... cut and paste from a Command Prompt window.
If anyone would like to send in their ping stats we would very much appreciate the info.
If you don't know how to, then please follow these steps:
Click on the Start button, choose Run, type "cmd" and click on "OK".
In the black window that now opens type "ping www.idnet.net"
When that's finished, click on the little icon in the top-left corner of the window and choose "Edit" then "Select All" and then hit the Enter key.
Now, start a Reply to this post and hit the Control key and the letter "V" together = CTRL+V
Cheers
Simon
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=61
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 = 19ms, Average = 18ms
HTH
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>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=70ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms 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 = 69ms, Maximum = 71ms, Average = 70ms
Just an idea here, I imagine it would be easier and nicer for everyone if discussion is left out of this thread, so unless the thread starter (simon) thinks best otherwise please only reply with ping replies as requested by simon.
On a lighter note, please do feel free to start a thread to discuss ping replies posted here.
Adam
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>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=68ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms 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 = 39ms, Maximum = 68ms, Average = 46ms
\>
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\NOLA>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=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms 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 = 13ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 18ms
C:\Documents and Settings\NOLA>
C:\WINDOWS>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=14ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms 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 = 14ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and just for the ducks of it:
C:\WINDOWS>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 1 ms <10 ms 192.168.1.1
2 13 ms 14 ms 14 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 13 ms 14 ms 15 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 24 ms 14 ms 15 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 14 ms 17 ms 13 ms idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Quote
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=60 time=56.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=56.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=54.3 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=54.6 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3009ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 54.355/55.380/56.481/0.927 ms
Adam
I am re-submitting as their is such a large improvment this morning.
hope thats all right
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>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=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms 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 = 32ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 32ms
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>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=12ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms 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 = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=44ms 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 = 44ms, Maximum = 49ms, Average = 46ms
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=61
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 = 22ms, Average = 19ms
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\wiggy>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=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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 = 24ms, Average = 21ms
C:\Documents and Settings\wiggy>
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Bill Fence>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=24ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=61
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 = 20ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Bill Fence>
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>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=127ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 40, Received = 39, Lost = 1 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 79ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 127ms
Tracing route to idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.253
2 130 ms 125 ms 131 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 133 ms 129 ms 126 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 136 ms 135 ms 139 ms 212.69.63.5
5 147 ms 140 ms 135 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Thats pretty cr*p!
QuotePinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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 = 24ms, Average = 23ms
I think im fixed ;D
Quote from: CatMangler on Sep 26, 2006, 14:43:10
Minimum = 79ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 127ms
Thats pretty cr*p!
Did you try turning the router off for 30 mins then trying again?
Heres my graphs from the 18 th and today,it looks like mine may be fixed as the green line is staying fairly stable and low. (on todays graph - scroll down)
If i had been here today to ping would it have shown decent results going by the second graph as when i pinged on the 18th (top graph) they were 150 ms MINIMUM :(
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/18-sept.jpg)
Todays result.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/graph111.jpg)
C:\> 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=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms 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
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms 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
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
All good from here on a long long bit o' wire !!!
Mine are a little up, but don't seem to be affecting anything :)
Quotedanni@Luciana:~$ ping idnet.net
PING 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=60 time=66.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=60.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=64.8 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=62.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=59.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=71.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=61.6 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=61.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=63.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=10 ttl=60 time=59.6 ms
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9041ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 59.483/63.086/71.461/3.492 ms
And the traceroute (I stopped after the 8th hop because it shouldn't take more than that)
Quote
danni@Luciana:~$ traceroute idnet.net
traceroute to idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 0.745 ms 0.825 ms 0.553 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 58.079 ms * 57.012 ms
3 * * telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 102.713 ms
4 212.69.63.5 (212.69.63.5) 56.458 ms 61.225 ms 60.361 ms
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
In case anyone is still collecting (only just notice this):
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms 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 = 20ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 22ms
I have interleaving on.
Well mine's up and down like I don't know what.
Not that I'm a gamer.
Today it's
>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=60ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms 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 = 60ms, Maximum = 188ms, Average = 132ms
And I don't know if I have interleaving on or not.
Quote from: Nerval on Nov 08, 2006, 15:35:37
Well mine's up and down like I don't know what.
Well, the polite phrase is usually a fiddler's elbow... ;)
Does your router not report fast path?
No
I think I heard a rumour that it could be done but not via the web interface.
Must look on Google when I've got a minute.
You need to set up a telnet connection (I should have read your sig):
http://192.168.0.1/setup.cgi?todo=debug
It should report debug enable.
In a command prompt, type:
cat /proc/avalanche/avsar_modem_stats
From memory, up near the top you fill see fast path and interleaved paths. Where the errors are tells you whether you have interleaving on or not.
Much obliged Rik - saved me searching :laugh:
Looks like I've got interleaving enabled.
I think I read somewhere that BT now enable it by default on all new connections, so that will be no surprise given I'm new here..
--------------------------------
[DSL Modem Stats]
US Connection Rate: 448 DS Connection Rate: 5056
DS Line Attenuation: 50 DS Margin: 2147483646
US Line Attenuation: 28 US Margin: 24
US Payload : 1364042016 DS Payload: 11079833
76
US Superframe Cnt : 4484006 DS Superframe Cnt: 4484006
US Transmit Power : 0 DS Transmit Power: 0
LOS errors: 0 SEF errors: 0
Frame mode: 3 Max Frame mode: 0
Trained Path: 1 US Peak Cell Rate: 1056
Trained Mode: 3 Selected Mode: 1
ATUC Vendor Code: 54535443 ATUC Revision: 2
Hybrid Selected: 1 Trellis: 1
Showtime Count: 7 DS Max Attainable Bit Rate: 5088
BitSwap: 1 US Max Attainable Bit Rate: n/a
[Upstream (TX) Interleave path]
CRC: 432 FEC: 9180 NCD: 0
LCD: 0 HEC: 0
[Downstream (RX) Interleave path]
CRC: 2265 FEC: 462455414 NCD: 0
LCD: 0 HEC: 0
[Upstream (TX) Fast path]
CRC: 0 FEC: 0 NCD: 1
LCD: 0 HEC: 0
[Downstream (RX) Fast path]
CRC: 0 FEC: 0 NCD: 0
LCD: 0 HEC: 0
[ATM Stats]
[Upstream/TX]
Good Cell Cnt: 28417542
Idle Cell Cnt: 52125358
[Downstream/RX)]
Good Cell Cnt: 23082987
Idle Cell Cnt: 885835062
Bad Hec Cell Cnt: 49182
Overflow Dropped Cell Cnt: 0
You should re-boot your router now to shut off the telnet port, which is otherwise a bit of a security risk. Afraid I've never heard of a way to do it from the command line, which seems a bit silly, but...
cheers
didn't know that - I must have left it open for days in the past.
will do.
It's plastered all over the net as a security issue, yet Netgear have never addressed it. Crazy...
Looking at your sig, I've had people ask me for GMail invites, whcih I've duly sent, yet they've never been take up. Makes you wonder...
They'll probably do it at the same time as they issue firmware to enable the router for Multicasting :banana2:
Round about the twelfth of never I suspect.
Don't know if they're going down the pan, but they improved our user experience by shutting the forums not so long ago.
I've had quite a few tGmail invites aken up, but I've still got about 3,000 left. Don't know how much they use them.
Just discovered Tesco block Gmails. Daft.
Oh well, off to make the tea.
Quote from: Nerval on Nov 08, 2006, 16:53:12
Round about the twelfth of never I suspect.
Cliff Richard fan then? ;)
QuoteDon't know if they're going down the pan, but they improved our user experience by shutting the forums not so long ago.
They were never much use, were they.
QuoteI've had quite a few tGmail invites aken up, but I've still got about 3,000 left. Don't know how much they use them.
Just discovered Tesco block Gmails. Daft.
And Google blocks responses from ADSLGuide. Luckily, it's only there as a throwaway.
QuoteOh well, off to make the tea.
Sue's making mine as I type. ;)
Cliff Richard fan then? Wink
Oddly enough, we're off to see him in Sheffield later this month.
:banana2: :banana2: :banana2: :banana2: :banana2:
You see what clues you can leave scattered behind you... :out: