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