvement in load times. As for stability, we'll see.
I've been using OpenDNS for ages now and I think it's great.
Quote from: Sebby on Feb 11, 2009, 00:25:32
I've been using OpenDNS for ages now and I think it's great.
Wish I'd known sooner Sebby, would of saved me a whole load of earache from angry women :D
Quote from: Lance on Feb 10, 2009, 23:00:32
To be positive, we are seeing less complaints here of slow pings which means either or both of two things:
1. The issue is being sorted by idnet and those still affected should continue to log and report to support.
2. People have used a mac code!
Or to be negative, support haven't suggested who should post anything to anywhere. Rik has, but I haven't seen any suggestions from IDNet on this very important issue.
I'm only posting my ping stats here so others can compare or discuss as it doesn't seem to be having much impact here, but I'm aware the upgrade has gone a bit pear-shaped. Browsing has gone sluggish though but that's not the end of the world.
It's a given that IDNet will do everything they can to get things back to normal but their virtual silence in the last couple of weeks has taken me completely by surprise.
Not thinking of leaving, just surprised by the lack of information from IDNet.
Quote from: Lance on Feb 10, 2009, 23:00:32
To be positive, we are seeing less complaints here of slow pings which means either or both of two things:
1. The issue is being sorted by idnet and those still affected should continue to log and report to support.
2. People have used a mac code!
Lance You forgot option 3.Hung themselves,or / wrists.
Back on Topic,ping times tonight went dreadful around the usual times up to 400ms,just now I have had web browsing failure and not to mention loss of service earlier including numerous
disconnects and clunky browsing,almost making me wish I was back on Isdn.
Am still having issues too, had the disconnect last night (poor hubby mid cod match!) Am even turning the laptop off during cod games so not to disrupt the ping anymore than necessary - understanding wifey that I am! Pings not so bad this morning again. Seems from lunch time they start becoming more and more irratic.
H x
Quote from: Desaan on Feb 11, 2009, 00:23:42
I got hacked off with the constant 404's for 5-10 mins a time over the last few weeks, trying out https://www.opendns.com as we speak, so far a definite improvement in load times. As for stability, we'll see.
Just a quick heads up on that. A growing number of gaming companies will not allow you to connect to their servers using this type of service. Blizzard in particular will place an automatic ban on your account when they detect it so World of Warcraft players will want to avoid it at all costs.
Quote from: Simon on Feb 11, 2009, 00:19:19
Sorry to hear that, Zap. Can you not revert to a backup?
I've raised a ticket with the hosting company to see if there's a possibility of restoring the site from backup. I have a backup copy of all the SQL databases but not the vBulletin installation.
It shouldn't have happened, I believe vBulletin would normally pick up from where it was left hanging but from what I can see I didn't actually lose my connection last night it was some sort of massive (10 minute?) lag spike. I can only guess that I sent an inappropriate chain of commands via an FTP client or a browser while my connection was lagging. Whatever happened the installation is a total write off.
Rather ironically I've been leaching off my next door neighbour's wireless (with key and permission) for gaming this last week but reverted to my IDNet connection to update the the vBulletin installation because I thought it would be a safer bet :'(
Quote from: drummer on Feb 11, 2009, 01:30:19
their virtual silence in the last couple of weeks has taken me completely by surprise.
Hi Tim
I've been posting in here almost daily. But if you ever want to discuss anything specifically please just phone us or email us at any time.
We don't have much to add since yesterday: one of the VPs on one of our Centrals seems to be attracting a greater number of logins than the others and so has been getting congested. A simple router reboot should move you to a different VP (though it is not impossible to and back on the same, greedy, one).
Regards
Simon
Thanks for the update. Any idea what happened last night, it seemed to have effect most of the members posting here?
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Feb 11, 2009, 09:43:52
Thanks for the update. Any idea what happened last night, it seemed to have effect most of the members posting here?
It looks like there was a routing blip over on Linx last night.
S
Just an update interleaving is now turned off :thnks: again it now reads Fast
How are your pings looking?
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping idnet.net
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=14ms 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 = 14ms, Average = 12ms
Can't complain at them. :thumb:
:thumb: Thanks Rik.....
Jusut popping out speak soon :thumb:
:bye:
I suppose he had to go out at some point! ;D
:whistle:
I'm keeping quiet. :)
I didnt ;D
Thanks for your reply Simon. I guess I expected to see updates in Service Announcements but as it's not really a gripe, I'll say no more.
No specific problems, it's just that I didn't want to unnecessarily bombard y'all with my ping stats as I'm sure you've better things to do with your time. Just thought I'd missed a request to do so is all.
Anyway, switched the router off for about ten minutes and seems to have done the trick. :thumb:
[attachment deleted by admin]
That looks much healthier. :thumb:
Hi,
Wonder if you could help me as I'm new to all this!
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.613 ms 25.384 ms 26.131 ms
2 telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net (212.69.63.55) 103.130 ms 235.164 ms 111.856 ms
3 telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net (212.69.63.243) 112.085 ms 191.261 ms 118.504 ms
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net (212.69.63.5) 117.809 ms 138.242 ms 85.237 ms
5 redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net (212.69.63.225) 54.408 ms 53.422 ms 67.491 ms
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * *
and so on.
