Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Oleg25

High Ping

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ---> :tickedoff: 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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :smiley:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :smiley:

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 :shock: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :shock: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I look great  :smitten:

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>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :uglystupid2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...