Poor Pings

I have noticed that since the "Upgrade" my pings to UK and European servers have doubled. Also I'm getting this effect, that say my ping will be around 50ms to a European Server and then in a cyclic fashion raise up to 150ms.

It's getting to the point where I'll be auto booted from gaming servers. I hope things don't continue like this, as the main reason I have an Idnet connection (and pay more than the mainstream ISPs) is so I have a good gaming connection.

Could be a "stale session"... have you tried turning your router off for half an hour?

There does appear to be a widespread problem, Bill, I'm seeing pings of 160ms where I normally get 22ms. I'm collating reports at Netters atm, and have alerted support.

True enough... I'm getting pings ~100ms to jolt and bbc, they're usually <20ms. Hadn't noticed before as I don't do gaming, as you know.

Me neither, Bill, I only started testing when the reports began to come in. As of now, though, things seem to be returning to normal.

Looking at my favourites in Steam, where I normally filter only servers with a ping of under 100ms, all even from the UK are 150+ ms. I'm seeing my favourite European gaming server which is usually <50ms (which is excellent) at around 180ms, which isn't acceptable to the servers policy.

I have now turned off my router for 1 hour and checked again and although the pings are slightly eratic, they are back in the area I would normally expect.
I had checked the router profile and the throughput before switching the router off and all was ok on that side of things.
So i don't know if turning the router off, has had an affect or something has been corrected at Idnet during that off time (which was an hour+)

Hopefully things will stay ok now... I'll repost if pings start to rise again or do this "Cyclic" thing.

Many thanks for all your replies..

Coming down, but still 3-4x normal. Very erratic, too. I'll have another check later.

They seem to be increasing again, Bill, after a normal period from ~17:53-18:08. I'm about to email support again.

Mine are all over the place. 10 second intervals:

PING bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.138): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=0 ttl=122 time=14.866 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=24.196 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=2 ttl=122 time=17.328 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=4 ttl=122 time=56.247 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=5 ttl=122 time=28.140 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=6 ttl=122 time=30.569 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=7 ttl=122 time=54.975 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=8 ttl=122 time=15.254 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=9 ttl=122 time=51.755 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=10 ttl=122 time=21.939 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=11 ttl=122 time=16.751 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=12 ttl=122 time=28.073 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=13 ttl=122 time=26.086 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=14 ttl=122 time=14.993 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=15 ttl=122 time=61.562 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=16 ttl=122 time=121.722 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=17 ttl=122 time=16.464 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=18 ttl=122 time=18.704 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=19 ttl=122 time=13.974 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=20 ttl=122 time=14.982 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=21 ttl=122 time=26.199 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=22 ttl=122 time=14.091 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=23 ttl=122 time=14.825 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=24 ttl=122 time=51.561 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=25 ttl=122 time=18.529 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=26 ttl=122 time=31.816 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=27 ttl=122 time=19.948 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=28 ttl=122 time=13.826 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=29 ttl=122 time=15.508 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=30 ttl=122 time=15.773 ms
^C
--- bbc.co.uk ping statistics ---
31 packets transmitted, 30 packets received, 3% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 13.826/29.022/121.722/22.332 ms

More usual results from a few days ago:

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/showthreaded.php?Board=which_isp&Number=3556368

Yep, just started playing TF2 and they are back upto around 100ms again.

In reply to:

---

I have noticed that since the "Upgrade" my pings to UK and European servers have doubled. Also I'm getting this effect, that say my ping will be around 50ms to a European Server and then in a cyclic fashion raise up to 150ms.

---

O.K here -

Pinging jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Sun 01-Feb-09 18:48:06)

As i said, it's cyclic. In fact i've just stopped gaming to a European server which is normally sub 50ms with Idnet, as pings peak to around 150ms and then stay there for a few minutes or more before returning to sub 50ms.

There are no other programs running that are taking bandwidth on an intermittent basis either.