Have I got a problem here?
Cheers.
Not necessarily. Try pinging instead, better, ping the IDNet name server, ie hit Start > Run > then type CMD. When the window appears, type ping 212.69.40.3 -n 10. See what that yields.
Thanks for your time Rik, by the way I'm using an iMac!
Ping has started ...
PING 212.69.40.3 (212.69.40.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=101.175 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=107.481 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=125.928 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=201.057 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=162.766 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=159.334 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=150.200 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=139.882 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=163.594 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=155.354 ms
--- 212.69.40.3 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 101.175/146.677/201.057/27.989 ms
Doesn't look very good! :(
Sorry, I kind of assume Windows until firmly corrected. :)
That doesn't look good. :( Try re-booting your router. There's been a problem with the new central becoming congested on half its capacity, while the other half remains almost empty. Hopefully, a re-boot will move you, if not, let support know and they can do it manually for you.
Similar to mine I used to be between 15-20ms,rebooting the router x3 has made no difference today, I will check with support during office hours.
>ping 212.69.40.3 -n 10
Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 91ms, Maximum = 190ms, Average = 124ms
IDNet are monitoring, Steve, but obviously the more information the better.
Cheers Rik!
Looks better!!!
Ping has started ...
PING 212.69.40.3 (212.69.40.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=43.192 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=43.496 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=42.706 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=42.134 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=44.778 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=46.913 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=43.469 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=41.832 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=43.332 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=44.667 ms
--- 212.69.40.3 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 41.832/43.652/46.913/1.408 ms
Still don't get to the end of the traceroute, though. Do you know the reason for this? I also tried www.bbc.co.uk and the same thing happens!
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.814 ms 20.693 ms 1.683 ms
2 telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net (212.69.63.55) 61.498 ms 42.861 ms 128.073 ms
3 telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net (212.69.63.243) 82.714 ms 404.530 ms 86.996 ms
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net (212.69.63.5) 44.590 ms 42.960 ms 74.636 ms
5 redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net (212.69.63.225) 50.920 ms 54.718 ms 54.561 ms
6 * * *
7 * * *
Thanks :)
Could just be routers giving low priority to ping traffic, or being heavily loaded. I've noticed, of late, that pinging www.bbc.co.uk times out, while pinging bbc.co.uk works. :dunno:
It works for me to IDNet, but the BBC is timing out right now:
tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 23 ms 25 ms 61 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 27 ms 25 ms 23 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 25 ms 27 ms 27 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 23 ms 25 ms 25 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 25 ms 23 ms 25 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
tracert www.bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.195]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms 1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 25 ms 23 ms 23 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 26 ms 21 ms 23 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 26 ms 25 ms 23 ms 212.58.238.129
6 21 ms 23 ms 27 ms 212.58.239.58
7 * * * Request timed out.
Thanks Rik.
Out of interest, I tried a speed test.
Date 11/02/09 18:16:04
Speed Down 3062.98 Kbps ( 3 Mbps )
Speed Up 373.18 Kbps ( 0.4 Mbps )
Port 8095
Server speedtest1.thinkbroadband.com
How bad is that :shake: In the good old days, I'd get 6.5 Mbps!
Mmmmm, I think I'll have a beer.
Can't really say whether it's good or bad, because it's missing the vital profile information. Can you try a BT test?
Had to look up the FAQ's to find out how to do it!
Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6160 kbps
If you wish to discuss these results please contact your ISP.
If you are experiencing problems with specific applications, servers or websites please contact your ISP for assistance.
It certainly looks better.
Your test has completed please close this window to exit the performance tester.
Sorry, I should have said. :blush:
That looks OK, not quite as good as it might, but at this time of night, I'd expect to see any exchange congestion taking its toll. If you get a chance to run one in the morning, that would be a useful comparison. :)
Will do. I'll keep an eye on things.
And thanks for all your help ;D
My pleasure. :)
still getting high pings and dns problems! another week of no xbox playing :(
Hi Paul see the help section
My PingGraph has had a nice even line between 35/45 since early yesterday and speeds had been consistent at just below 2000. Now I have just come back from tea and speed has gone to the dogs and pings through the roof. Don't have a current ping graph, some fool turned it off :mad: (not me)
I had a reading of 380 just a little while ago.
Ian
Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 165ms, Average = 149ms
Tracing route to resolver1.idnet.net [212.69.40.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 177 ms 139 ms 145 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 190 ms 183 ms 161 ms telehouse-gw1-fa0-0.400.idnet.net [212.69.63.241
]
4 187 ms 188 ms 190 ms resolver1.idnet.net [212.69.40.3]
Trace complete.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms 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 = 139ms, Maximum = 154ms, Average = 147ms
C:\Users\David>
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping idnet.net
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=14ms 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 = 14ms, Average = 12ms
Sorry to post just want to compare the two this one taken earlier today hope no-one minds
Reply #701 is bad, but #702 very good, David.
Vast difference Lance ???
Unfortunately so. When were they both run?
One .the lowest one was this morning..the higher one after tonights drop
2:19am - awesome pings, very fast.
