websites slow - 100% packet loss.

speed is 17mb. great upload and ping. When visiting websites pages can take between 3-10 seconds.

I done a test at http://myspeed.visualware.com/servers/namerica/iad.p... Maidenhead&ver=9&map=uk&pps=50&bpp=160&codec=G.711&provtext=Lushsoft&provlink=http://www.lushsoft.com/

to www.amazon.co.uk

There are 18 hops.
2 of which have 100% packet loss. The other 16 have 0% packet loss.

testing with www.ebay.co.uk also returned 2 hops with 100% packet loss.

The Myconnection analysis said that the 100% packet loss indicates there could be firewllas on the route blocking MyConnection Serve's diagnostic, or there are hops with serious problems.

I am on a bt business hub and modem and am on bt infinity. Can anyone help with resolving this problem?

Perhaps it be only fair to give people links to your other two threads about your problem with Infinity. Otherwise if they aren't aware of them they could spend a lot of time trying to help you, when their suggestions have already been given you and haven't solved anything.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 08-Jan-12 00:20:48)

Hi RobertoS, would this problem be associated to my other post?

My old bband was 3mb and web pages always loaded within a second. Now I'm getting 17-22mb which is still below what it should be on infinty but is still much better than the 3mb i was on before so i would expect web pages to load as quickly or quicker than my previous 3mb. I didn't think it would be linked but I am no expert and am pretty much clueless with IT, hence why I post here to get advice from all you wonderful experts

The link to my other post is below if anyone is interested. Thanks to everyone who helped and commented, including RobertoS.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/f/4076721-bt-...

In reply to a post by trogoy:

Hi RobertoS, would this problem be associated to my other post?

Almost certainly.

There is something very wrong and it is affecting your whole internet experience.

You also have this thread. I would be pretty sure that all your problems are related. Just different symptoms.

If you have a broken ankle it stops you running. It also makes kicking a ball difficult. Also standing up from sitting down .

The trouble is none of us yet have worked out what is wrong . But from this thread it could be that whatever it is is getting worse, which in a way is good. It means in the end the engineers should be able to find it, particularly if it fails completely.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 08-Jan-12 00:51:28)

are there any router settings or firewall settings I could change which might speed up web pages?

If you have the anti-phishing set in either of both of your browser and AV/FW system both can need to check pages and sometimes page content online against their latest databases. I remember now I disabled that when on my oldest machine. That can slow down web pages.

Just have to makes sure you don't respond to such type emails or website links, like something telling you your online banking security needs reconfirming so please enter your usename and password "here" for them to check it.

I use malware bytes and microsoft security essentials. I'll have a look and see if I change this setting.

What's FW system ?

How do I change fishing in browser?

AV = Antivirus. FW = Firewall. IS = Internet security which normally refers to both plus a few other things.

Depends on your browser. It will be in Tools. In IE7 I think it is called Phishing filter. In Ie9 it is Tools >> Safety >. Smartscreeen filter.

It is spelt phishing, not fishing, if you want to google it for your particular browser versions.

Is it the full version of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware?

If so, I have seen this cause problems with getting to websites for someone on the Be forums not too long ago

Does that have a phishing checker as well? If so, he may have IS, brower and that all doing the same task simultaneousssllllowlyyyyyyyy. On a Pentium 4 that would not be good.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 08-Jan-12 13:13:59)

I only have the free version which doesn't have an option to be resident

The paid for version may have such an option

Easiest way to check would be to uninstall

BTW Pentium 4 here on my PC too and it can be quite laggy sometimes despite having everything as optimised as possible

Try IE without add-ons is a good test as things like Google and Yahoo toolbars and search providers can slow things down considerably and as you have sggested turning phishing filters off
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930168

Edited by nredwood (Sun 08-Jan-12 13:26:42)

It's Anti-malware

phishing smartscreen filter was already turned off.

I have chrome and ie8. both are slower for websites

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Jan-12 13:39:50)

Is this the desktop or latop or both that give the slow speed?

It's both.

Are their any fiewall settings in the router that I might be able to change?

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Jan-12 14:10:38)

Is it the free or paid for version of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware?

Have you tried different DNS servers i.e OpenDNS?
https://store.opendns.com/setup/

yes its the free version i use

No relevant firewall settings in the router.

