View Full Version : 30M Horrible ping!!
When i first got the superhub my ping, download and upload were fine, now the ping is at around 50 while download and upload are still good.
My ping should be around 20-30, it has been like this for sometime, any solutions?
I have deactivated the flood detection as well.
Any help is greatly appreciated
asbo dog
25-06-2011, 19:45
join the queue, seems there's a lot of latency on the customer service front to when vm are getting plenty of a steady flow of customers complaints on there forum that treasure there latency, jitter an loss stats.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33675644-think-broadband-ping-monitor-results-post-page-41.html
Is 20-30 normal ? Mine is 5:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1356983071.png
But no superhub, thank god, and a 20Mb line
Is 20-30 normal ? Mine is 5:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1356983071.png
But no superhub, thank god, and a 20Mb line
Lowest possible just depends on how good or bad the peering from virgin to the server is and how far the packets have to travel to that server.
Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 21:30
Although some may advise against this I would say..
Turn off your firewall and Antivirus then run a speedtest.net and pingtest.net check. You'll probably find you ping has dropped a lot.
A 5ms ping was definitely run without a good quality firewall running.
When i first got the superhub my ping, download and upload were fine, now the ping is at around 50 while download and upload are still good.
My ping should be around 20-30, it has been like this for sometime, any solutions?
I have deactivated the flood detection as well.
Any help is greatly appreciated
50 milliseconds = 0.05 seconds
you shouldn't notice any perceivable difference between 50 ms and 20 ms.
---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:19 ----------
300 to 400 milliseconds — the blink of a human eye
A 5ms ping was definitely run without a good quality firewall running.
Just Windows 7's firewall and the Netgear router SPI firewall
qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 08:16
5ms is just about impossible on cable. On a related note, Speedtest.net is absolutely horrible for testing pings. Use a real ping test, e.g. the "ping" command built into just about every version of Windows, Mac, and Linux.
If you do do a real ping test, post the full results and then maybe we can see if anything's abnormal or wrong.
OK not quite 5 for these
Pinging virginmedia.com [212.250.162.12] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.250.162.12:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
======================================
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.251] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=245
Ping statistics for 212.58.254.251:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 11ms
=========================================
Getting back to the original poster, are we saying that anything up to 50 is still a good result, even for say on-line gaming ?
OK not quite 5 for these
Pinging virginmedia.com [212.250.162.12] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.250.162.12:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
======================================
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.251] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=245
Ping statistics for 212.58.254.251:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 11ms
=========================================
Getting back to the original poster, are we saying that anything up to 50 is still a good result, even for say on-line gaming ?
In reality anything up to 90 is fine. people who claim otherwise or blame there poor performance in games on pings up to them lacking skill, not ping speed.:rolleyes:
Besides if your up against other people on ADSL e.t.c if you look on the score board a majority of people your against will be getting 30 - 400 ms ping; you can only get updates on there location as fast as they can send it to the server.
The diffeence between even 5 ms ping and 50 ms ping would be difficult if impossible for the end user to perceive other then if they are constantly neurotically monitoring what speed and ping and jitter they get rather then enjoying there internet connection;)
qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 09:01
Depends where the result's from. A reliable result of 50ms is quite on the high side (national average for VM is about 20) but the difference between it and a zero ping is two frames at 60fps. Some people might notice it, and some might not, gaming wise it's not ideal but tolerable.
Back in the old days of server-client games 50ms was quite average, neither good or bad. With some of the most popular online games (i.e. COD) using P2P hosting average pings are closer to 100ms and most people still get by fine.
On the other hand though this is assuming your input immediately goes all the way through your system and back without delay, in reality there are other factors such as buffers, processing delay, monitor lag, and more importantly server tick rate that may amplify small differences in ping.
The problem is pings that high on the VM network generally indicate high congestion, which also brings jitter and packet loss along with it, and those ARE bad.
Pings are "fine" on VM id gladly trade a 20ms for a stable 50ms VM one but the incredible packetloss and Jitter is what is to blame. Off peak im fine at around 40-50ms then from 4pm until 11pm and all day weekeneds. ill go from 40-250ms continuously.. this unsuprisingly is completely unplayable. Ive been kicked and banned from So many BlackOps servers im running out now.. PC gamer not Xbox.... thats a whole nother issue.
Pings are "fine" on VM id gladly trade a 20ms for a stable 50ms VM one but the incredible packetloss and Jitter is what is to blame. Off peak im fine at around 40-50ms then from 4pm until 11pm and all day weekeneds. ill go from 40-250ms continuously.. this unsuprisingly is completely unplayable. Ive been kicked and banned from So many BlackOps servers im running out now.. PC gamer not Xbox.... thats a whole nother issue.
Have you tried phoning customer services to tell them?
You are the 4th or 5th person asking and ive called them twice and posted twice on their official support forum.... Local high load issues that will be passed onto their network management team to be resolved in ..... 2012....
I live in London its all ****** old Cable and Wireless infrastructure and theres just not enough juice to cope... unfortuntaley not many people give a toss or even notice a toss so live in bliss.
qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 14:54
Hey at 2012 is at least better than 20-we-do-not-have-an-estimated-date-for-resolving-this-issue-nor-can-we-be-sure-if-we'll-ever-even-bother.
id like to hear from ONE customer in Greater London that doesnt have a crap VM service.. Just to know it is possible. ;)
id like to hear from ONE customer in Greater London that doesnt have a crap VM service.. Just to know it is possible. ;)
Mine has been totally brilliant for the last 2 years and remains so. (20Mb)
I'd like to move to 50Mb, but am dead scared I'll end up with something worse, especially given superhub issues, so am sticking with what I have
slef2003
26-06-2011, 18:47
Mine has been totally brilliant for the last 2 years and remains so. (20Mb)
I'd like to move to 50Mb, but am dead scared I'll end up with something worse, especially given superhub issues, so am sticking with what I have
Very very sensible decision !!!!!!!!!!!! I would be happy to go back to the rock stable 20meg service that I so foolishly left to upgrade to a less reliable connection and a so called superhub that has never performed as well!!
The lower your ping, the better your experience as you get to see things happen sooner and your actions are communicated to the server before people with a higher ping. But the jitter is more of an issue, as it disrupts a game servers ability to predict your movement and so you will warp around and find yourself dying behind cover.
Ping also depends on the game type and its netcode. Valve games tend to play well up to 100ms (and oddly you can gain a bit of an advantage at higher pings in certain circumstances) while most other developers games favour the LPB's (low ping bastages).
Mine has been totally brilliant for the last 2 years and remains so. (20Mb)
I'd like to move to 50Mb, but am dead scared I'll end up with something worse, especially given superhub issues, so am sticking with what I have
Not just Superhub issues, but you would be moving onto a different network so could see worse performance simply for changing tier.
These are the pings I get every night between 6.30pm and 11.30pm (these times are smack on the dot every night for last week)
Pinging google.com [209.85.229.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 209.85.229.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping google.com
Pinging google.com [209.85.229.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.85.229.104: bytes=32 time=1069ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.85.229.104: bytes=32 time=1080ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.85.229.104: bytes=32 time=1083ms TTL=51
Ping statistics for 209.85.229.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1069ms, Maximum = 1083ms, Average = 1077ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=1082ms TTL=246
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=1083ms TTL=246
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=1082ms TTL=246
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=1083ms TTL=246
Ping statistics for 212.58.241.131:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1082ms, Maximum = 1083ms, Average = 1082ms
---------- Post added at 23:55 ---------- Previous post was at 23:52 ----------
Also had a Tech (British one) monitoring these pings and she said they were normal so she couldn't do anything
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.