M:\>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
841k/second on a download.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 17ms, Average = 14ms
C:\Users\David>
Looks like it has recovered for me .I am only posting in a bid to help pinpoint the problem and no other reason
Mine are fine too, David. :)
:fingers: 8)
No issues for me this am. I am assuming the evening problems are due to congestion on one of the pipes. If you can be manually switched to another central am I correct in presuming this is a temporary fix? If you then drop PPP for any reason outside "office hours" you are presumably potentially back to square one until the issue is resolved. Hopefully a weeks walking in the Peak District will solve the problem for me.
It doesn't appear to be congestion at this point, Steve, but IDNet have identified a router problem which could have been the cause.
:fingers: Expect they need a break as well
I think they've got one. ;)
My pings have been stable for 48 hours :thumb:, just losing browsing capability on the odd occasion several times a day but I can live with that.
That may be explained by Simon's announcement about the router...
I think they have worked so hard and under,I would imagine unbearable pressure,they deserve any praise they get in my book :thumb:
Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 12, 2009, 12:05:13
I think they have worked so hard and under,I would imagine unbearable pressure,they deserve any praise they get in my book :thumb:
I'll second that, David. :thumb:
Dare I say it. Things looking much better this early evening, ping times for me are back to normal and browsing is very snappy :fingers: :fingers: No doubt that's put the kaibosh on it.
I'm seeing much better pings today, Steve, with more consistency.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 12, 2009, 17:44:16
I'm seeing much better pings today, Steve, with more consistency.
So was I until about 30 minutes ago. UK sites are slow, many US sites are timing out.
I'm not sure if I'm pinging correctly - should I type "ping xxx.com" or "ping www xxx.com"? - but here are my results:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>ping bbc.co.ukPinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 140ms, Maximum = 168ms,
Average = 156msC:\>ping idnet.comPinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms 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 = 111ms, Maximum = 178ms,
Average = 144msC:\>ping nbc.comPinging nbc.com [64.210.192.67] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 64.210.192.67:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0,
Lost = 4 (100% loss),C:\>ping cnn.comPinging cnn.com [157.166.226.25] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 157.166.226.25:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0,
Lost = 4 (100% loss),C:\>ping google.comPinging google.com [209.85.171.100] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=242
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=299ms TTL=242
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=242
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=242
Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 269ms, Maximum = 327ms,
Average = 297msC:\>ping google.co.ukPinging google.co.uk [66.249.93.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=246
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=246
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=246
Reply from 66.249.93.104: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=246
Ping statistics for 66.249.93.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 146ms, Maximum = 179ms,
Average = 162ms
Very different to my results, Dopamine:
ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 22ms
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=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms 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 = 19ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 21ms
ping nbc.com
Pinging nbc.com [64.210.192.67] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
ping www.nbc.com
Pinging a1669.g.akamai.net [88.221.26.49] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=60
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 88.221.26.49:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 21ms
ping www.cnn.com
Pinging www.cnn.com [64.236.90.21] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 64.236.90.21:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
ping google.com
Pinging google.com [74.125.45.100] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=244
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=244
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=244
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=244
Ping statistics for 74.125.45.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 110ms, Maximum = 115ms, Average = 113ms
ping google.co.uk
Pinging google.co.uk [72.14.221.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 72.14.221.104: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=246
Reply from 72.14.221.104: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=246
Reply from 72.14.221.104: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=246
Reply from 72.14.221.104: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=246
Ping statistics for 72.14.221.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 39ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 41ms
NBC seems to have sprung to life now:
tracert www.nbc.com
Tracing route to a1669.g.akamai.net [88.221.26.49]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms 1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 25 ms 22 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 23 ms 23 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms lonap.netarch.akamai.com [193.203.5.72]
5 23 ms 23 ms 25 ms a88-221-26-49.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com [88.221.26.49]
Trace complete.
ping www.nbc.com
Pinging a1669.g.akamai.net [88.221.26.49] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=60
Reply from 88.221.26.49: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 88.221.26.49:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 21ms
This time of the evening has been poor for me for the last 11 days but ok at present
Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6620 kbps
If you wisMicrosoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Steve>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms 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 = 16ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 17ms
C:\Users\Steve>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 23ms
C:\Users\Steve>ping google.co.uk
Pinging google.co.uk [216.239.59.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=247
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=247
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=247
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 216.239.59.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 29ms
My pings are now varying again. Fast for several minutes, then slow again, then back to normal. Very strange. This is how it's been for several days.
All yesterday evening I was getting periods of 2 or 3 minutes where I couldn't access any sites at all, yet there was no connection loss, no PPP drop, and most strangely of all a live radio feed I was listening to on www.soma.fm kept on playing smoothly. I was up late too, until 3am, so I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with congestion.
I do hope this is sorted before much longer.
The connection issues may well have been the router problem that Simon has covered in announcements. The pings could be the congested central within IDNet, or they might be exchange congestion at work. Have a word with support, and see what they can do to help you.
Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-02-12 19:35:24)
Download: 1651 Kbit/s
Upload : 383 kbit/s
Connects : 1920 conn/min
Ping: 44 ms
Not so bad at the moment, but it does seem to vary with the time of day, what might cause that?