Have you checked the phishing settings in MS Security Essentials?

I don't undestand dns servers. How do i try a new one? Is it a complicated process?

Could I revert back to my current dns if I wanted?

I opened up mse but couldn't find anything relating to phishing settings. Do you know where I can locate these? I did a search on google aswell but couldn't find an answer

There are no settings related to phishing in MSE, just real time protection

Worth disabling real time protection to see if it make any difference, but I would advise against leaving disabled

Also, the OP can test quite easily for any software or O/S issues by booting into Safe Mode with Networking

If you click on Computer at the link I provided, it shows you how to change them for one PC

Easy enough to revert back just by undoing the changes you made

You need to be aware that with ping and tracert utilities that some nodes/hops are set to never respond to these packets, i.e. it is not definities proof of a problem getting 100% packet loss from a node.

If it was 1% to 99% then it would be more reflective of a real problem.

Thanks for this info Saffron. I've done a few tests on pingtest.net the past week and its results have always shown 0% packet loss. Is pingtest.net a reliable tester ?

What operating system are you running trogoy?

In terms of basic pings that site is fine.

Have you used ping from the command line at all? Much simpler, and less reliant on fancy grapbics and browsers

In reply to a post by Croftie:

What operating system are you running trogoy?

Windows 7 on laptop, vista on desktop pc.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

In terms of basic pings that site is fine.

Have you used ping from the command line at all? Much simpler, and less reliant on fancy grapbics and browsers

No, how do i so this?

Click Windows Start Button
type CMD <return>
type ping www.thinkbroadband.com
or the name of other places.

tracert is another command you can use to do a trace to the site you specify

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Click Windows Start Button
type CMD <return>
type ping www.thinkbroadband.com
or the name of other places.

tracert is another command you can use to do a trace to the site you specify

Just done the test for above thinkbroadband.com and results were 4 packets sent, 4 received ,0 lost.

If you do ping -t www.thinkbroadband.com it will ping forever until you press
CTRL C
at which point a summary is displayed.

Packet loss should be under 1%

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Click Windows Start Button
type CMD <return>
type ping www.thinkbroadband.com
or the name of other places.

tracert is another command you can use to do a trace to the site you specify

just done the test for ebay.co.uk which is always really slow for me. Results below

request timed out
request timed out
request timed out
request timed out

Packets: Sent 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss)

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Jan-12 14:08:36)

Thats because ebay does not respond to pings

i.e. not a fault with your service

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Thats because ebay does not respond to pings

i.e. not a fault with your service

ah that explains that. I just done a couple of other checks and all were 0% packet loss.

Any other ideas appreciated

Try using a different DNS server, OpenDNS was suggested earlier.

Particularly if file downloads once started are nice and quick

What happens with pinging 81.19.219.81 ?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

What happens with pinging 81.19.219.81 ?

what does that link to ?

It's just an available place to ping that was provided in this post for the purposes of the OP of that thread assessing Infinity latency. I'm suggesting it to you simply because we know it responds and is not a mainstream one, with several examples using it.

Note we all did a 50 ping test, parameter at the command prompt is ping -n 50 81.19.219.81

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 09-Jan-12 17:42:55)

Some sites. like ebay, don't respond to pings intentionally.

Always best to ping bbc.co.uk.or here which are always open.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It's just an available place to ping that was provided in this post for the purposes of the OP of that thread assessing Infinity latency. I'm suggesting it to you simply because we know it responds and is not a mainstream one, with several examples using it.

Note we all did a 50 ping test, parameter at the command prompt is ping -n 50 81.19.219.81

ping results for 81.19.219.81
packets sent 4, received 4, lost 0 (0% loss)

approx round trip times
min 26ms, max 30ms, ave 27ms

Look at the other results there. Whereabouts are you, roughly?

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Some sites. like ebay, don't respond to pings intentionally.

Always best to ping bbc.co.uk.or here which are always open.

ping results for bbc.co.uk
packets sent 4, received 4, lost 0 (0% loss)

approx round trip times
min 20ms, max 25ms, ave 22ms

Can you try the 50 ping one for us please, and paste the full result like in that other thread? To "copy" from the command window, if you right-click in it then select "Mark" from the context menu, highlight from the start to the end, then press the Return/Enter key on the keyboard. Then you paste as normal here.