As of 19:37 there is not one server shown on Steam that is sub 100ms. Thats out of 17373 servers available

Edited by Vorlon (Sun 01-Feb-09 19:36:58)

In reply to:

---

it's cyclic

---

Agreed.

Mine was settling down to near the usual values, now it's back up to 150+ms to bbc.co.uk.

And seems to have hit a plateau

Spoke too soon my ping's are now all over the place and at one point i was stuck at over 100ms for a while reaching 150ms at one point, its like playing on dial up again.


Pinging jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=124

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Sun 01-Feb-09 20:10:44)

Mine are starting to come down again, from 150+ ms to about 80ms, but extremely erratic.

I won't post the list 'cos I've been pinging the Beeb every 10 seconds for the last 90 minutes

Try pinging vanuatu.vu - then you'll be glad of the very low pings you get to anywhere else.

Pings don't normally bother me, I only do them if someone explicitly asks for them.

But when they're this bad for this long, something's amiss somewhere...

We're working at getting our Centrals balanced which should fix the problem.
Regards
Simon

Thanks Simon.

In reply to:

---

Pings don't normally bother me, I only do them if someone explicitly asks for them.

But when they're this bad for this long, something's amiss somewhere...

---

I agree,

I've been with Idnet for awhile now and tend to play on the same European server, plus occasionally other UK servers, so i know what the average range of pings (for me) is.

Unfortunately at this moment of time my favourite TF2 server is averaging 170ms (normally sub 50ms) and the server admin has set the limit to 150ms - so it's not basically usable for me this evening.

All I can say is that things sometimes go awry with IDNet, just as they do with any other ISP (visited the Entanet forum recently? ).

But unlike many others, they fix it as quick as they can...

Tonight's re-balancing work seems to have been successful, we'll be monitoring closely to prevent a recurrence.
Simon

Cheers Simon.

It's a lot better, but still not down to the consistent 12-13ms I usually get to the beeb.

Averaging about 30ms at a guess, and still erratic- down to 13ms and up to 120-odd.

Apart from an occasional flier, seems to be pretty much back to normal now

I did have a quick look at the Steam servers (full listing) and now at 00:00hrs the minimum latency is 73ms, which is better, but not really as good as it always was. I assume it's not fully recified as of yet?

In reply to:

---

Tonight's re-balancing work seems to have been successful, we'll be monitoring closely to prevent a recurrence.
Simon

---

Seems to be back to normal here but it is early in the morning.


Pinging jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86:

Not bad enough here to complain, but not quite back to normal. Average (to bbc.co.uk) is about 15-16msec instead of 12-13msec, with occasional fliers up to several hundred, which I've never seen before.

Though to be fair, I suppose the BBC website might be a touch busy this morning

Have you guys gone over to IPSC?

TBH I don't even know what IPSC is .

The Status Notification from last week said:

Our new Central (into BT's 20th Century Network) and the new 1Gbps Host Link into the 21st Century Network (for up to 24 Mbps ADSL2+ services) are scheduled to go live tomorrow.

Whether that's connected to the increased pings last night I have no idea, I leave the gory innards of IDNet's network to those who know what they're doing

It appears to be related, Bill, they are re-balancing at the moment.

---

TBH I don't even know what IPSC is .

---

Its what has made the enta forum so busy.

IPSC is the new platform that delivers IPStream over 21CN. The techie guys will know by their routings via Idnet. Instead of connecting to a pipe, you will connect via a node. So the question for you Bill, is do you have a node?

Cheers Rik. Doesn't bother me, but IDNet has a reputation as a good gaming ISP

In reply to:

---

do you have a node?

---

That's strictly between Sally and I

Seriously, how would I find out?

In reply to:

---

Seriously, how would I find out?

---

You probably wouldn't. On Entanet it seems people get their L2TP session terminated in the same place, and they know only because Enta allows to look up whether they are using a central or a node.

You would have to ask the techies how you do that. Usually you can run a tracert and compare that with published data from the ISP. Or, as with Entanet, there are lookup tools to immediately identify the node or pipe that your line is connected to.

