Browsing seems normal, and speed test is showing 4 meg and downloading at 400kb+ yet i have to wait to buffer (non HD) youtube videos? :dunno:
Have you tried a ping?
I gave up trying to watch the link Jill posted, it was buffering every 5 secs or so.
ping youtube.com = 191ms
unless you mean pingtest.net ? :
(http://www.pingtest.net/result/30317176.png) (http://www.pingtest.net)
I'm getting 20ms with no packet loss. Whereabouts are you, there's a few BT faults around at the moment.
35ms ping to youtube from here.
Streaming at about 800kb/s
I've always had to pause Youtube and wait a bit for it to buffer, it just never wants to use the full bandwidth that my line is capable of. 490kb/sec is more than enough for 720p but I still have to pause and wait because it buffers at something like 150kb/sec instead. I max out at 490kb/sec just fine on file downloads or torrenting.
Is IDNet doing any sort of shaping on youtube traffic? I notice I don't have to pause to buffer after midnight, but if youtube is shaping instead that doesn't really make sense as America is still awake at that time.
IDNet do not shape any kind of traffic, Aaron.
Quote from: Rik on Dec 16, 2010, 17:51:30
I'm getting 20ms with no packet loss. Whereabouts are you, there's a few BT faults around at the moment.
watton exchange, norfolk.
145ms now.
I can't see any current reports of issues in that area, but there is a problem in Milton Keynes if you happen to be routed that way.
But i can download at 480kbs yet cant watch a 360p youtube video? :mad:
Try flushing you dns? It might do the trick.
How do i go about doing that?
Windows? Start > Run > type CMD and hit enter. In the DOS-like window which opens, type ipconfig /flushdns and hit enter.
Quote from: Rik on Dec 16, 2010, 19:05:59
I can't see any current reports of issues in that area, but there is a problem in Milton Keynes if you happen to be routed that way.
What again?
Indeed. :(
Youtube ok for me but getting an average 144 ms ping.
For some bizarre reasong, the Derby outage the other day had Farnborough numbers included in those affected.
Quote from: pctech on Dec 17, 2010, 19:00:14
What again?
Quote from: pctech on Dec 17, 2010, 19:02:54
Youtube ok for me but getting an average 144 ms ping.
20ms average.
Quote from: Glenn on Dec 17, 2010, 19:06:03
For some bizarre reasong, the Derby outage the other day had Farnborough numbers included in those affected.
Edinburgh had some Norwich numbers included. I can't decide whether it's a faulty database or a weird design scheme.
Quote from: Rik on Dec 17, 2010, 19:06:45
20ms average.
Your line runs about 3.5Mbps doesn't it?
It does, though if I can maintain my current sync speed (it's been creeping up over the past month), I should have a 4M profile soon.
I'm stuck around 2912 Kbps with a 2.38 speed according to thinkbroadband and BT just under 2.5
I'm benefiting from IDNet having been able to over-ride DLM on this line.
Youtube ping down to 28ms now, must have been a traffic spike.
Quote from: Rik on Dec 17, 2010, 18:17:36
Windows? Start > Run > type CMD and hit enter. In the DOS-like window which opens, type ipconfig /flushdns and hit enter.
Done,
145ms.
Could just be exchange congestion.
If the ping is consistently high then it suggests a routing issue or some issue your end. If the ping increases at certain times of the day then it points to congestion.
I had a high YT ping yesterday but then it dropped back.
Try this gazz.
Go to Start > Run and type cmd
At the prompt type netsh int ip reset C:\reset.txt and press enter. (this resets the TCP/IP stack to its initial state when Windows was first installed but will not clear anything such as a static IP setting)
Reboot your system and try again.
'pctech'
done, currently 194ms. This also seems fairly recent, last few weeks or so.
Im currently buffering a 360p video yet 10 mins ago i was downloading a game update at 520 KB/s ? whats up? :dunno: surely exchange congestion etc would not allow me to max my line when downloading ? i can currently download videos faster than watch them....
I really don't know and its probably something support need to look into.
If you can post a link or two to some of the videos am happy to test them from a non IDNet connection, but as other IDNet connected folk have said they can't replicate the issue.