We'll get a better idea of the fluctuations then.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Can you try the 50 ping one for us please, and paste the full result like in that other thread? To "copy" from the command window, if you right-click in it then select "Mark" from the context menu, highlight from the start to the end, then press the Return/Enter key on the keyboard. Then you paste as normal here.

We'll get a better idea of the fluctuations then.

Ping statistics for 81.19.219.81:
Packets: Sent = 51, Received = 51, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 253ms, Average = 33ms

Ping was always 25-27ms thoughout most of this test but there was a few grouped together right in the middle of the pings which were higher...

Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Jan-12 18:31:20)

Like this ........

C:\Documents and Settings\*****>ping -n 50 81.19.219.81

Pinging 81.19.219.81 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 81.19.219.81:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 22ms

Pinging 81.19.219.81 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=116
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 81.19.219.81:
Packets: Sent = 51, Received = 51, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 253ms, Average = 33ms
Control-C

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Look at the other results there. Whereabouts are you, roughly?

The link you provided only shows the results for one person. how do i view the whole post of everyones results. I can't see the find link anywhere to view all posts in this topic lol.

Click "Flat" nr. top R.

Just the same ping test and got a similar result.

Pinging 81.19.219.81 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=116
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 81.19.219.81:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% los
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 210ms, Average = 35ms

Compared to others my ping is a lot higher. My lowest of 25ms is higher than everyone elses average.


Also why do I have a rediculously high ping which is over 200ms in the middle of my results?

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Jan-12 18:54:45)

In reply to a post by trogoy:

Also why do I have a rediculously high ping which is over 200ms in the middle of my results?

That could be due to something happening on your LAN which causes the ping spike.

is that the lan1 on my modem?

No he means something/activity on your LAN (local area network) the bit between you and the router.

Is there anything I can do about this?

No, and no reason to do so, a blip of 200ms in a single packet is nothing to be concerned about with respect to your 3 to 10 second delay in webpages open

I wonder if the DNS caches have been flushed?

would not improve ping times, but might improve initial name resolution to flush DNS from a command prompt

ipconfig /flushdns

DNS caches flushed. Is something i could do or bt/openreach?

how come i always get a spike llike this but everyone who posted their ping tests in that other post were all below 25ms on all 50 points?

Pinging 81.19.219.81 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 81.19.219.81:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 61ms, Average = 28ms

Pinging 81.19.219.81 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=117
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 81.19.219.81:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 92ms, Average = 32ms

Does this make you feel a little better? I did a 50 ping test yesterday which didn't show any increase blip in the middle. This is from N.Ireland east coast, as someone else asked, where is your location?

1. Depends on where you live in the UK
2. How busy the backhaul network is
3. How busy all the devices between your PC and the place you are pinging
4. What your computer is doing

I will repeat the level of variation you are seeing is no indication of a problem.

You're still not over 100ms and I'm getting over 200ms lol. Thanks for for trying to make me feel better though lol.

I'm in Cornwall. Would that make a difference?

Edited by deleted (Tue 10-Jan-12 09:43:18)

I still think there's some link with the overall speed problem. Or has that been resolved?

Hi Roberto, no the speed hasn't been sorted. It's still 16-17mb when it should be well above 35mb.

I've been quiet on this front as bt have requested i don't do anything for 10 days. I'm being patient and doing as they asked and once the 10 days pass I'll remove the net5 and test from there etc and I'll be back on the case.

In reply to a post by trogoy:

I've been quiet on this front as bt have requested i don't do anything for 10 days. I'm being patient and doing as they asked and once the 10 days pass I'll remove the net5 and test from there etc and I'll be back on the case.

That is utter garbage from them. There is nothing on FTTC that has anything to do with 10 days.

Yeah I've been told that before and thought it was garbage myself. That's why I just said I'm being patient. I'm just waiting the 10 days to say I've waited it and will know I have haven't touched/altered anything during this time. I'm not expecting it to miraculously increase my speed. I wish it would though lol

Edited by deleted (Tue 10-Jan-12 10:57:40)

Certainly a good point, though it's a pity there seems no way to get BT staff told from above that this is the case.

Is the IP Profile still OK, on its strange 42786? Have the disconnections gone away?