Congestion at the exchange, maybe the central you are on gets congested at time too?
I understand there are some problems - any update on when a permanent fix will be in place? I've lost connection at various times since the january update, pre january was getting stable 3mb+ consistently, now down to 1.5mb if lucky and unstable? Ping below, any suggestions very welcome? - don't mind paying when service is good but a bit fed up to be honest.
Pinged www.idnet.co.uk and getting between 160ms and 180ms - typical one below
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 166ms, Maximum = 181ms, Average = 173ms
Take a look at Simon's update http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=12515.msg296915#msg296915
Just a suggestion, have you tried rebooting your modem?, it's worked for me and a few others, but if you hang about for a while
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be along soon or give Idnet a call in the morning.
Thanks I have tried the router and will try leaving it off tonight. The minor irritation for me is working full time means I'm never in when IDNet are available on the phone! I'll switch off tonight and see if it's any better tomorrow night.
If anyone from IDNet reads then I think a definitive when you expect everything to be fixed and back to normal is needed rather than the techy details of what's broken!
Quote from: goingonholiday on Feb 12, 2009, 21:04:20
If anyone from IDNet reads then I think a definitive when you expect everything to be fixed and back to normal is needed rather than the techy details of what's broken!
I understand the frustrations you feel, but with things of this nature, it would be irresponsible for IDNet to make promises of a definite time on an overall fix, as there are several factors at play, some of which haven't played nicely with each other. That said, things are now looking better for many users, so we (on the forum) are hopeful that the improvements continue. :)
If you continue to have problems, drop them an email, and I'm sure it could be arranged for someone to call you at a convenient time.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping Idnet.net
Pinging Idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms 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 = 117ms, Maximum = 165ms, Average = 137ms
C:\Users\David>
Shot up again
Mine for a change have been good all evening. Perhaps David try giving the router a kick again if its effecting your browsing etc. If its still poor perhaps a word with support tomorrow to see if they can shed some light.
Thanks Steve worth a try I guess ???
Goingonholiday - if your throughput has fallen it seems this is going to be partly unrelated to the other issues. Does your router tell you if you have lost sync or just ppp?
Very good at 22:50
C:\Users\vitriol>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=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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 = 22ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 22ms
I don't have any supporting data but the last two evenings have been the worst so far for me. Pings to www.idnet.com average 170ms at peak times and well in excess of 300ms into the Telia network and beyond. At off peak it's 13ms to idnet and 35ms to Telia. I've tried router restarts when things are bad but it makes no difference at all.
Speak to IDNet, Zap, as things should be levelling out now, but they may be able to give something a prod for you.
I think I will do, I'll run a ping plot tomorrow and mail it off to them. Thanks :)
Yep pinging the DNS server did seem to slow down in the early part of the evening ... flattened out again though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Well now on SuperMax and with Simon_IDNET help very pleased with the result :)
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/idnet_mini.png)
Good news. :thumb:
Plus taking out a Cisco contract and now latest IOS ... worth every penny :)
These are my pings in the past hour or so...
[attachment deleted by admin]
My pings are back to normal today and speed has returned - hurray!
Lance, Unfortunately your question didn't mean anything to me, had a look at router admin screen and nothing sprung out as answering the question! Hoping things are back to normal so will see what happens.
thanks
Which router do you use?
It's a Belkin - comes up as Belkin54g as the default name.
Connection has dropped once tonight and pings are back all over the place so may have spoken too soon! Is there anything I should look for?
Have a look here (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/frogstats.php) and see if your router is listed. :)
Thanks, this is what it says - does this provide any clues?
Downstream
Data Rate - 5248
Noise Margin - 5.6
Output Power - 19.2
Attenuation - 45.0
Upstream
Data Rate - 448
Noise Margin - 21.0
Output Power - 11.9
Attenuation - 24.0
Heya
Just thought I would post to say "huuurraaah for IDnet" We seem to be sorted, IDnet have done some technical doobries today and the pings are back to normal this evening, so far out of hubbys mouth its just tactics rather than general cursing of the pings! We will obviously be keeping an eye on it, but rather than disapearing just because its fixed I thought I would make sure people know that IDnet are sorting out the problems and do deal with things.
Helen x
Thanks for that Helen!
Goingonholiday - Those numbers are useful! They show that your line is about right and hasn't suffered enough instability for BT to raise the target noise margin. Basically what you need to do is compare the downstream data rate now to after your internet next drops. If it is different then it means that it is your individual line between your house and exchange, and not idnet. If they are the same then it is either fluke or we need to do more digging.
Excellent, thank you. I will check if it drops again.......
:thumb:
What Lance said. ;)
The stats look fine to be honest, so we'll wait and see what happens.
I've been running PingGraph for most of the day and while my baseline latency has been exceptionally good I did experience a period where my latency went through the roof. Please bear in mind that the sampling rate is 90 seconds when viewing the graph.
I don't believe the problem tonight has anything to do with congestion because it occurred just after 10.30pm. It seems something is still not quite right but things do seem to be moving in the right direction.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Switch to pinging 212.69.40.3, Zappa. That will give a more consistent result, ie remove other factors such as server load from the equation.
