Anyone else's pings just gone through the roof?
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.131:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 134ms, Maximum = 168ms, Average = 152ms
It's usually around 12-14ms
Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 92 ms 99 ms 99 ms speedtouch.lan [10.0.0.138]
2 103 ms 90 ms 94 ms telehouse-gw2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 122 ms 126 ms 129 ms telehouse-gw3-gi0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 147 ms 138 ms 140 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 151 ms 157 ms 139 ms 212.58.238.129
6 155 ms 145 ms 154 ms rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
Mine is just about normal.
Mine are very high too. I usually average about 31/32ms but have just got 218ms.
Mine seem fairly average, as usual:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=122
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.131:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 30ms
That's odd, I rebooted my router from the admin page - no change; did a hard reset, pings now back to usual. Do IDNet have more than one gateway?
High pings here aswell..
Tracing route to www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 102 ms 64 ms 70 ms telehouse-gw2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 57 ms 58 ms 64 ms telehouse-gw3-gi0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 40 ms 31 ms 35 ms g3-35-501.cr05.hx2.bb.pipex.net [193.203.5.14]
5 62 ms 59 ms 52 ms v3953.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.137.29]
6 83 ms 88 ms 88 ms g1-1-6.ar01.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.140.142]
7 73 ms 63 ms 50 ms ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net [212.241.241.14]
8 60 ms 62 ms 56 ms secure.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
Trace complete.
Quote from: s7uar7 on Jan 16, 2008, 21:54:21
Do IDNet have more than one gateway?
Aren't users restricted to a gateway based on their username?
I assumed that was what the gw number bit was in the username.. mine is gw5.
pings and speed back to normal now.. someone at idnet must tripped over a cable :laugh:
i'm .dsl4
It's strange because I haven't seen mention of high pings until Sunday's maintenance work. I'm sure things will get back to normal anyway. :)
I'll let Simon know.
So that's what are called high pings. So what would you call mine, average about 480ms, range 464-740? No difference noticed after the maintenance work. I'm not complaining because download speed is always fine, my connection does all I require of it and I don't do gaming so I suppose pings don't matter but maybe I'm being too easily pleased?
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/223215421.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
I'd call them very high, but not if you're judging them by that speed test. What levels do you achieve if you manually ping www.bbc.co.uk and www.idnet.net?
Such is the abysmal level of my ignorance I don't know how to do that Rik!
Assuming Windows, hit Start > Run > type CMD and hit Enter.
In the resultant DOS-like window, type ping www.bbc.co.uk and hit Enter. Repeat the exercise, substituting www.idnet.net. Then, right-click on the title bar, choose Edit, then Select all. Hit Enter to copy the highlighted text and paste the results back here. :)
Wow, that was quick Rik!!
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\*********>ping www.bbc.co.uk
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.253.74] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.253.74: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.253.74: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.253.74: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.253.74: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=248
Ping statistics for 212.58.253.74:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 45ms, Average = 33ms
C:\Documents and Settings\*********>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=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms 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 = 22ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 25ms
C:\Documents and Settings\********>
We try for speed. ;)
Those figures are average, not good, not terrible. Whereabouts are you geographically and do you know if you have interleaving on?
I'm in East Sussex, 01 580 860***, sorry I don't know about interleaving. I'm feeling guilty about taking up your valuable time because, as I said , everything works just fine - I was just seeking a bit of enlightenment really. Unless I'm missing out on something somewhere perhaps best to leave well alone?
Very impressed with the speedy assistance. Thanks :) :)
My time's not valuable - I just live here. ;)
Unless you're a gamer, pings are not critical. For most of us, the speed at which a site responds to a ping is of marginal interest. The difference between your pings and mine is ~4ms, or 1/250th of a second. I have interleaving on at the lowest level, a line on fast path might achieve a 10-14ms ping, while interleaving will add 10-20ms.
What router are you using, it's usually possible to extract the information from that.
Thanks again Rik. It's a Speedtouch 585v6 from eBay, Tiscali-branded.
DSL Connection
Link Information
Uptime: 0 days, 1:56:08
Modulation: G.992.1 annex A
Bandwidth (Up/Down) [kbps/kbps]: 448 / 7,616
Data Transferred (Sent/Received) [MB/MB]: 2.27 / 11.11
Output Power (Up/Down) [dBm]: 11.5 / 19.5
Line Attenuation (Up/Down) [dB]: 10.0 / 14.0
SN Margin (Up/Down) [dB]: 22.0 / 17.0
Vendor ID (Local/Remote): TMMB / ALCB
Loss of Framing (Local/Remote): 0 / 0
Loss of Signal (Local/Remote): 0 / 0
Loss of Power (Local/Remote): 0 / 0
Loss of Link (Remote): 0
Error Seconds (Local/Remote): 0 / 0
FEC Errors (Up/Down): 0 / 0
CRC Errors (Up/Down): 0 / 0
HEC Errors (Up/Down): 0 / 0
BT Speedtester one evening a few days ago:-
Configured download = 6500K
DSL connection rate = 448 UP, 7616 DOWN
Actual IP throughput = 5220Kbps
Samknows says I'm 582 metres from exchange.
I think there's not much wrong here?? All very educational though! :) :)
I believe the only way with the 585v6 is through the CLI.
Click Start > Run > type cmd and hit enter.
Then type telnet 192.168.1.254 and hit enter, then you'll be prompted to login with your username and password.
Once at the prompt, type adsl info and hit enter. You should see something that says Channel Mode and this is your interleaving status.
There's nothing wrong with the line, depending on how long the router has been 'up' you have a very low error rate (well, zero to be exact. :)).
For your sync speed, you should have a profile of 6500, which you appear to have. The throughput looks low, though, have you done a BT speed test recently? It may be that you could benefit from some tweaking of MTU/RWIN.
TBH, I wouldn't worry about the pings, but if you want to check further, have a chat with IDNet, they will be able to tell you whether interleaving is on (I can't, as you haven't got any recorded errors - though Sebby's suggestion might reveal the answer).
Thanks Rik and Sebby. Good to have expert eyes looking over the stats. Recent BT speed tests have yielded throughputs of 5278, 5487 and 5220. I'm inclined to leave well enough alone, in fact I don't dare risk any tweaking or tinkering until The Boss has forgotten yesterday's technology disaster - Humax PVR found to be "locked-up" at a critical time following firmware update.... :laugh:
No problem. :)
You should be able to achieve a better throughput than that. Tweaking is well worth having a look at.