One thing to note however is that some videos such as 4oD are hosted externally although they appear in the YT interface so if there is congestion on those routes it could cause issues with streaming.
I would just like to point out that pinging "youtube.com" is different than pinging "www.youtube.com" the latter will direct you the nearest server.
I thought both records pointed to the same anycast IP but you're absolutely correct and to illustrate
Pinging youtube-ui.l.google.com [209.85.229.190] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.229.190: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.229.190: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.229.190: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.229.190: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 209.85.229.190:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 29ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Admin>ping youtube.com
Pinging youtube.com [74.125.127.93] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.127.93: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=51
Reply from 74.125.127.93: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=51
Reply from 74.125.127.93: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=51
Reply from 74.125.127.93: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=51
Ping statistics for 74.125.127.93:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 195ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 195ms
I did not know that sof2er , www.youtube.com gives me 34ms. Still having problems, example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWjEIoopAco (shameless plug of my own gaming video)
360p , and i had to wait for it to buffer. Yet at this very time (not the same time as im watching the video) i can download at 550 KB/s? i should be able to steam 1080p with that down?
Playing absolutely fine for me Gaz.
Think you need to talk to support.
Run the following in cmd tool and paste the results when it's done (may take a while)
pathping www.youtube.com
also it's not neccesary it's using the same server as the domain, but yeah this will check for packetloss between each link and you.
No issues here using IDnets DNS
This is annoying and random... ill email support...
Your video is fine here. Support won't be able to do much now till the new year.
Yeah understandable..
Ok noob alert, who do i email? ???
support@idnet.com. :)
Rik might be an idea to break up that e-mail address otherwise it could get spammed.
It's dotted right through the forum, Mitch. I think IDNet have it well protected. ;)
ok
Possible idea, just brain storming.
I set up static IPs for all our network stuff (2 PCs, 1 laptop, 1 xbox and a android phone). Using this format:
IP: 192.168.0.XX
And the DNS as : 192.168.0.1
Checking my IDnet email i got when i signed up it suggests a IP address and DNS thats different from the above format. For networking illiterate people like me what does the IDnet numbers mean and why do they differ from the default ones i used? will i be at an advantage using them?
192.168.0.x is a private IP range reserved for internal networking and NAT routers.
Normally your router will allocate an address from this range to each device you connect to it, unless you have an IP block allocated you can only use addresses from this range unless you only have one device to connect.
The address shown in your service details is the one IDNet allocate to your connection so it can be seen from the Internet.
Your devices will generally see the router as the DNS which queries IDNet's DNS on its behalf.
You can bypass this by putting the DNS addresses directly into Windows.
Please tell us what version you are using and I'll give you more specific instructions.
Idnets suggested static IP address is 93.89.xxx.xxx
and the preferred DNS , well i assume its idnets DNS as you guys know. Shall i set that as the DNS for all the computers/laptops rather than what i currently have which is 198.153.192.1 (norton DNS) for the laptop and 192.168.0.1 for the PC's.. im not sure why i chose these as the DNS but i did (ages ago).
Yes.
So change all the DNS to IDnets one. What about the IP? is it ok if i use standard 192.168.0.XX ?
I doubt the issue has anything to do with DNS/your home network setup.
The suggested static address, Gaz, is in fact your static IP address, and every time you connect, that's what you'll be using.
Change the DNS settings on your machines, either to two nominated servers or to pick up DNS automatically. From what you say, you're running with just a primary DNS server, so will have problems if that fails or is busy (ie lags).
Set up with both DNS. Still not as fast as it should be, or has been. Currently watching a 360p video and its barley buffering just above the speed needed to watch the video, i use to be able to watch 720p videos without buffering....
currently exchanging emails with support, see what happens... its also rather embarrassing my friends 2meg~ BT line buffers videos better than my 5meg line ...
Ping youtube.com = 198ms
ping www.youtube.com = 32ms.
Maybe, somehow, when watching videos im connecting to the first rather than the latter? idk :dunno:
Run a tracert on both and paste the results back here will you. It could be a routing issue, but I'd expect everyone to be affected if it was.
