Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 I am having problems with my DSL 3.0 service speed tests are good,but it takes too long to get reply to the server I have even changed DNS did not help. BellSouth keeps telling me my connection Is fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0lie Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 how did u test ur ping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 how did u test ur ping? I have test it on dslreports.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fattymcbluff Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 if that graph is your pings to dslreports then thats not that high Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 if that graph is your pings to dslreports then thats not that high No the test work by sending a ping from dslreports to my IP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siryak Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Trying doing this. Go Start/Run/Type: cmd/Click Ok/In the window type: ping google.com -n 25/push enter/After the test is done right click the window and hit "select all."/Then push ctrl and c at the same time/Then come back here and paste the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsOleg>ping google.com -n 25 Pinging google.com [72.14.207.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=241 Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=241 Ping statistics for 72.14.207.99: Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 25, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 66ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 68ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siryak Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Those pings are well within the norm for DSL. The consistency of the pings are excellent also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Normal ping should be around 35-50ms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siryak Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Normal ping should be around 35-50ms. Some people see those results. But the odds that you are going to get them to do anything to get them that low is slim to none. I mostly see people with pings more like yours. I have been fighting the latency battle with my sat provider. Lots of ---> with no results. My pings average in the 1300ms range and they claim that this is fine. Anyone back on topic. I don't really think that you will be able to get those kind of ping times out of them. I guess it might be worth a try... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Sat pings are much higher than DSL,but 1300ms Is too high you should be In the range of at least 75ms with sat connection and you are right ISPs don't care about latency and it also depends on speed connection If you have like 756k sat connection your latency about right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fattymcbluff Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 umm no 1300 is a avrg for sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siryak Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Sat pings are much higher than DSL,but 1300ms Is too high you should be In the range of at least 75ms with sat connection and you are right ISPs don't care about latency and it also depends on speed connection If you have like 756k sat connection your latency about right Well actually more around the 600-700ms range, but anyway I don't wanna pull your post off topic with my same old sob story Ive had for months lol. Anyway good luck and hope you can get something out of them. umm no 1300 is a avrg for sat It is average right now. Back before they put in a new BS traffic shaping scheme though I had pings average in high 500s to low 600s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Well actually more around the 600-700ms range, but anyway I don't wanna pull your post off topic with my same old sob story Ive had for months lol. Anyway good luck and hope you can get something out of them. well, 600-700ms is about the minimum that's even physically possible with no congestion whatsoever... 1000 to 1500 is a much more realistic figure for satellite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siryak Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 well, 600-700ms is about the minimum that's even physically possible with no congestion whatsoever... 1000 to 1500 is a much more realistic figure for satellite I'm going to haft to disagree here...I see plenty of Hughes systems that average in the 600-700ms range and their satellites are MUCH more congested than Wildblue's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Ops my bad 600-700ms for sat connection Is correct my math Is not good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 I'm going to haft to disagree here...I see plenty of Hughes systems that average in the 600-700ms range and their satellites are MUCH more congested than Wildblue's. unless it's changed since I had it a couple months ago, that wasn't what I saw.. I don't recall ever having a ping under 900ms, or seeing anyone else that low for that matter.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Oleg25 your pings are way to high they should be around 30-60ms. The reason your getting these high ping times is because your modem is set on a mode called interleaved, what this does is check every packet that is sent from your modem in the dslam, so because its being checked it takes twice as long to be sent. You want your modem switched to a mode called fast path. This does no checking of your packets. All you have to do is call bellsouth tech support and tell them that i want to be switched to fast path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Thanks so much for your answer dlewis23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 Now I look great Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsOleg>ping yahoo.com -n 20 Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=54 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135: Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 28ms, Average = 27ms C:Documents and SettingsOleg> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siryak Posted June 10, 2007 CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 unless it's changed since I had it a couple months ago, that wasn't what I saw.. I don't recall ever having a ping under 900ms, or seeing anyone else that low for that matter.. Only the people on the less crowded transponders were getting them. Congratulations Oleg! Guess I was wrong lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg25 Posted June 10, 2007 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2007 I am just lucky I were contacted by 2nd level tech and she told me she made some changes and now my connection looks great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.