When Enta was using the pipes, it was quite useful to see the loadings. Often a user would experience a slow down, and the pipe would be full. A router re-boot could cause a change to a pipe with capacity, service restored. Now they are on nodes, and you cant change them.

I have been experiencing poorer ping rates than normal in recent days, too. Is IDNet getting overcrowded?

No-one does, Bill, afaik. IDNet are still waiting for IPStream Connect.

Me neither, but it needs to get sorted.

Quite the opposite, they added a 155Mbps central and a gigabit Hostlink on Friday. The problem seems to be down to re-balancing their network to the new capacity.

In reply to:

---

IDNet are still waiting for IPStream Connect.

---

If the Entanet forum is anything to go by, I'm happy to wait as well...

My feelings entirely.

I'm happy to give Idnet some time to rectify the problem, but as I'm paying more for an Idnet connection (compared to the mainstream ISP's) I do expect a higher level of service.

I've tried to contact them but the phone lines are engaged, so i can only assume they might be short staffed today (due to the weather) or they have got an influx of support calls in relation to the ping problem.

The only thing that is slightly annoying is that Idnet doesn't have any support staff (that the customer can call) in the evenings, when it's likely that people are going to be online, gaming. If theres going to be a problem it's usually then.
Also with the Cyclic nature of this fault, you can't be sure that the fault has been fixed until you've had atleast a day of total stability.

Unfortunately, if it doesn't get sorted, I'll have to jump ship and go back to Zen.

Unfortunately it will come, but you are better off with an ISP who stands one step back from the pioneering heroes. I had the latest all singing, all dancing product (which actually meant that I had a 'node'), at a blistering 500kbps. So I got rid of the node.

Well all I can say that the network connection has been getting worse during the past 2 months which makes me think that IDNet is slowly oversubscribing. Our building is almost next door to the exchange, yet we experience line disruptions almost on a daily basis now, whereas it used to be fine in the past.

By line disruptions, do you mean disconnections and losses of sync? If so, that's nothing to do with IDNet. If, otoh, you are just dropping the PPP session regularly, you need to talk to support. Until last week's updates, I hadn't lost a connection in months. The current ping problem is being worked on with a rebalance as I speak.

It does annoy me though when pages like these tell you nothing, except everything is OK when it's not.
http://www.idnet.net/support/status.jsp

Try dropping your PPP and then reconnecting, that will put you on a different pipe.

In reply to:

---

Try dropping your PPP and then reconnecting, that will put you on a different pipe.

---

Are you sure that will work? i did try that last night.

I've just got off the phone to Simon at Idnet and he didn't suggest that. Although he said they were trying to move new log in's ie Modems (usb I assume), rather than always-on Routers to the new central.

He did say though they were having to "manually" move connections across onto the new central, which I assume is ironically quite empty.
I got the impression too, that BT should have facilitated in the balancing across all the feeds, but hadn't.
So it seems the capacity is there, but up until now new login's have been ignoring the new feed and connecting to the fully subscribed original feeds - and thats why we see the pings go up and down (i assume)

It may take a short while to sort it out, but apparently atleast the capacity is there. It just sounds like one of those things that should have gone smoothly, but didn't.

A bit like when you are renovating a house and you think all will be simple as you've booked the neccessary tradesmen for the same time - but one doesn't turn up.

Edited by Vorlon (Mon 02-Feb-09 16:48:26)

Exactly like that. The BT systems should deal with this automatically, but haven't so IDNet are having to force it manually. Re-connecting will move you to a different pipe and should, hopefully, resolve things for you. Capacity at IDNet certainly isn't the issue, they added both a new central and the host link on Friday.

In reply to:

---

Re-connecting will move you to a different pipe and should, hopefully, resolve things for you. Capacity at IDNet certainly isn't the issue, they added both a new central and the host link on Friday.

---

Apparently according to Idnet, it's not as simple as that. If it were then they wouldn't be needing to manually distribute their users across pipes.