No idea what a tracert is or how i perform it.
Quote from: gazzthompson on Dec 26, 2010, 16:32:18
No idea what a tracert is or how i perform it.
I am not an expert but something like:
start
run
type "cmd"
OK
type "tracert utube.com"
enter
In Windows, depending on version, hit Start > Run > type CMD and hit enter. You may have to do it via the search bar.
From that, you'll get a DOS-like window open. In that, type tracert www.youtube.com and hit enter, then repeat with tracert youtube.com. Right-click on the title bar, select Edit > Select All, then hit enter to copy. Paste back here using Ctrl-V.
These are my results:
tracert www.youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube-ui.l.google.com [209.85.227.190]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 14 ms 15 ms 19 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 14 ms 15 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
4 14 ms 14 ms 15 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 14 ms 15 ms 14 ms google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
6 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms 209.85.255.76
7 19 ms 21 ms 21 ms 72.14.232.134
8 21 ms 131 ms 29 ms 209.85.252.83
9 27 ms 33 ms 21 ms 209.85.243.101
10 19 ms 19 ms 23 ms wy-in-f190.1e100.net [209.85.227.190]
Trace complete.
tracert youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube.com [74.125.95.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 14 ms 13 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 13 ms 15 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
4 14 ms 15 ms 13 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
6 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms 209.85.255.78
7 103 ms 84 ms 84 ms 209.85.250.54
8 121 ms 114 ms 117 ms 216.239.46.215
9 127 ms 126 ms 129 ms 72.14.232.141
10 126 ms 126 ms 127 ms 209.85.241.35
11 132 ms 137 ms 132 ms 72.14.239.193
12 129 ms 126 ms 126 ms iw-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.95.93]
Trace complete.
Ok thanks.
C:\Users\Gazz>tracert youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube.com [74.125.127.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms 23 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 26 ms 29 ms 26 ms telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
4 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 42 ms 28 ms 104 ms google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
6 39 ms 27 ms 27 ms 209.85.255.76
7 107 ms 102 ms 126 ms 216.239.43.192
8 134 ms 161 ms 167 ms 216.239.46.217
9 184 ms 184 ms * 72.14.233.116
10 192 ms 190 ms * 216.239.46.208
11 199 ms 193 ms * 64.233.174.125
12 229 ms 199 ms 204 ms 216.239.46.6
13 192 ms 192 ms 191 ms pz-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.127.93]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Gazz>
C:\Users\Gazz>tracert www.youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube-ui.l.google.com [209.85.227.190]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms 27 ms 192.168.0.1
2 27 ms 213 ms 26 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 81 ms 27 ms 70 ms telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
4 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 26 ms 91 ms 59 ms google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
6 27 ms 32 ms 37 ms 209.85.255.76
7 34 ms 84 ms 33 ms 72.14.232.134
8 33 ms 34 ms 41 ms 216.239.49.45
9 36 ms 35 ms 35 ms 209.85.243.101
10 33 ms 34 ms 33 ms wy-in-f190.1e100.net [209.85.227.190]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Gazz>
Well, it looks like you have interleaving on, but you're also getting a different route from hop 5 onwards. This is in the Google part of the routing control, IDNet hand over at LONAP, so I'm not sure why you're getting the route you are.
If anyone else feels like doing a trace to youtube.com (no www), I'd be interested to see the variations in route.
>tracert youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube.com [74.125.95.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 54 ms 43 ms 43 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 44 ms * 43 ms telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
4 44 ms 43 ms 42 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 43 ms 147 ms 42 ms google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
6 44 ms 43 ms 44 ms 209.85.255.76
7 119 ms 139 ms 126 ms 216.239.43.192
8 152 ms 149 ms 149 ms 216.239.46.217
9 159 ms 157 ms 162 ms 209.85.241.22
10 161 ms 160 ms 159 ms 209.85.241.27
11 168 ms 161 ms 161 ms 209.85.240.45
12 160 ms 160 ms 159 ms iw-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.95.93]
Thanks, Dave. At least we end up in the same place. :) What did it give from XP? ;D
Does the 190ms+ on my tracert explain why its slower than i think it should be?