Will do, I'll run another one today, thanks for the advice :thumb:
NP. :) Things seem to be improving... :fingers:
yes they do
think there is still a problem my pings are rubbish,they used to be much better, bbc and google used to be circa 15-20ms (as well as idnet)
C:\Users\Dean>ping www.idnet.net -t
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=54ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=80ms 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=83ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms 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=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=240ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=378ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=434ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=469ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=486ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 83, Received = 83, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 514ms, Average = 90ms
Control-C
^C
This is my latest plot, Glenn...
[attachment deleted by admin]
Yes?
I haven't been pinging anything for the past 6 hours, I can start again
Looks like mine have risen from 23ms average to around 40ms
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 14, 2009, 16:24:36
Yes?
:blush:
Glenn, Dean - they both end in N. ;)
Don't both start with D though ;D. Added a quick plot to the post above.
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 14, 2009, 16:28:28
Looks like mine have risen from 23ms average to around 40ms
Very flaky. Exchange congestion?
No ppp drops, just a general rise.
http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/?exchange=Blackwater&exact=119&plugin=vp
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/THBW
It would be worth dropping support a line then, Glenn.
my exchange is green (it only has 300ish reidential on it)
will post an email to support later
Quote from: g7pkf on Feb 14, 2009, 17:28:31
my exchange is green (it only has 300ish reidential on it)
will post an email to support later
Hi Dean
Try rebooting your router as that may get you onto a different pipe. The size of your Exchange is not really relevant because it is the size of the backhaul from the Exchange *compared* to the utilisation of that backhaul that is relevant. i.e. the large metro Exchanges have multiple high-capacity backhauls whereas a small, rural Exchange might have one, small backhaul.
Regards
Simon
I don't know if this will help but I've attached a picture of pings that I'm getting from the Aberdeen North exchange.
http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/?exchange=Aberdeen%20North&exact=7&plugin=vp
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NSNTH
I think the pings maybe a bit on the high side, but I have no idea whether the pings I'm currently getting are reasonable or not.
Cheers,
Saad.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Difficult to say. My pings have now stabilised, so there's nothing inherently wrong at IDNet's end for most people. It might be worth, preferably in the morning, re-booting your router to see if speeds improved, but without knowing what you would normally see, and whether your line is interleaved or not, it's hard to say they are good or bad.
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Feb 14, 2009, 17:58:03
Hi Dean
Try rebooting your router as that may get you onto a different pipe. The size of your Exchange is not really relevant because it is the size of the backhaul from the Exchange *compared* to the utilisation of that backhaul that is relevant. i.e. the large metro Exchanges have multiple high-capacity backhauls whereas a small, rural Exchange might have one, small backhaul.
Regards
Simon
oh do i have to?
every time i do that a pendoline goes past and i lose speed ive only just managed to get over my magic 4K mark......but if you insist here goes
if you don't here from me ive gone into the abyss
Remind me to never listen to people again.
ping times still cr*p.
sync down to 2089 (from 4209)
bugger.....
C:\Users\Dean>ping www.idnet.net -t
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=240ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=378ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=434ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=469ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=486ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 514ms, Average = 90ms
Control-C
^C
gonna have to reboot router again at 5Am.....
think tin can and string good idea.
better than a pendolino train.
gonna get out the rocket launcher, beware delays on the euston-MK line
Ouch. Your SNRM must seriously vary, Dean. :(
If you can just drop PPP, Dean, it often has a similar effect to re-booting without the risk of a profile drop.
Quote from: Glenn on Feb 14, 2009, 16:28:28
Looks like mine have risen from 23ms average to around 40ms
I think my exchange must get a little congested, the pings this morning are back at 23ms
I'm averaging 21ms this morning, Glenn, with little variation. My exchange does seem well provided, and we do have a node here as well, of course. If only I could persuade them to dump the aluminium, I'd be laughing. :)
I've did another 12 hour plot yesterday and the results are plain to see. For the first time in over two weeks my connection was stable, remarkably so in fact. The one blip was due to me having to remove the network cable for a minute or two.
If things stay like that I'll be over the moon so can you all keep off MY pipe please :evil:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Time to change the axis scaling, Zappa. ;)
:music: Hey, you, get off of my pipe :music:
Nice tune ;D
32 pages of this thread and 2 weeks later and pings are still cr*p
several phone calls to support they are aware of problems but seems to be unable to sort it out :(
i have been with idnet for nearly 3 years paying a bit more for a good service so realy want to stick with them as i know they are capable
of a good service but time going on i am considering calling for my MAC code :(
Hi Ham
For most people, pings have been sorted. If you're still having problems, talk to support again on Monday.
Have you rebooted your router, Ham?
Latency is still high for me, it comes and goes through out the day. It has been like this since a few days before this thread started and nothing much has changed.
It's no problem on my end either, rebooted yada yada yada.
Will phone them when monday rolls round, really not happy about this at all.
Just thought I'd weigh In so the few people still posting with problems know they aren't the only ones.