If its the BTW round robin system, it "might" connect to a different pipe, no guarantee.

I was told they were blocking connections to force people onto different pipes.

I must admit I don't know all the ins and outs about the update and how things work ISP wise, but I have had some excellent feedback from Idnet today, both from Simon and the Lady in support.

So I'm happy to wait (within reason) for them to get things sorted. When Idnet is up and running 100% (as most of the time it has been), then it is excellent for online gaming to UK & European servers and no doubt beyond. For me, it's worth waiting for all to be sorted.

I totally agree with you. They have a very good track record of sorting problems.

Getting the load balanced is a right pain. Some time ago BTW did have a project under development that was to do exactly that. For some reason it got abandoned.

In reply to:

---

Getting the load balanced is a right pain. Some time ago BTW did have a project under development that was to do exactly that. For some reason it got abandoned.

---

Probably to do with costs?

There are no error messages in our DSL router, and according to a check carried out by IDNet today there shouldn't have been a line disruption at all during the past few days. Yet we have been experiencing once or twice a day an unresponsive internet connection for up to ten minutes duirng the past few weeks. And during the past 2 days the ping-rates have been 5 times slower than normal.

The ping times we know about, of course. If you're losing connection, you need to work with support to establish the cause. Running a program like RouterStats may help, particularly if your router doesn't log disconnections.

In reply to:

---

So I'm happy to wait (within reason) for them to get things sorted.

---

Latest RSS:

Some users are still experiencing periods of higher latency (pings) than normal whilst we continue to rebalance our network following the new capacity added on Friday. Apologies to those affected, optimisation is taking a little longer than expected but we are making progress and hope to reach optimum performance within the next 24 hours.

and that's the problem Rik

dropping PPP worked fine for me the other day, but is not working now, no matter how many times i try.
So it looks like an imbalance problem is building up but there doesn't now appear to be anything we, as end users, can do anymore..

i, too, am seeing the current speed/ping issues

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

So I'm happy to wait (within reason) for them to get things sorted.

---

Latest RSS:

Some users are still experiencing periods of higher latency (pings) than normal whilst we continue to rebalance our network following the new capacity added on Friday. Apologies to those affected, optimisation is taking a little longer than expected but we are making progress and hope to reach optimum performance within the next 24 hours.

---

Thanks Bill, that's more or less what Simon conveyed.

It's just unfortunate that the problem is so apparent for online gamers, especially as Idnet are known as a online gaming friendly ISP.

I have been keeping an eye on things with PingGraph, but it's still all over the place at present.

Edited by Vorlon (Mon 02-Feb-09 19:16:30)

In reply to:

---

Probably to do with costs?

---

That was the message I got.

Well I checked my favourite server on Steam tonight and the ping was anything between 91 - 171, which when I've become used to <40 (and steady) it's a bit of a shock and of course it makes playing online unpractical.

Anyway, I'm probably being too optimistic hoping that things may have progressed and at least improved for me tonight, but I guess I'll have to wait.

Out of all the other servers available on Valve Software's Steam platform, all 14,871 of them available tonight, the lowest ping is 84. Considering that usually the listing starts with servers as low as 20 or so, the current minimum ping through Idnet is very high.

Edited by Vorlon (Mon 02-Feb-09 22:18:14)

In reply to:

---

Probably to do with costs?

---

Or lack of profit. It would allow ISPs to manage bandwidth better, and therefore be able to delay new centrals/new segments a bit longer.

I've just noticed some PPP session drops and some negative comments about it over at Idnetters (i'm not registered there). However the guys at Idnet have been fair and picked a low traffic time - personally I think whilst it's annoying, Idnet have been very reasonable.

The Result and I don't want tempt fate, my connection has gone into Ping Turbo mode. I had to check out in the street to see if Idnet had taken up residence outside my home , it's ultra quick. Of course the customers who have Usb modems will probably be disconnected from Idnet at this late hour and not be contributing to system load.