From a TT connection over wireless
Tracing route to youtube.com
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 26 ms 25 ms 23 ms 89.242.48.1
3 32 ms 33 ms 33 ms 62.24.254.224
4 35 ms 35 ms 35 ms gig-14-1-4001-rtr002.man.opaltelecom.net [62.24.
254.225]
5 37 ms 36 ms 35 ms xe-10-0-0-rt001.bir.as13285.net [78.151.225.71]
6 38 ms 37 ms 37 ms xe-11-2-0-rt001.man.as13285.net [62.24.240.0]
7 40 ms 39 ms 40 ms xe-11-1-0-rt001.sov.as13285.net [62.24.240.14]
8 44 ms 43 ms 44 ms host-78-144-0-214.as13285.net [78.144.0.214]
9 45 ms 44 ms 44 ms host-78-144-0-182.as13285.net [78.144.0.182]
10 78 ms 42 ms 42 ms 72.14.223.88
11 45 ms 44 ms 45 ms 209.85.255.78
12 109 ms 109 ms 127 ms 209.85.250.54
13 149 ms 147 ms 209 ms 216.239.46.215
14 196 ms 196 ms 196 ms 216.239.43.80
15 209 ms 207 ms 210 ms 216.239.46.212
16 208 ms 204 ms 264 ms 64.233.174.97
17 217 ms 209 ms 207 ms 216.239.46.6
18 202 ms 202 ms 201 ms pz-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.127.93]
Quote from: Rik on Dec 26, 2010, 17:20:49
Thanks, Dave. At least we end up in the same place. :) What did it give from XP? ;D
20ms overall ;)
It's increasingly looking to me like Google has multiple routes and some are faster than others. Anyone else got a view?
I would imagine their server farms are taking a beating at the moment, around 40% of the worlds population are on holiday.
Thought. I'm on ADSL2+ (21CN), how about the rest of you. (It shouldn't affect the Google routing, but I'm clutching at straws here.
Quote from: Glenn on Dec 26, 2010, 17:26:17
I would imagine their server farms are taking a beating at the moment, around 40% of the worlds population are on holiday.
You're not wrong there, Glenn, otoh business traffic should be correspondingly lighter.
The Mac traceroute gives multiple IP addresses for youtube.com (clever eh)
traceroute: Warning: youtube.com has multiple addresses; using 74.125.95.93
traceroute to youtube.com (74.125.95.93), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 0.945 ms 0.705 ms 0.638 ms
2 telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net (212.69.63.51) 10.991 ms 23.721 ms 9.525 ms
3 telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net (212.69.63.245) 9.430 ms 9.298 ms 9.276 ms
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net (212.69.63.5) 9.989 ms 11.347 ms 9.969 ms
5 google1.lonap.net (193.203.5.136) 61.259 ms 10.079 ms 9.907 ms
6 209.85.255.76 (209.85.255.76) 72.945 ms
209.85.255.78 (209.85.255.78) 10.905 ms
209.85.255.76 (209.85.255.76) 9.763 ms
7 209.85.250.54 (209.85.250.54) 77.991 ms
216.239.43.192 (216.239.43.192) 99.818 ms 83.573 ms
8 216.239.46.217 (216.239.46.217) 120.332 ms
216.239.46.215 (216.239.46.215) 114.174 ms
216.239.46.217 (216.239.46.217) 115.745 ms
9 209.85.241.22 (209.85.241.22) 123.765 ms 126.333 ms
72.14.232.141 (72.14.232.141) 125.035 ms
10 209.85.241.37 (209.85.241.37) 124.724 ms
209.85.241.35 (209.85.241.35) 122.907 ms
209.85.241.37 (209.85.241.37) 126.795 ms
11 72.14.239.193 (72.14.239.193) 129.089 ms
72.14.239.189 (72.14.239.189) 127.285 ms
209.85.240.49 (209.85.240.49) 125.634 ms
12 iw-in-f93.1e100.net (74.125.95.93) 127.169 ms 127.377 ms 129.190 ms
TalkTalk LLU here in warm Cornwall.