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 10-Jan-12 11:22:50)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Is the IP Profile still OK, on its strange 42786? Have the disconnections gone away?

IP profile is still 42786. I had that one day of disconns and not had any since (fingers crossed)

Maybe it was the "10 day" settling in period lol.

There is a sort of 2-day one, which I expect restarts when you have had the the type of engineer intervention you had. But I've just had a thought about the speed. I need to contact someone to ask a question. Laters!

A long shot - and apologies in advance if you have double-checked this already - but are you completely certain that you're connected via the ethernet - directly into the BT router - rather than wireless? I'm mostly clueless about Windows, but I think you can check which interface you're using in the Windows control panel (others might be able to provide better advice).

The reason I ask is that in another thread, your wired and wireless pings looked very similar, when I'd expect wireless to be a few milliseconds (typically 2-4) longer than wired, and also you're reporting some big spikes here. Now, this might all be in the variance due to other activity on your LAN, as others here have indicated, but wireless is also prone to more "jitter" in ping times, due to interference etc.

If you are running wireless by accident, that could also account for your bandwidth issues; in my case, depending where I am in the house (up to ~50 feet from the router with three solid walls in the way), I see anything from ~1% to 100% of my full-sync BT Infinity bandwidth (i.e., 0.4 - 38 Mbit/s) and so used wired connections and a second wireless access point to fill-in.

I'm wireless and the router is about 8ft away from one pc. Laptop is used in various places throughout the premises. I get same speeds, wireless and wired. I get the full 40000kbps at the socket (been tested twice via JDSU test). I should be getting well over 35mb+

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

There is a sort of 2-day one, which I expect restarts when you have had the the type of engineer intervention you had. But I've just had a thought about the speed. I need to contact someone to ask a question. Laters!

sounds promising. keep me posted!

In reply to a post by trogoy:

I'm wireless and the router is about 8ft away from one pc. Laptop is used in various places throughout the premises. I get same speeds, wireless and wired. I get the full 40000kbps at the socket (been tested twice via JDSU test). I should be getting well over 35mb+

Was it not the BT guy who got 40000kbps at the socket?

yes thats what i said. 2 bt /openreach guys done a "JDSU test" while I was here and both got 40000kbps

I personally get "the same speed wireless and wired of 16-17mb"

Edited by deleted (Tue 10-Jan-12 13:20:48)

Being in cornwall shouldnt make to much of a difference. I'm connected to the Truro exchange on FTTC

Pinging 81.19.219.81 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=119
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=119
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=119
Reply from 81.19.219.81: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=119

Andrew

I'm on Marazion exchange. the cab is at end of my road (about 50 metres away). What down and upload speeds you getting in Truro?

you on business or home router?

I was getting, wireless and wired, download speeds of 9 - 12 Mbps on Infinity on a XP Netbook, and 5 - 8Mbps wireless on an upstairs XP Desktop, . Discovered it was a couple of the shields on Avast 6 Free, installed on both, causing the slow down. Changed to an alternative Anti-virus and wireless speeds shot up to 20 odd Mbps on both, which is near the limit of 11g wireless. I also have a cheap mini USB wireless N adaptor which I tried in both , and can get speeds up around 35Mbps.

Thinking about installing Avast again at some stage, just to see if the problem emerges again.

My connection is about the same 50 metres from the cabinet. I'm on a business connection via entanet.
Modem stats:
Line rate (kbit/s) 39998 Downstream 10000 Upstream
Attainable rate (kbit/s) 126476 downstream 41143 upstream

The attainable rate has come down from 132000ish (cant remember the exact number)
I am currently using a Zywall 35 which unfortunately doesnt seem to be able to cope
with the full speed. But with my Draytek 2920n I get the speeds I would expect on that
profile.

Andrew

In reply to a post by trogoy:

I'm wireless and the router is about 8ft away from one pc. Laptop is used in various places throughout the premises. I get same speeds, wireless and wired. I get the full 40000kbps at the socket (been tested twice via JDSU test). I should be getting well over 35mb+

OK, at 8ft you ought to be able to see most or all of the full WAN bandwidth with wireless; I can pull 30 Mbit/s at 12ft through one solid wall. Have you verified that you can achieve this sort of bandwidth (or better, particularly if wired) between systems on your LAN?

