Quick heads-up

We've just added a feature. Not documented yet

seb

Hi Seb - any clues?

In reply to a post by Bam16:

Hi Seb - any clues?

Go look

In reply to a post by seb:

Go look

I clicked create... nice!

I created a monitor from Edinburgh for my router which is already monitored from London, to compare. However the Edinburgh monitor is showing 'no data'

In reply to a post by DFScale:

I created a monitor from Edinburgh for my router which is already monitored from London, to compare. However the Edinburgh monitor is showing 'no data'

I was about to say it takes a little bit of time before it populates, but you created it a while back.
The data is being logged the device so this is a bug of some kind. Will get someone to check it over in the morning.

seb

Yes - sorry I did take a look and tried clicking on create. I saw the option to select an Edinburgh server, but didn't know if/how new it was... I created my BQM a while ago and didn't remember the option - didn't know if it was new or my memory failing me...

Thank you anyway

Before I add Edinburgh to my monitoring - what does this warning actually mean?

https://i.postimg.cc/vmVTMWsv/Screenshot-2026-10-26-...

Image link above. Text:

Potential issues detected
Passed LON1 TBB (ncuk.com) (London) - Latency: 5.695ms • Packets: 4/4 • Loss: 0%
Passed EDI1 / Commsworld (Edinburgh) - Latency: 15.801ms • Packets: 4/4 • Loss: 0%
Multiple record types detected - this host may be behind a CDN/proxy (Cloudflare, AWS CloudFront, etc.)

Are they using single IP addresses or ranges?

Nice

Well, it will be when it gets some data

In reply to a post by rmay_uk:

Before I add Edinburgh to my monitoring - what does this warning actually mean?

https://i.postimg.cc/vmVTMWsv/Screenshot-2026-10-26-...

Image link above. Text:

Potential issues detected
Passed LON1 TBB (ncuk.com) (London) - Latency: 5.695ms • Packets: 4/4 • Loss: 0%
Passed EDI1 / Commsworld (Edinburgh) - Latency: 15.801ms • Packets: 4/4 • Loss: 0%
Multiple record types detected - this host may be behind a CDN/proxy (Cloudflare, AWS CloudFront, etc.)

I believe this is because you're linking to a CNAME. The message is a bit unclear and I think originates from us trying to warn people who are monitoring IPs which may not be theirs but we need to clarify that.

seb

In reply to a post by billford:

Nice
Well, it will be when it gets some data

Yeah we're having some issues. Didn't see them in testing and mine works!
Working on it now

In reply to a post by MHC:

Are they using single IP addresses or ranges?

Single IPv4 and IPv6 address which is on the add/edit BQM page.. we will update docs once we fix the bugs.

seb

Thanks

Did put the single ones into my UDM-Pro and seems to be working fine.

In reply to a post by seb:

In reply to a post by billford:

Nice
Well, it will be when it gets some data

Yeah we're having some issues. Didn't see them in testing and mine works!
Working on it now

Dunno if it's any help- if I click "Share", "Generate" and scroll down to Preview the graph shows up...


edit- add share link My Broadband Ping

Edited by billford (Mon 26-Oct-26 12:42:23)

In reply to a post by seb:

We've just added a feature. Not documented yet
seb

If you are planning to ping the same host from both locations, it's best to just add it to the current monitor rather than setting up a new one. You can see them side by side in some places, and we'll be integrating this a bit more later.

In reply to a post by seb:

Working on it now

It works, thanks

The Edinburgh one looks pretty horrible, but considering I live somewhat south of Oxford it's not too surprising

Seems fine for me.

When you click on the front page graph, it automatically brings up the London test. Could there be an option, for those in the North or Scotland to have Edinburgh as default?

In reply to a post by billford:

Dunno if it's any help- if I click "Share", "Generate" and scroll down to Preview the graph shows up...