So a completely different route as far as LONAP.
Thimk it was mentioned earlier that tracerting to youtube.com is not the same as the route to www.youtube.com
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
Tracing route to youtube.com [74.125.95.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 23 ms 22 ms 23 ms losubs.subs.dsl3.th-lon.zen.net.uk [62.3.84.25]
3 23 ms 22 ms 23 ms ae0-116.cr1.th-lon.zen.net.net [62.3.84.193]
4 23 ms 41 ms 22 ms google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
5 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms 209.85.255.78
6 103 ms 101 ms 101 ms 209.85.250.54
7 139 ms 135 ms 135 ms 216.239.46.215
8 167 ms 146 ms 146 ms 72.14.232.141
9 146 ms 145 ms 146 ms 209.85.241.35
10 153 ms 145 ms 158 ms 209.85.240.45
11 146 ms 145 ms 145 ms iw-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.95.93]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Admin>tracert www.youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube-ui.l.google.com [209.85.229.136]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 24 ms 22 ms 22 ms losubs.subs.dsl3.th-lon.zen.net.uk [62.3.84.25]
3 24 ms 59 ms 23 ms ae0-116.cr1.th-lon.zen.net.net [62.3.84.193]
4 23 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.66.226.125
5 25 ms 23 ms 23 ms 209.85.252.76
6 58 ms 30 ms 30 ms 72.14.232.134
7 29 ms 30 ms 30 ms 209.85.252.83
8 33 ms 29 ms 30 ms 209.85.243.85
9 31 ms 29 ms 28 ms ww-in-f136.1e100.net [209.85.229.136]
Trace complete.
Though I would have throught the clip traffic takes the shorter route though.
Support has suggested i try another router..... currently using a DG834GT with latest firmware.
tracert youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube.com [74.125.95.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Vigor.router [192.168.1.1]
2 25 ms 26 ms 27 ms lns2.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.70]
3 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms uan-er1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.65]
4 27 ms 27 ms 36 ms ge2-6-1.cr1.core.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.161]
5 26 ms 27 ms 26 ms te2-3.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.97]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 27 ms 33 ms 27 ms 209.85.255.175
8 95 ms 100 ms 135 ms 209.85.250.54
9 127 ms 127 ms 128 ms 216.239.46.215
10 138 ms 143 ms 140 ms 72.14.232.141
11 138 ms 139 ms 139 ms 209.85.241.35
12 145 ms 140 ms 145 ms 209.85.240.45
13 140 ms 140 ms 140 ms iw-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.95.93]
Trace complete.
>ping -n 10 youtube.com
Pinging youtube.com [74.125.95.93] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Ping statistics for 74.125.95.93:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 137ms, Maximum = 139ms, Average = 138ms
>ping -n 10 youtube.co.uk
Pinging youtube.co.uk [74.125.45.100] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 74.125.45.100:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 119ms, Maximum = 121ms, Average = 119ms
tracert youtube.co.uk
Tracing route to youtube.co.uk [74.125.45.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Vigor.router [192.168.1.1]
2 40 ms 26 ms 27 ms lns2.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.70]
3 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms uan-er1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.65]
4 25 ms 27 ms 27 ms ge2-6-1.cr1.core.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.161]
5 26 ms 27 ms 27 ms te2-3.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.97]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms 209.85.252.76
8 103 ms 101 ms 100 ms 216.239.43.192
9 122 ms 126 ms 120 ms 209.85.251.9
10 118 ms 132 ms 119 ms 72.14.232.215
11 132 ms 126 ms 124 ms 209.85.253.133
12 119 ms 121 ms 120 ms yx-in-f100.1e100.net [74.125.45.100]
Trace complete.
