Xilo lagging - anyone else?

I regularly game on a French UT2k4 mod server (178.32.80.189) but for a while now it's completely gone to pot at peak times. Nobody else on it has any problems, it's obviously my connection (tracert would confirm that too). Looks to be a peering issue.

Anyone else on Xilo Pro 24/Tiscali seeing increases in latency/packet loss? Especially over the channel? Might have to start looking for a new ISP if it continues, which is a pain as my options are severely limited.

Edited by deleted (Tue 07-Jun-11 21:54:13)

Not on Xilo, but similar issues being seen by people on BE

Can you post a tracert please?

Interesting. Pings seem to be all over the place, one second 30, the next 140, with loads of packet loss. The router showing the latency seems to change a lot too. Sometimes it's the first one after murphx.net but obviously not this time. Very strange.

Tracing route to 178.32.80.189 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms snip [###.###.#.###]
2 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms lns1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.69]
3 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms uan-er1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.65]
4 20 ms 13 ms 13 ms ge2-6-1.cr1.core.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.1
61]
5 48 ms 58 ms 57 ms te2-3.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.97]
6 58 ms 214 ms 18 ms ge1-0.ar2.lon2.gblx.net [195.66.224.112]
7 21 ms * 21 ms ldn-1-6k.uk.eu [94.23.122.125]
8 21 ms 21 ms 21 ms rbx-g1-a9.fr.eu [94.23.122.66]
9 22 ms * 21 ms vss-2-6k.fr.eu [94.23.122.173]
10 111 ms 112 ms 113 ms 178.32.80.189

Edited by deleted (Tue 07-Jun-11 22:04:08)

This is a problem with OVH.

They often have saturated links and all issues start within their network - if you're their customer, you'll have to give them a nudge i'm afraid.

Common problem being seen by other ISPs too

Matt

Right, so it's a peering problem and the only way I can fix it is by moving?

Here's one showing Murphx lagging too. I realise ping isn't the most reliable metric but it shows how close to breaking point the network is running.

Tracing route to 178.32.80.189 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms snip [###.###.#.###]
2 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms lns1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.69]
3 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms uan-er1.uan.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.65]
4 93 ms 203 ms 199 ms ge2-6-1.cr1.core.thn.uk.murphx.net [89.145.254.1
61]
5 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms te2-3.cr05.tn5.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.97]
6 34 ms 12 ms 13 ms ge1-0.ar2.lon2.gblx.net [195.66.224.112]
7 20 ms 20 ms * ldn-1-6k.uk.eu [94.23.122.125]
8 21 ms 21 ms 20 ms rbx-g1-a9.fr.eu [94.23.122.66]
9 27 ms * 20 ms vss-2-6k.fr.eu [94.23.122.173]
10 31 ms 30 ms 30 ms 178.32.80.189

Edited by deleted (Tue 07-Jun-11 22:10:16)

No, it is not a peering problem. It is a problem with their network (from what we have seen from various posts, over various ISPs, their Linx capacity may be the issue).

As I said, other ISPs are seeing the same problem too and are likely to peer over Linx, as such, the issue won't be any different.

Matt

Look at the packet loss, that is far more important that the odd high ping.

Matt

OK. That's too bad. Wouldn't explain my last tracert though, I'd have thought.

Let me give you another example...

Text

1 23 45 67 89 10

root@xx [~]# traceroute 178.32.80.189 traceroute to 178.32.80.189 (178.32.80.189), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1  91.199.78.252.ip.static.xcl.net.uk (91.199.78.252)  2.199 ms  3.238 ms  3.208 ms  2  vl667.hex-7600.as29550.net (92.48.95.9)  3.188 ms  3.156 ms  3.126 ms 3  xe-1-2-0.lon21.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.67.137)  3.073 ms  3.047 ms  3.009 ms  4  xe-1-0-0.lon14.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.183.166)  2.978 ms xe-0-0-0.lon14.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.183.162)  34.097 ms xe-1-0-0.lon14.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.183.166)  2.901 ms 5  213.200.77.234 (213.200.77.234)  4.707 ms  5.689 ms  5.656 ms  6  ldn-1-6k.uk.eu (94.23.122.125)  19.085 ms * ldn-1-6k.uk.eu (94.23.122.125)  17.843 ms 7  rbx-g1-a9.fr.eu (213.251.130.73)  14.172 ms  14.521 ms  14.788 ms  8  vss-2-6k.fr.eu (94.23.122.173)  220.993 ms * vss-2-6k.fr.eu (94.23.122.173)  221.692 m

Still see the losses in their network over a completely different path (not Linx).

Matt

Edited by uno (Tue 07-Jun-11 22:13:35)

Packet loss is certainly bad but a 140 ping isn't too nice either. I understand it's down to a third-party. Must be frustrating for you too. I am getting lag inside the Murphx network though.

I wouldn't be so annoyed if it wasn't the only server this side of the Atlantic running my game of choice. >.<

Edited by deleted (Tue 07-Jun-11 22:17:51)