Pinging via wireless is a different matter; the extra latency and jitter means that such measurements aren't particularly useful except as an indicator of the wireless network performance. You might be able to calibrate out a few extra milliseconds in a clean environment, but it's not unusual to see bursts of several hundred milliseconds, particularly if there's other WiFi or RF activity (e.g., from past experience, some Bluetooth devices and a microwave oven) nearby.

In reply to a post by DLS:

In reply to a post by trogoy:

I'm wireless and the router is about 8ft away from one pc. Laptop is used in various places throughout the premises. I get same speeds, wireless and wired. I get the full 40000kbps at the socket (been tested twice via JDSU test). I should be getting well over 35mb+

OK, at 8ft you ought to be able to see most or all of the full WAN bandwidth with wireless; I can pull 30 Mbit/s at 12ft through one solid wall. Have you verified that you can achieve this sort of bandwidth (or better, particularly if wired) between systems on your LAN?

Pinging via wireless is a different matter; the extra latency and jitter means that such measurements aren't particularly useful except as an indicator of the wireless network performance. You might be able to calibrate out a few extra milliseconds in a clean environment, but it's not unusual to see bursts of several hundred milliseconds, particularly if there's other WiFi or RF activity (e.g., from past experience, some Bluetooth devices and a microwave oven) nearby.

yes i have 40000kbps at the socket and should be getting well over 35mb wireless.

In reply to a post by trogoy:

yes i have 40000kbps at the socket and should be getting well over 35mb wireless.

Previously, you mentioned that the 40 Mbit/s at the socket was measured by BT using a JDSU, so that'll be the VDSL2 line sync. My question was about the bandwidth you can achieve on your LAN side, between two of your systems connected to the BT router, wired or wireless (e.g., transferring a file large enough to take ~10s or more from your laptop to your PC, or vice versa).

I appreciate that originally you had a problem with the IP profile, but with that fixed, although the problem might still be on the BT side, it's also worth eliminating potential LAN-side issues from the inquiry.

sorry i don't udnerstand what you mean by lan side or -10s ?

how do I obtain this info that you request?

In reply to a post by trogoy:

sorry i don't udnerstand what you mean by lan side or -10s ?

how do I obtain this info that you request?

No problem; I descended into jargon.

LAN = Local Area Network; I'm asking about the speed that you actually achieve for data transfer between computers attached (wired or wireless) to your BT router.

10s = 10 seconds. I suggested something that takes at least ~ten seconds so that it can be measured reasonably accurately. Something that transfers in the blink of an eye may give erroneous results, depending on how you do measure it.

The aim of all this is to check whether there is a bottleneck within your internal systems and network.

The easiest way is to transfer a fairly large (say about 100-150 MByte) file between two machines via the network and time it. Some file transfer utilities (e.g., ftp) will tell you the transfer speed, but if you don't have such a thing you might have to resort to Windows file sharing and a stop watch.

Sorry, I can't help much on the details of that; I've largely managed to bypass the world of Microsoft operating systems!

With both systems wired, you should be able to obtain most of the 100-Mbit/s bandwidth of the router ports (e.g., a 100 MByte file transfer in ~8-10 seconds). Wireless on the BT business router will probably be about half that speed or a bit less.

thanks for the reply but I am going to sound even more stupid now lol.

How do I actually initiate a file transfer from 1 pc to another wirelessly. Any ideas on what file i could transfer which is over 100mb?

Incidentally the ~ sign means "approximately".

Have you ever used Windows Explorer? If not, it is in Start >> All Programs >> Accessories. That lets you see the files and folders on your computer and others on the network, but probably needs you to set up file and printer sharing and may have firewall issues to resolve.

If you get it to work, the easiest way is to have two copies of it open, as fairly small windows so you can see most of both, one looking at a file you choose to send and one looking at the place you want to receive it. Then you just drag'n'drop it from one to the other. It copies, rather than moving, as it is from one computer to another. If you do it between two places on a single computer it moves it.

Here's a file you can use (it may not be around forever):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50890185/128MiB.dat

It's 134217728 bytes (128 MiB) of random, incompressible (there's a challenge ) noise. Download this to one PC and try to copy it to another following RobertoS' guidance.

The data transfer rate in Mbit/s will be 1074 divided by the transfer time in seconds.
(i.e., (134217728 x 8 / 1000000) / time )