Quote from: DorsetBoy on Dec 27, 2010, 18:02:04
tracert youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube.com [74.125.95.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Vigor.router [192.168.1.1]
2 25 ms 26 ms 27 ms lns2.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.70]
3 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms uan-er1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.65]
4 27 ms 27 ms 36 ms ge2-6-1.cr1.core.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.161]
5 26 ms 27 ms 26 ms te2-3.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.97]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 27 ms 33 ms 27 ms 209.85.255.175
8 95 ms 100 ms 135 ms 209.85.250.54
9 127 ms 127 ms 128 ms 216.239.46.215
10 138 ms 143 ms 140 ms 72.14.232.141
11 138 ms 139 ms 139 ms 209.85.241.35
12 145 ms 140 ms 145 ms 209.85.240.45
13 140 ms 140 ms 140 ms iw-in-f93.1e100.net [74.125.95.93]
Trace complete.
>ping -n 10 youtube.com
Pinging youtube.com [74.125.95.93] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.93: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=52
Ping statistics for 74.125.95.93:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 137ms, Maximum = 139ms, Average = 138ms
>ping -n 10 youtube.co.uk
Pinging youtube.co.uk [74.125.45.100] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.45.100: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 74.125.45.100:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 119ms, Maximum = 121ms, Average = 119ms
tracert youtube.co.uk
Tracing route to youtube.co.uk [74.125.45.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Vigor.router [192.168.1.1]
2 40 ms 26 ms 27 ms lns2.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.70]
3 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms uan-er1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.65]
4 25 ms 27 ms 27 ms ge2-6-1.cr1.core.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.161]
5 26 ms 27 ms 27 ms te2-3.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.97]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms 209.85.252.76
8 103 ms 101 ms 100 ms 216.239.43.192
9 122 ms 126 ms 120 ms 209.85.251.9
10 118 ms 132 ms 119 ms 72.14.232.215
11 132 ms 126 ms 124 ms 209.85.253.133
12 119 ms 121 ms 120 ms yx-in-f100.1e100.net [74.125.45.100]
Trace complete.
I think you have to use www.youtube.com for it to find the closest server Dorset, but I could be wrong
Traceroute has started…
traceroute: Warning: www.youtube.com has multiple addresses; using 209.85.227.93
traceroute to youtube-ui.l.google.com (209.85.227.93), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 4.210 ms 3.586 ms 5.100 ms
2 telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net (212.69.63.51) 18.325 ms 18.240 ms 19.555 ms
3 telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net (212.69.63.245) 15.277 ms 18.341 ms 20.324 ms
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net (212.69.63.5) 19.902 ms 20.245 ms 19.132 ms
5 google1.lonap.net (193.203.5.136) 20.253 ms 49.546 ms 17.810 ms
6 209.85.255.76 (209.85.255.76) 17.499 ms 19.044 ms
209.85.255.78 (209.85.255.78) 18.768 ms
7 66.249.95.173 (66.249.95.173) 25.995 ms 24.531 ms 26.328 ms
8 209.85.251.231 (209.85.251.231) 23.653 ms 92.700 ms
209.85.252.83 (209.85.252.83) 22.686 ms
9 209.85.243.93 (209.85.243.93) 34.986 ms
209.85.243.101 (209.85.243.101) 30.423 ms
209.85.243.89 (209.85.243.89) 25.776 ms
10 wy-in-f93.1e100.net (209.85.227.93) 23.411 ms 23.571 ms 25.693 ms
This is over wifi
Traceroute has started…
traceroute: Warning: youtube.com has multiple addresses; using 74.125.95.93
traceroute to youtube.com (74.125.95.93), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.908 ms 1.167 ms 3.331 ms
2 telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net (212.69.63.51) 21.085 ms 16.864 ms 14.887 ms
3 telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net (212.69.63.245) 15.103 ms 19.442 ms 16.103 ms
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net (212.69.63.5) 19.434 ms 18.603 ms 16.026 ms
5 google1.lonap.net (193.203.5.136) 18.808 ms 20.570 ms 15.581 ms
6 209.85.255.78 (209.85.255.78) 59.347 ms
209.85.255.76 (209.85.255.76) 26.835 ms
209.85.255.78 (209.85.255.78) 32.561 ms
7 209.85.250.54 (209.85.250.54) 85.159 ms 85.263 ms
216.239.43.192 (216.239.43.192) 111.535 ms
8 216.239.46.215 (216.239.46.215) 120.456 ms 120.509 ms
216.239.46.217 (216.239.46.217) 128.605 ms
9 72.14.232.141 (72.14.232.141) 129.484 ms
209.85.241.22 (209.85.241.22) 136.681 ms 136.276 ms
10 209.85.241.35 (209.85.241.35) 136.792 ms
209.85.241.27 (209.85.241.27) 133.638 ms
209.85.241.29 (209.85.241.29) 133.894 ms
11 72.14.239.189 (72.14.239.189) 132.460 ms
209.85.240.49 (209.85.240.49) 132.714 ms
209.85.240.45 (209.85.240.45) 135.604 ms
12 iw-in-f93.1e100.net (74.125.95.93) 131.912 ms 129.108 ms 129.304 ms
You are correct Gary as otherwise it ends up at a server in the States which is why you can see the high latency.
