Baaaaad Ping...

[Death Jester]

... in my house (or area).


Been bad since the weather last night (50mph winds).

Someone please post the link to the speed test you normally use, so I can show you.


Sorry for brief post, but I wrote out a nicely detailed one, then got a "cannot find server" error, and lost it all. Now im miffed :dozey:

[Kneebs]

This one ? (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html)

[Death Jester]

Ok, found it:

Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:06:30 UTC
1st 128K took 1688 ms = 77649 Bytes/sec = approx 646 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1907 ms = 68732 Bytes/sec = approx 572 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 2501 ms = 52408 Bytes/sec = approx 436 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 2235 ms = 58645 Bytes/sec = approx 488 kbits/sec

512k connection

[Stuartbe]

Ok, found it:

Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:06:30 UTC
1st 128K took 1688 ms = 77649 Bytes/sec = approx 646 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1907 ms = 68732 Bytes/sec = approx 572 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 2501 ms = 52408 Bytes/sec = approx 436 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 2235 ms = 58645 Bytes/sec = approx 488 kbits/sec

512k connection

Thats just your download speed via the proxy servers. Its nothing to do with ping times !

Is you connection that is slow or do you have high pings ?

[Death Jester]

Pings are awful.

When I refresh BF1942 servers using All Seeing Eye, they should come up about 20-30 (about 100ms is unplayable for the servers).

Currently, the lowest is 400ms, and the highest is 2000ms

Also VERY slow net browsing

[rick deckard]

1st 128K took 8261 ms = 15866 Bytes/sec = approx 132 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 8262 ms = 15864 Bytes/sec = approx 132 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 8923 ms = 14689 Bytes/sec = approx 122 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 8753 ms = 14975 Bytes/sec = approx 125 kbits/sec
I'm on 600k as well! why is mine so bad?

[Stuartbe]

I am sorry rick deckard - Neebs has just made me realise that you are new. Where are my manners :sorry: --- :welcome: to nthellworld.co.uk :)

OOerr.... Those ping times are bad Death Jester !

Rick... I recomend trying another speed test just in case ! Those speed are realy bad !

[Kneebs]

1st 128K took 8261 ms = 15866 Bytes/sec = approx 132 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 8262 ms = 15864 Bytes/sec = approx 132 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 8923 ms = 14689 Bytes/sec = approx 122 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 8753 ms = 14975 Bytes/sec = approx 125 kbits/sec
I'm on 600k as well! why is mine so bad?

Hi, and welcome :wavey: to NtHellworld.....

Thats really bad for 600 - do you have any file sharing apps running ? Also, have you scanned for ad-ware / ran a virus check lately ?

[Death Jester]

OOerr.... Those ping times are bad Death Jester !
No **** sherlock! :dozey:

Its been bad all day. Ever since the bad weather last night, but it may not be the cause. I tried to unplug my modem, wait and hour, then plug it back in (does that EVER work?!).

Anyone got a suggestion.

(btw - if anyone is following my thread in the Alternatives forum, my mum is phoning BT tomorrow, to get the line, then, with any luck, I can get 1mb, or 512k if not)

[Death Jester]

Ok, it seems to be ok.

I'll post here if it goes wonky again tomorrow.

Thanks for the help!

[Stuartbe]

No **** sherlock! :dozey:

LOL - Still asleep me... No need to get personal though m8... Only trying to help you know !

[Death Jester]

It was meant as a joke mate :angel:

You have been very helpful to me stuart, both with this, and my other posts.

[Stuartbe]

NP m8... Just me being a bit sleepy :D.....

Np harm done :) :ghugs:

[td444]

Maybe of some use to those suffering bad pings....they "should" be sorted by tommorow 6am...

http://www.ntl-isp.ntl.com/lookup/default.asp

[David25]

I tried to unplug my modem, wait and hour, then plug it back in (does that EVER work?!).

Amazingly, yes. When NTL put a suggestion to reboot the modem on the TS line, calls dropped by about 20%.

[rick deckard]

Stuart, sorry to sound so lame, but i just ran it again, and got this:
Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:19:16 UTC
1st 128K took 1893 ms = 69240 Bytes/sec = approx 576 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1832 ms = 71546 Bytes/sec = approx 595 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1772 ms = 73968 Bytes/sec = approx 615 kbits/sec
what sort of speeds should i actually be getting? at this moment, my daughter is downloading stuff on her pc as well

[paulyoung666]

Stuart, sorry to sound so lame, but i just ran it again, and got this:
Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:19:16 UTC
1st 128K took 1893 ms = 69240 Bytes/sec = approx 576 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1832 ms = 71546 Bytes/sec = approx 595 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1772 ms = 73968 Bytes/sec = approx 615 kbits/sec
what sort of speeds should i actually be getting? at this moment, my daughter is downloading stuff on her pc as well



spot on for 600 service :)

[rick deckard]

Cheers!

[asdf]

In future it's best to run a speed test when no one is downloading or uploading anything else. So close all p2p apps and anything else that sends data around.

Otherwise the figures will never be accurate. If you were downloading at the time of doing that test then you're getting very good speeds :)