What does appear to be on the increase is congestion in the BT backhaul, particularly on smaller exchanges. Have you tried running something like PingGraph over a full day to get a picture of what the pattern is? This is my latest plot...
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Rik on Feb 15, 2009, 10:28:56
Hi Ham
For most people, pings have been sorted. If you're still having problems, talk to support again on Monday.
cant see the problem being fix tbh i still get bad pings but some times the pings settles and are good and then just go up and stay high
for ages before settleing down again
Quote from: Sebby on Feb 15, 2009, 13:34:37
Have you rebooted your router, Ham?
yea tryed that serveral times too
My plots today look pretty much like the one above where, earlier in the week, there were long periods of spikes. IDNet are getting there from what I can see.
This is my current plot
[attachment deleted by admin]
Mine is showing a few spikes, but the average is still good...
[attachment deleted by admin]
My ping has been getting better, abeit slowly,but just when I think it's been sorted out, it all goes pear shaped with spikes everwhere.
Rik, As you have spoken about a 24hr plot I assume that there are not any issues with running PingGraph for long periods, I mean from Idnet's point of view?
No, it only pings every 10 seconds, by default, 4Way, so unless everyone is doing it, it's not a problem. If you use the nameserver, as shown in my plot, you'll get a more accurate result as server load is not an issue at that point.
Thanks, I'l leave it running and send it into support tomorrow.
Great. :)
I've had another day of low pings and stability so hopefully there is now light at the end of the tunnel... or should I say pipe! ::)
Well, that's two of us sorted then, Zappa. :)
:yes:
Simons team did make a change to the nameserver (remove IPV6) which may have made a difference. To be honest only really way to test would be to ping one of the routers.
Latest graph looks pretty good to me IMHO
(http://www.splatnix.net/smokeping-ms/cache/network/idnet_mini.png)
It does, doesn't it. Mine are pretty consistent now, with occasional spikes, which for me have no impact.
I'm still frequently 160+. Humm.
Talk to support, Esh.
Even after rebooting my router I'm getting a ping of around 300
[attachment deleted by admin]
Don't trust the ping returned from that site, Bridge. Instead, ping IDNet or the BBC directly.
how do I do that?
Windows? Hit Start > Run > type CMD and hit enter. In the resultant window, type ping www.idnet.net -n 10 and hit enter. To cut'n'paste, right click the title bar, select Edit > select all, then hit enter. That will copy, and you can just use Ctrl-V to paste in a post.
Here's my result:
ping www.idnet.net -n 10
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms 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 = 21ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 22ms
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David>ping IDnet.net
Pinging IDnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms 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 = 28ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 28ms
C:\Users\David>
And mine :dunno:
Are you interleaved, David?
I've tried, a window appears, it goes through the list of numbers as above, but it disappears before i can copy and paste it, any ideas, I'm using cr*ppy Vista btw
No I had it switched off ???
QuoteI've tried, a window appears, it goes through the list of numbers as above, but it disappears before i can copy and paste it, any ideas, I'm using cr*ppy Vista btw
So am I bridgej when you say disappears what do you mean ?
Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 17, 2009, 15:55:09
No I had it switched off ???
They are a bit higher than I would have expected for a non-interleaved line. Mine are on an interleaved line.
Quote from: bridgej on Feb 17, 2009, 15:55:05
I've tried, a window appears, it goes through the list of numbers as above, but it disappears before i can copy and paste it, any ideas, I'm using cr*ppy Vista btw
Sorry, I'm on XP. The window should stay, though, until you close it.
QuoteThey are a bit higher than I would have expected for a non-interleaved line. Mine are on an interleaved line.
Interleaved turned off about 2 weeks ago,may have been last week Rik when it was all pings here,just checking router
Quote from: Rik on Feb 17, 2009, 16:02:09
Sorry, I'm on XP. The window should stay, though, until you close it.
On Vista you don't get the run option from the start menu, it's just a box at the bottom where you type the info and hit return, then a 'DOS' style window appears, runs through the list if figures then closes immediately, without giving the option to close it or keep it open
I'm out of my depth, in that case. :( Pick up a copy of PingGraph from here:
http://www.vwlowen.co.uk/moreinternet/files.htm
and run that for a while. Use the IDNet nameserver for the best picture, 212.69.40.3
Quote from: bridgej on Feb 17, 2009, 16:06:34
On Vista you don't get the run option from the start menu, it's just a box at the bottom where you type the info and hit return, then a 'DOS' style window appears, runs through the list if figures then closes immediately, without giving the option to close it or keep it open
Press Windows Key + R, then follow riks post
Thanks, Paul. :thumb:
Quote from: psp83 on Feb 17, 2009, 16:09:05
Press Windows Key + R, then follow riks post
tried that, the same thing happens, just closes on it's own - is there somewhere this info gets stored?
Not once the window is closed.
Quote from: bridgej on Feb 17, 2009, 16:13:42
tried that, the same thing happens, just closes on it's own - is there somewhere this info gets stored?
Pressing Windows Key + R brings up the run box.
When that is showing. Type in
cmd into the box and press enter.
This will bring up the prompt window.