Just done that myself and my graph now shows up. Indicates to me that the event of generating the graph is an event which triggers some process, which is not triggered by setting up the graph in the first place.

In reply to a post by DFScale:

Just done that myself and my graph now shows up. Indicates to me that the event of generating the graph is an event which triggers some process, which is not triggered by setting up the graph in the first place.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but I think you may just have got lucky with the timing- I was still getting "No Data" on the BQMs in my profile even after generating the shared ones.

Edited by billford (Mon 26-Oct-26 14:23:20)

In reply to a post by seb:

If you are planning to ping the same host from both locations, it's best to just add it to the current monitor rather than setting up a new one. You can see them side by side in some places, and we'll be integrating this a bit more later.

Just tried to add the Edinburgh monitoring location but it can't contact my Hostname.... the London one is working ok

That's me being silly... need to add the Edinburgh server IP address to my firewall I think

In reply to a post by Bam16:

That's me being silly... need to add the Edinburgh server IP address to my firewall I think

Yep this is why we added the check on the edit/create pages.
FWIW I had the same problem

seb

In reply to a post by MHC:

Seems fine for me.

When you click on the front page graph, it automatically brings up the London test. Could there be an option, for those in the North or Scotland to have Edinburgh as default?

Whilst technically possible, we would prefer that everyone uses the London-based test node as it gives us consistent data where we have tens of thousands of monitors already, we're going to look at the limits shortly to try and encourage more people to use all the test servers, though. We may default it to include all the servers rather than just the London server. We haven't done that yet because we haven't formally announced it, and there are a few bugs still, clearly.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by seb:

Working on it now

It works, thanks

The Edinburgh one looks pretty horrible, but considering I live somewhat south of Oxford it's not too surprising

I'm sure people in Scotland would probably say the same about the London server, although in many cases you might find their traffic comes down to London anyway. This is kind of what this tool will help us uncover

Have just compared the two after 24 hours.

Both very similar except for the increased latency. Both have big spike at the same time - one where I have an overnight speedtest (Ubiquiti) and the second where I was doing a large >100MB upload. The saw tooth effect I get is on both but there is an offset between them

In reply to a post by MHC:

... but there is an offset between them

Likely due to a new BQM taking at least 24 hours to get itself "synchronised" with the time axis. I think it's been like that ever since it started.

They are synced fine - the offset I was referring to is in the "saw tooth". The latency increases by maybe 1ms, then over a period of (at present) 100minutes or so, slowly drops down, before a sudden 1ms increase again - and it repeats.

In reply to a post by MHC:

They are synced fine - the offset I was referring to is in the "saw tooth". The latency increases by maybe 1ms, then over a period of (at present) 100minutes or so, slowly drops down, before a sudden 1ms increase again - and it repeats.

Sawtooth patterns can be caused by CPEs sometimes responding in different ways, and it may be that they are tracking connection status or something like that, which could cause a different pattern. However, that is very interesting. Which UI model are you using?

I have a wave pattern of green/blue (min/average) on one of mine.

Edited by seb (Wed 28-Oct-26 16:20:51)

Mine is a a UDM-Pro

You can possibly access my BQM but it not I can send links

In reply to a post by MHC:

Mine is a a UDM-Pro
You can possibly access my BQM but it not I can send links

Ok your pattern is the same I've seen on a UDR. I might look at the configs to see why that might be when I have a moment.. I think it's related to something which uses CPU resources like security/VPN/IDS/filtering/etc.

Edited by seb (Thu 29-Oct-26 01:41:15)

In reply to a post by seb:

We've just added a feature. Not documented yet

Anyone have any outstanding bugs/issues?

seb

Not here, all good thanks.

No complaints here.

Our monitoring keeps flagging issues but live pings are fine.. think we may have some issues which could affect the 4 pings it checks when you add/edit a monitor. It may have loss under some cases which isn't real loss. We think it's a bug in the Firebrick code that affects live ones but not our dev ones

seb