It's a step in the right direction - so I'm just keeping fingers crossed that all at Idnet who are working on this problem are getting closer to rectifying it. Guy's you can't lose the online gaming Crown!

Things seem to be normalising today. Apart from occasional spikes, my pings are back in range this morning.

Better, but still some way to go:

PING bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.138): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=0 ttl=122 time=50.884 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=12.973 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=2 ttl=122 time=61.764 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=3 ttl=122 time=96.257 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=4 ttl=122 time=43.804 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=5 ttl=122 time=27.231 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=6 ttl=122 time=24.903 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=7 ttl=122 time=56.005 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=8 ttl=122 time=41.896 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=9 ttl=122 time=18.546 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=10 ttl=122 time=50.880 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=11 ttl=122 time=71.324 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=12 ttl=122 time=64.498 ms
^C
--- bbc.co.uk ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 13 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 12.973/47.767/96.257/22.410 ms

10 second intervals.

After the outage, pings are dire again. I initially thought the outage was to do with part of the rebalancing work, but according to Idnet - not so.

I'm told it may be longer until things are balanced out now, with no doubt todays problems setting the balancing work back?

What does annoy me is that the 0800 number becomes engaged and when you do manage to get back online the status page says everything is wonderful in Idnet land.
I don't receive any emails in advance saying about work/upgrades that have been scheduled, neither (short of the forums) am i advised on what the state of play is - especially at a time like this, when there are ongoing problems.

Download speedsare also poor. I'm down from 7 mbps to a range of 4-1.5 mbps. I phoned IDNet about this and was told the issue is due to a "burst of throughput" following the route issue and that download speeds would return to normal. Time will tell both for pings and speeds...

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 832 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 2666 kbps

Edited by ARD (Tue 03-Feb-09 15:04:05)

Yep, my throughput is down too, well it varies between 1-3 Mb (usually 7Mb).

My main reason for using Idnet is for a good gaming connection with minimal latency - that's why i pay the extra over and above the regular large ISP's. So at present (and for the last few days) my connection isn't performing at all in that regard for me.

I appreciate business customers suffer the most when there is an outage, which in comparison makes online gaming look totally insignificant, but equally i have to justify my costs.
I'll see how things are in another 24 hours and if there is no real improvement, then reluctantly I'll take my custom elsewhere.

speeds and ping earlier today were great, but since the outage i've seen it below 100 kbps and now silly pings to bbc

reading between the lines it looks like new capacity has been added but it's not auto load balancing. So when we log on we're all being lumped onto the same congested pipe LOL

if that is the case, then i would hope they could sort out that situation fairly soon,

i can understand your frustration, but i would suggest giving them a little longer,
but i agree, it would be nice to hear what progress is being made.

Thanks Rik,
it was much better this morning, but since the outage is unfortunately much worse LOL

I reset my PPP session after the outage and I'm seeing a normal, 24ms, ping now.

RSS:

A few users may be experiencing traffic throughput problems which we are currently investigating.

We have found the problem and connections should now be restored. If you still have problems please leave router off for 30 minutes and try reconnecting

tks for that, Bill

that seems to refer to two separate problems.
i am re-connected Ok, but speeds and pings are silly, sub 200 kbps and 165 ms to bbc LOL

Ok tks Rik, i did try that earlier, but it didn't work for me, but i'll give another go, switching off the router and leaving it off for a while..

I didn't even do that, but just reset PPP on the 2700 - I didn't want to risk my sync speed.

I tried that for a second time (the first reboot didn�t help) and my speeds and pings appear to be back to normal. I hadn�t seen the advice your quote, Bill, but it is the opposite of the advice I received when I called IDNet a second time. It was recommended that I leave the router on!

Mine's back to normal too

Apart from a little bit of sync which I'll sort out later.

Thanks again Rik,

had the router off for a while,

Looks like Simon's trick with the centrals has worked,

speeds back to normal, ping even better than before

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data

Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=122

It's nice when it works, isn't it.

Well, we suffer extreme low ping rates and occasional lost internet connections again this Wednesday morning, so it looks like IDNet has not yet resolved the problems.

Yep, me too.

I'm afraid support were less than helpful - when I got the routing reset so that pings would work (normailly use IDnet for VoIP and A.N.Other supplier for all other IP traffic, but had to route all traffic away from IDnet), he saw the "occasional spike". Didn't seem to grasp that the ping is only 1x per sec, who knows what happens between those packets, so spikes aren't good. And pings are a c**p way to diagnose a network anyways.

Also tried to tell me that other traffic might be going over the link when I KNEW it wasn't. So gave up and said I'd reboot the router and see what happens.

Think I'll be keeping the VoIP traffic over A.N.Other (UKOnline to you) until this all calms down for a week or so. My customer is less than happy. CPW/TT/Opal allegedly go live on Sat - the 1st supplier at the exchange with ADSL2+....

Things look like they are getting back to normal

Last night my ping to the TF2 European (NL) Server i normally play on was back to <35ms which bettered many of the pings people get who reside in that country. It stayed fairly steady too, ie within +/- 10%, which of course is excellent and this was at peak evening time (around 20:30hrs)

So I hope I've not spoken too soon and do hope that things continue to improve and completely normalise again.

I do hope though that Idnet do take on some constructive criticism and:-

1) Resolve the 0800 number being engaged.
2) Have an option on the 0800 number to hear the latest service status. This could be useful when support is very busy and/or if a problem arises out of support hours.
3) Advise via email atleast 72hours before scheduled work is due to begin.

Yes. The option to hear a recorded service status message when calling IDNet's 0800 support number would be great. It would save time for both users and support staff and free up the line for users with unrelated problems.

Spoke too soon,

I'm getting the "Cyclic" pings again tonight. Not quite as high as they were before but nevertheless not stable as they were last night. Time for my MAC key i think.

Edit: The latency is far worse now - the equivalent to a chocolate teapot when it comes to online gaming.
I have also (again) rebooted the router and at one point also switched it off for 20mins and restarted, all to no avail.

My usual pings of <40ms are up at 120ms-170ms.

Edited by Vorlon (Wed 04-Feb-09 21:44:26)

Hmmm. I won't be switching the VoIP back to IDNet in a hurry, then.

I've requested my Mac key now as the service is far too sporadic.

Well, not much choice at this site. Only unbundled supplier so far is Orange (yeah, right), tho CPW/TT/Opal allegedly go live on Saturday. Which also feels like a move from frying pan into fire. Oh for O2/Be, or LLU UKOnline.

In reply to a post by mpellatt:

Well, not much choice at this site. Only unbundled supplier so far is Orange (yeah, right), tho CPW/TT/Opal allegedly go live on Saturday. Which also feels like a move from frying pan into fire. Oh for O2/Be, or LLU UKOnline.

I'll just go back to Zen.

I like/d Idnet's service and their product, but when I pay more specifically so that I have a decent connection (in all regards) for online gaming, then right now (and for most of the last week) Idnet aren't providing that.

Their service at present is at best sporadic - in regard to latency.

I'll just go back to Zen.

I like/d Idnet's service and their product, but when I pay more specifically so that I have a decent connection (in all regards) for online gaming, then right now (and for most of the last week) Idnet aren't providing that.

Their service at present is at best sporadic - in regard to latency.

I am having a fair bit of trouble with my pings as you can see from my post earlier in the thread.

Thinks got a back to normal and now they are bad again, I pinged the address in bills earlier post, the results are below.


Pinging 212.58.224.138 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122

Reply from 212.58.224.138:

I'm getting exactly the same (various addresses) even after numerous router reboots. The ONLY peak time when all was good in the last 7 days was Tuesday evening.
Last night was diabolical again in regards to latency. Unfortunately that was the last straw for me, as I thought after Tuesday evenings good performance all was back as it should be.