Type in the following : ping www.idnet.net -n 10
Works for me every time no problem at all Paul ?
http://www.kitz.co.uk/routers/netgeardg834_interleaving.htm
Have you tried this bridgej ?
Well somehow I manage to increase the number of pings so I could copy and paste it while it was still going through the motions, they seem a bit all over the place to me:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 17, 2009, 16:24:58
http://www.kitz.co.uk/routers/netgeardg834_interleaving.htm
Have you tried this bridgej ?
That's getting tooooooo deep for me, thanks anyway
Your welcome :fingers:
Quote from: bridgej on Feb 17, 2009, 16:27:59
Well somehow I manage to increase the number of pings so I could copy and paste it while it was still going through the motions, they seem a bit all over the place to me:
They're not good, Bridge. How far are you from London, do you know if your line is interleaved or if your exchange is congested? I suspect the best thing you can do is have a word with support and see what they can do to help you.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 17, 2009, 16:52:13
They're not good, Bridge. How far are you from London, do you know if your line is interleaved or if your exchange is congested? I suspect the best thing you can do is have a word with support and see what they can do to help you.
I'm in Stratford, east London, E15, on the Stratford exchange. I don't know if the line is interleaved or if the exchange is congested I'm afraid. Here are my latest results now I know how to do it without the window closing:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms 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 = 62ms, Maximum = 145ms, Average = 100ms
Im on the Upton Park,which although is a different exchange I can walk to your place bridgej ? I would have thought they would have been better :dunno:
Routerstats (http://www.vwlowen.co.uk/internet/files.htm) full version from John Owen provides one button access to "Telnet Router" and gives an automatic statement of Netgear interleaving status, when you click "Connect." No install needed just run the .exe.
Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 17, 2009, 17:01:30
Im on the Upton Park,which although is a different exchange I can walk to your place bridgej ? I would have thought they would have been better :dunno:
I blame the 2012 Olympics, they've probably cut through one of the cables on the building site.
On the public data (often wrong), Bridge, your exchange is not congested. I note, though, that it's just been enabled for WBC which may just be having an effect. Let support have your figures and mention that you are on a WBC-enabled exchange, they may be able to offer you a chance to test the new 'up to 24Mbps' service.
That did occur to me you are right in the midst of it there bridgej
seems better now:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms 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=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms 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 = 32ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 35ms
That could be a sign of backhaul congestion at the exchange, Bridge. See if there's a pattern over the next few days.
Well after a good few days mine are all over the place again. I am in Cheshire with an interleaved line on an uncongested exchange. Mine normally sit at about 32ms due to the interleaving and distance from London. Although I have a max speed profile and a downstream noise margin of 9db I never bothered to have interleaving turned off as I don't play games.
However, I am noticing (again) that web browsing is becoming sluggish.
[attachment deleted by admin]
This is my latest plot, JB. I can only suggest you have a word with support to see if they can do anything to help. :(
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: 6jb on Feb 18, 2009, 17:36:53
Well after a good few days mine are all over the place again. I am in Cheshire with an interleaved line on an uncongested exchange. Mine normally sit at about 32ms due to the interleaving and distance from London. Although I have a max speed profile and a downstream noise margin of 9db I never bothered to have interleaving turned off as I don't play games.
However, I am noticing (again) that web browsing is becoming sluggish.
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 43, Received = 42, Lost = 1 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 62ms, Maximum = 184ms, Average = 128ms
I signed a contract with NTL:Telewest Business this morning... Rock solid (and 20mbit) from past and current experience. Unfortunately IDNet's issues haven't been resolved :-(.
Just on another note :- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/18/sky_london/
Just goes to show it happens to everyone, Ux. :(
Even so, I think that's the first major outage they've had, so not bad, all things considered.
Apologist. ;D
:whome:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :eyebrow: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Another day down the swanny!. 3 reboots no change!.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Have you had a word with support?
No Rik, it just makes me feel a whole lot better moaning to you ;).
I will give it another week before I get on the phone, I am sure they have enough on their plate!.
Most people have had their problems resolved now, so it would be worth a word to see what could be done to help you. My latest plot is below, you can see I'm averaging 23ms, with interleaving, and I don't game so it's not an issue to me. :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
here are my ping times since 16th Jan.
no pattern
(http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn177/Fazackerley/speedtestopveral.jpg)
Blurred out ones are pings to melbourne and new york, for other reasons. I change between Maidenhead and London so often because that is the "Suggested" server at the time.
Ping time now is about 180 to london.
not good >:(
I wouldn't trust the pings from a speed test site, personally. I always ping the IDNet nameserver, 212.69.40.3, as this removes most variables from the equation.
C:\Users\vitriol>ping 212.69.40.3
Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 21ms
Looking good again, been stable for the last few days and gaming has been much improved. Thank you IDNet !!!! :)
Very similar, Vit:
ping 212.69.40.3
Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 22ms
Congratulations on your 1000th post and becoming a Master. :thumb: :karma:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\David> ping idnet.net
Pinging Idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms 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 = 39ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 40ms
C:\Users\David>
A little high for me
High compared to normal, David?
mine are 20ms up
How strange. It would suggest a BT issue to me, since all other factors are the same for both of us.