Quote from: pctech on Dec 27, 2010, 18:48:39
You are correct Gary as otherwise it ends up at a server in the States which is why you can see the high latency.
Thanks for clearing that up Mitch :thumb:
Np, navigating to just youtube.com bounces you over to www.youtube.com anyway so I doubt this will have any bearing on Gaz's issue.
That is what I was taught long ago, however Mark Baker at fast.co.uk insisted that www. must never be used on a ping or tracert and they would not accept stats that included it. :dunno:
You tube is fast here, I can watch 1080p over wifi with no issue, saying that browsing seems snappier tonight than a few days back anyway for me.
Pass Dorset but as you can see it gives very different results.
Im not really willing to spend money on a new router and the effort it comes with if im honest. Im going to give IDnet the benefit of the doubt till January then try another company for a month. :dunno:
Most are going to yearly contracts but I can recommend Zen if you want to try someone else.
However I think their hunch maybe correct on this, one other thought, have you tried a factory reset on the router?
Well i will only be trying another monthly contract one, not a yearly... like Zen.
Ill try a factory reset soon.
Sorry mate, Zen are monthly.
I wouldn't go on a yearly contract.
Yeah i failed, ill be trying monthly ones.. like Zen (is what i meant to say). but w'll see.
Try the reset (with power connected) first and then try another ISP, if it fails then your equipment needs replacing.
Im trying to listen to music and im having to buffer and wait for this 360p video :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nKmNwqgjqo&feature=related
i dont know whats wrong?
I've just watched this at 360 with no problems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4mGoRte104
Barley buffered on my 5meg line.
Something is strange then, as I'm on a 2.5mb profile.
I'm playing your link at 480 with no buffering, so I would think it is local.
I wonder if it was stored on a server in the States and your requsst caused it to be copied to Google's UK cache which would improve performance.
Couple of tests I have done would appear to support this.
First visit: sluggish with frequent buffering.
Copied URL, closed and reopened browser (FF) pasted URL in.
Second visit: no buffering.
My line gets throughput of around 2.38Mbps.
No buffering etc, line throughput of 6.57Mbps on other youtube video, but your Original Url :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nKmNwqgjqo&feature=related said fault please wait on first visit, second visit plays perfectly :dunno:
Its working fine now, tho the buffer isnt as fast as i would think it would be on a 5Mbps line... seems very sporadic
Ok update:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66PdneR4RI&feature=related
failed to buffer, restarted browser (chrome) and its now playing... though again, still not as fast as i would expect a 5Mbps line to be
No problems here on a 3.5M line. Sounds like exchange congestion to me.
Try my test, start the clip, save the URL, close the browser and then go back to it.
Quote from: gazzthompson on Jan 21, 2011, 16:30:23
Ok update:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66PdneR4RI&feature=related
failed to buffer, restarted browser (chrome) and its now playing... though again, still not as fast as i would expect a 5Mbps line to be
Same behaviour in Firefox?
Plays fine for me, but does he have to shout so much? ;D
I would not worry much about the load speed Gaz as remember that YT is very popular so its likely to vary based on many factors.
Main thing is on a second visit it plays from a UK based host machine so works better.
Playing instantly from here now, as long as it loads thats all that matters really.