However and reluctantly i have just migrated away from Idnet now.

Edited by Vorlon (Thu 05-Feb-09 16:14:12)

The poor pings in the evening, at peak gaming time, is a major reason why I stopped playing clan wars in UT. This chart for the 24 hours leading up to now is typical:

24 hours of pings

In reply to a post by ThePurpleOne:

The poor pings in the evening, at peak gaming time, is a major reason why I stopped playing clan wars in UT. This chart for the 24 hours leading up to now is typical:

24 hours of pings

There's no doubt it's been getting worse over the last week. Bar Tuesday night, I've not been able to play online due to latency problems for around about a week now.
Whats annoying is that you can get ready to select say your favourite server and the latency will look ok. Once ingame you then note some problems (such as others suggest you are "warping" amongst a few) and upon checking the latency you'll see it's all over the place,.
In the main the latency will creep up to 4x the amount that is normal when using a particular server.

I appreciate that evenings are peak time, but this never used to have a noticeable negative impact on the Idnet network. Short of tuesday evening, I've seen nothing in around 7 days to suggest that Idnet are on top of the problem and making some progress.

Same here tonight:

ping 212.58.224.138
PING 212.58.224.138 (212.58.224.138) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=146 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=2 ttl=122 time=137 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=3 ttl=122 time=160 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=4 ttl=122 time=144 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=5 ttl=122 time=126 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.138: icmp_seq=6 ttl=122 time=168 ms

I think its time to get the MAC key and move elsewhere.

Same address @ 22:53.


Pinging 212.58.224.138 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138:

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Thu 05-Feb-09 22:58:20)

The pings seem to be stable again, loads of killing on GFE tonight.

In reply to a post by BallyG:

The pings seem to be stable again, loads of killing on GFE tonight.

It's the evenings when the problem shows up the most....

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by BallyG:

The pings seem to be stable again, loads of killing on GFE tonight.

It's the evenings when the problem shows up the most....

Looking good here, I will be playing over the weekend so will see if it lasts.


Speed/ping test @ 19:25 - http://www.speedtest.net/result/40577619...

Pinging 212.58.224.138 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=122

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Fri 06-Feb-09 19:32:56)

Looking good here, I will be playing over the weekend so will see if it lasts.

I won't be So bad to day it's screwing up my web browsing.

[IMG]http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu176...[/IMG]

Edited by deleted (Sat 07-Feb-09 17:49:12)

Please reboot your router as that should get you onto a different pipe which should clear your problem.
Simon

I've done that and it is better now, thanks.

However, I did this the other day also when you first mentioned it and that also had the desire effect then, but the next afternoon the high pings were back. I probably wouldn't be averse to betting they'll be back tomorrow (or maybe Monday). Having to check the router stats and then reboot it every day isn't what I envisaged as a the overriding feature of a premium service! Are you able to say that this is a known ongoing problem which will be fixed soon?

That is our imperative and I should think we will lose many customers if we do not succeed.
Simon

Anyone else having problems tonight?



Pinging 217.146.86.46 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=122

I rebooted the router and the PPP light didn't come on, I was surfing before I rebooted so I know it was working fine, after reboot noting worked so I rebooted again and the PPP light came on and I now get low pings again from the same address as above.

Strange.

Pinging 217.146.86.46 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=122
Reply from 217.146.86.46:

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Tue 10-Feb-09 19:00:49)

Same happened to me and same solution.

Well the latency issue still exists for me. I was sort of expecting that by the time I migrated away from Idnet (that should changeover today) that all would be sorted.
Yet every evening (bar one) in around the last 10 days pings have been all over the place regardless of router reboots.

Whilst I have had some excellent pings when Idnet has been working 100% ok over the last year probably bettering most other ISP's, I'm sort of pleased i'm about to migrate away as this has started to drive me nuts.

I still can't help but wonder if the unexplained outage last week is somehow connected to this ongoing problem, albeit in a remote unlikely way.