I've been seeing nice pings for several days in a row now. Better than they were before in fact. I'm at around 25ms now instead of 40ms. I'll be sure to bore you all with a high-quality diagram when I have the time.
Good job anyway. The high pings were a bit of a nuisance but at least my connection didn't fall into absolute disarray.
That's good to hear. :)
It does seem as though things are more or less sorted now, thankfully.
We know when things are going well as the forum gets much quieter!
Yes, rather a shame, that. :evil:
Don't worry, I've got an order in with Simon for a cataclysmic failure later today. :evil:
Quote
cataclysmic
One of my favourite words, I must try and get it into my management reports next week!
We could add a few more, if you'd like suggestions. ;)
I'll post a list of previously used words (by myself and colleagues for a laugh) when i'm back in the office. In the context of a financial report some off them are very impressive!
You're on. :)
Quote from: Lance on Feb 26, 2009, 10:33:58
One of my favourite words, I must try and get it into my management reports next week!
Lucky for you, I'm writing a scientific paper right now on things called cataclysmic variables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star)! I'm sure you can tie that in to your report...uh... somehow.
Probably wrt to the cost of the pension fund. :evil:
Quote from: esh on Feb 26, 2009, 13:48:12
Lucky for you, I'm writing a scientific paper right now on things called cataclysmic variables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star)! I'm sure you can tie that in to your report...uh... somehow.
Thanks for the idea!
Plot as promised.
(http://garagos.net/wajn/filedump/pings_27feb.png)
I think you can see it's looking pretty good right now. As usual, the reminder is each data point is an average of 144 over the course of the day, which is probably why it "looks" better than it was (most people were reporting 150+ whereas it reads 90 on this plot because it was not constant high pings, mostly).
I'm glad you're getting there. Yesterday, across 10 hours pinging at 10 second intervals, I only recorded 14 pings which exceeded 40ms, the average for the day was 23.5ms.
Yeah I am seeing 20ms a lot now. Obviously being a line that serves an office and hosts services I can't expect the lowest pings, but 30ms average over a day is the best I've ever seen a "consumer grade" broadband line. It'll be interesting to give it a few weeks and see how stable we get. I should stress that even with the ping times varying across the board for two weeks I still had all the bandwidth I could handle.
Argh after 2 weeks of being back to fairly normal with just the odd router reboot needed its gone crazy again:
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 62ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 93ms
Tried 4 router reboots now, full 30 mins & everything :s
I can't explain that, I'm seeing a 19-27ms range with a 21.5ms average to IDNet and:
ping 85.236.96.22
Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 24ms
To multiplay. It could be exchange congestion at this time of night, when I spoke to IDNet last, there was no congestion anywhere on their network, ie they have it re-balanced. If it continues, all I can suggest is running a longer ping, either using an app like PingGraph or by adding the -n 100 parameter to the command line, and let support have your results.
Seems to have been fine again these last 2 nights thankfully, must have just been a blip, but after 2 or 3 hours of it on saturday I was expecting the worst. The pings were crazy all over btw, I only used multiplay as an example.
Anyone else got poor pings again?
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 94ms, Maximum = 184ms, Average = 131ms
Better start Ping Graph up again. Bugger thought all this was sorted.
Mine are fine
Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 37ms, Average = 35ms
Have you tried dropping the PPP session or rebooting the router?
Yes, no change at present. I'll turn the router off when I go to bed and see how it is in the morning. Shouldn't have to keep doing this though.
My pings are also fine. The fact that no-one else has yet come here reporting high pings leads me to believe it is a isolated problem to your line, exchange, or virtual path from the exchange. Let us know if it is any better in the morning. :)
Well my pings went mad a little while ago. I'm getting spikes now. I have been going mad at bf2142 the last week because it keeps stuttering and I was thinking it was graphics related so I have tried different drivers, no change. I finally got around to putting the game back on the old pc and guess what same thing happens. The reason I thought graphics or hardware related was my pings have been in the twenties since the upgrade was sorted out. I think somethings wrong in the network because in multi player fps games when everyone starts warping all over the place it points to network issue. I checked my pings when this was happening but they were ok (low twenties), maybe packet loss of some kind is causing it. I can never catch it with my cmd ping though.
Here is what I mean by spikes
Tracing route to www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 210 ms 107 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 27 ms 35 ms 30 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 25 ms 24 ms 25 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 27 ms 28 ms 25 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Is this asterisk a sign of packet loss?
Tracing route to www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 24 ms 26 ms * telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 23 ms 27 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 24 ms 26 ms 24 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 30 ms 25 ms 24 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 23 ms 25 ms 24 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
It was a lot worse earlier.
I forgot I had pingplotter installed. It shows I am getting packet loss too.
(http://img192.imagevenue.com/loc779/th_74655_Packet_loss_122_779lo.jpg) (http://img192.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=74655_Packet_loss_122_779lo.jpg)
Everything Ok tonight, looks like a good nights sleep did the router some good :laugh:
Glad to hear it, and one is just about to do the same for me. (http://si6776.www.idnet.com/smileys/snooze.gif)
4way you've given it to me. Its like pass the parcel, lol.
Quick, pass it on to someone else :laugh: