Ping test� Test!

Hi all, it�s so quiet in here, can anyone beat this ping test 16ms on Orange?

http://www.pingtest.net/result/47056614.png

Your ping test http://pingtest.net/

Edited by deleted (Sat 17-Sep-11 19:46:16)

Only 14ms to Maidenhead also on Orange too: http://www.pingtest.net/result/47064070.png

What's your ping to bbc.co.uk? Mine's only 11 ms

Yes, it has been quiet lately. My theory is that many on long slow noisy ADSL lines have defected to FTTC.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Sat 17-Sep-11 21:54:29)

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Only 14ms to Maidenhead also on Orange too: http://www.pingtest.net/result/47064070.png

What's your ping to bbc.co.uk? Mine's only 11 ms

Yes, it has been quiet lately. My theory is that many on long slow noisy ADSL lines have defected to FTTC.

You did better that me again, my ping to bbc.co.uk only average 13ms.

Target Name: bbc.co.uk
IP: 212.58.241.131
Date/Time: 18/09/2011 09:11:09

1 1 ms 0 ms 1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254] Router default IP Address entered.
2 8 ms 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms [213.1.112.126]
3 13 ms 10 ms 13 ms 10 ms [213.1.115.254]
4 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms [213.1.67.206]
5 12 ms 13 ms 14 ms 12 ms [213.1.67.252]
6 14 ms 11 ms 14 ms 15 ms [213.1.79.6]
7 12 ms 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms [213.1.79.85]
8 14 ms 14 ms 15 ms 13 ms [87.237.20.246]
9 12 ms 13 ms 15 ms 111 ms ae1-0.lontr2.London.opentransit.net [193.251.254.33]
10 N/A N/A N/A 17 ms tengige0-15-0-5.lontr1.London.opentransit.net [193.251.241.33]
11 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms 14 ms telia.GW.opentransit.net [193.251.251.22]
12 15 ms 85 ms 14 ms 14 ms ldn-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.252.201]
13 26 ms 15 ms 15 ms 14 ms ldn-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.247.27]
14 14 ms 13 ms 15 ms 15 ms siemens-ic-119241-ldn-b2.c.telia.net [213.248.104.70]
15 15 ms 14 ms 13 ms 15 ms [212.58.238.137]
16 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms virtual-vip-231.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131]

Ping statistics for bbc.co.uk
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0.0%)
Round Trip Times: Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 13ms

http://www.pingplotter.com/

I think that WBC has greatly improved ping times.

I seem to remember that they were about twice as long on Orange LLU.

Yes, just looked; pings have now more than halved:

In reference to WBC NOW:

C:\>ping thinkbroadband.com

Pinging thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.130] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=52
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=52
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=52
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 80.249.99.130:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms

In reference to LLU Sat 21-Aug-10 16:00:49:

ping thinkbroadband.com

Pinging thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.130] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=50
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=50
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=50
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 80.249.99.130:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 26ms

EDIT: Just remembered: Orange stuck me on Fast Path when I complained about my high Target NM on WBC and have so far refused to take me off it.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Sun 18-Sep-11 12:48:49)

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

I think that WBC has greatly improved ping times.

I seem to remember that they were about twice as long on Orange LLU.

Yes, just looked; pings have now more than halved:

In reference to WBC NOW:

C:\>ping thinkbroadband.com

Pinging thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.130] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=52
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=52
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=52
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 80.249.99.130:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms

In reference to LLU Sat 21-Aug-10 16:00:49:

ping thinkbroadband.com

Pinging thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.130] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=50
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=50
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=50
Reply from 80.249.99.130: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 80.249.99.130:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 26ms

EDIT: Just remembered: Orange stuck me on Fast Path when I complained about my high Target NM on WBC and have so far refused to take me off it.

I find the same my ping times have halved with WBC compared to Orange LLU. My connection was (Interleaved) at first on WBC and Orange changed it to (Fast Path). Why would you want it changed to (Interleaved)? Do you think fast path causes the (Downstream Noise Margin) to be high, like mine is 9.4 dB. I thought (Fast Path) was an advantage unless you have an unstable line.

2Wire 2700HGV Router Stats
View Broadband Link Details
DSL Connection Details
DSL Line (Wire Pair): Line 1 (inner pair)
Protocol: G.DMT2+ Annex A
Downstream Rate: 11693 kbps
Upstream Rate: 1148 kbps
Channel: Fast Path
Current Noise Margin: 9.4 dB (Downstream), 6.5 dB (Upstream)
Current Attenuation: 31.2 dB (Downstream), 15.8 dB (Upstream)
Current Output Power: 20.7 dBm (Downstream), 12.3 dBm (Upstream)
DSLAM Vendor Information: Country: {0xB5} Vendor: {IFTN} Specific: {0xBE71}

Edited by deleted (Tue 20-Sep-11 11:23:27)

In reply to a post by E7er:

Why would you want it changed to (Interleaved)?

I think, but don't know, that Interleaved is less susceptible to errors and is therefore line is more stable, which I'd prefer as I have no need for Fast Path, not being a gamer. I have not observed any ill effects in actual performance as yet, but do notice that my Error Seconds have increased from about 1 every 300 sec on Interleaved to about 1 every 60 secs on Fast Path.

I think Fast Path is independent of NM:

ADSL Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 16771 kbps 1179 kbps
Line Attenuation 26.0 db 14.4 db
Noise Margin 6.1 db 6.0 db

EDIT: Oh, I see! No, when I complained about my high Target NM on WBC and asked for it to be reduced to 6 dB, they did meet my request eventually, but at the same time moved me to Fast Path.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Tue 20-Sep-11 11:32:14)

I noticed, about Thurs. last week, that I had been put on Interleaved. I had emailed them to do only this.

My pings to bbc.co.uk went up to 26 ms, just like on LLU, and I gained about 1 Meg on Down Sync @ 6dB NM but my UP Sync froze at 888 Kbps. MY ES decreased but I was getting occasional noise interference on voice and frequent discons until it stayed up for over 24 hrs on Sat.

Then on Sun. it reverted to Fast Path with a high Down Sync of nearly 19 Meg @ 3dB NM and Up Sync back up to 1.2 Meg:

ADSL Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 18743 kbps 1203 kbps
Line Attenuation 26.0 db 14.4 db
Noise Margin 3.1 db 6.1 db

BBC pings now down to 11 ms again.

Therefore, looks like Interleaved pings at 26 ms while Fast Path pings at 11 ms.

Dunno what they are playing at. Too much to expect them to hold a dialogue on my requests.

Just noticed that they put me back on Interleaved 3 days ago. Stats now:

ADSL Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 18191 kbps 1028 kbps
Line Attenuation 26.5 db 14.5 db
Noise Margin 3.9 db 8.4 db

BBC pings now up to 23 ms.

But what I'm really pleased about is that my error stats are brilliantly low

i checked the ping Google website from pc using the site
Whoisxy

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.224.83] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 74.125.224.83:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 18ms

In reply to a post by venmalathy:

i checked the ping Google website from pc using the site
Whoisxy

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.224.83] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.224.83: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 74.125.224.83:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 18ms

Hi, I get good low ping times from google.com with Whoisxy website.

PING response from the server google.com

Pinging google.com [74.125.224.212] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.224.212: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=57
Reply from 74.125.224.212: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=57
Reply from 74.125.224.212: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 74.125.224.212: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 74.125.224.212:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 11ms

I have low ping times and I am now back on Interleaved.

2Wire 2700HGV Router Stats
View Broadband Link Details
DSL Connection Details
DSL Line (Wire Pair): Line 1 (inner pair)
Protocol: G.DMT2+ Annex A
Downstream Rate: 9725 kbps
Upstream Rate: 1022 kbps
Channel: Interleaved
Current Noise Margin: 11.1 dB (Downstream), 6.6 dB (Upstream)
Current Attenuation: 31.0 dB (Downstream), 11.8 dB (Upstream)
Current Output Power: 20.6 dBm (Downstream), 11.4 dBm (Upstream)
DSLAM Vendor Information: Country: {0xB5} Vendor: {IFTN} Specific: {0xBE71}