I am using ADSLUncapped now. Ask me anything ...

[bwana]

Google: azureus slow guide

Thanks - I appreciate it - but it hasnt made any difference.

I use ABC and the status is always green (ie everything is ok). Its the same config that I used to use with telkom adsl but I'm not getting anywhere near the speeds. Guess there's not much else I can do - I'm nearly 2/3 the way through the 700+mb d/l so no point stopping now even at ≤8kb/s.

 

[hArTh]

Thanks - I appreciate it - but it hasnt made any difference.

I use ABC and the status is always green (ie everything is ok). Its the same config that I used to use with telkom adsl but I'm not getting anywhere near the speeds. Guess there's not much else I can do - I'm nearly 2/3 the way through the 700+mb d/l so no point stopping now even at ≤8kb/s.

Config your firewall properly.

 

[bwana]

Config your firewall properly.

Firewall configured and ports forwarded - always have been. UUNet make no bones about the fact that they shape p2p, and fair enough. But I hope they dont include skype in their shaping.

 

[hArTh]

Firewall configured and ports forwarded - always have been. UUNet make no bones about the fact that they shape p2p, and fair enough. But I hope they dont include skype in their shaping.

Havn't tested myself but given that net radio (on a random sample of servers) buffers like mad I wouldnt be surprised.

 

[bwana]

Havn't tested myself but given that net radio (on a random sample of servers) buffers like mad I wouldnt be surprised.

Wanna trade - I get great audio - from USA at least. Havent tried elsewhere as yet.

 

[hArTh]

My net radio issues have disappeared. Bad day I guess ...

 

[Nom Chompsky]

Can you ping jolt.co.uk again please? Because I want to know if that 293ms was just 'a flash in the pan'

 

[bwana]

Can you ping jolt.co.uk again please? Because I want to know if that 293ms was just 'a flash in the pan'

From Cyberonline (another uncapped UUNet) I get the following:
PING jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=0 ttl=45 time=506.926 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=45 time=475.192 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=45 time=515.565 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=45 time=520.055 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=45 time=500.358 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=45 time=484.543 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=45 time=492.88 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=45 time=473.069 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=45 time=487.672 ms

--- jolt.co.uk ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 10% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 473.069/495.14/520.055 ms

 

[Nom Chompsky]

That is just like a shaped ADSL account like mine, so much for 'unshaped' although they are doing upgrades I see.

I will only sign on if the pings are <300ms.

 

[bwana]

That is just like a shaped ADSL account like mine, so much for 'unshaped' although they are doing upgrades I see.

I will only sign on if the pings are <300ms.

I dont think that any of the UUNet ones claim to be unshapped. If they do then I fear they're mistaken.

 

[hArTh]

cs.jolt.co.uk
Ping statistics for 195.149.21.9:
Packets: Sent = 28, Received = 28, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 425ms, Maximum = 441ms, Average = 432ms

Pings up to **** I see...

 

[Nom Chompsky]

Just to clarify for Dominic and others, WoW is not shaped nor is international, however the pings are suffering due to the packet loss issue. Once the ATM to miami has been upgraded things should return to normal.

At this stage the only protocols being shaped are P2P (in particular Kazaa and eDonkey)

Taken from this thread

 

[bwana]

Taken from this thread

Some shaping ≠ unshaped. However on their website they are more specific when they state that 'Business protocols will take priority.'

 

[Nom Chompsky]

I suppose, but since they're only supposed to be shaping P2P, intl. pings should be in the <350ms area...I mean I'm getting the same pings as Harth is, which, for the price he is paying, is appalling imo.

 

[m0zy]

I suppose, but since they're only supposed to be shaping P2P, intl. pings should be in the <350ms area...I mean I'm getting the same pings as Harth is, which, for the price he is paying, is appalling imo.

Yes but remember they offer a SME package that includes your own hosting account plus access to un-cencored newsgroups etc.
Have a look at there webpage at http://www.adsluncapped.co.za
So it's not only a adsl account that you get!

 

[killadoob]

uunet local pings are not good i dont think

why can on one tell us what local pings will be if im playing a game on one of the saix servers?

 

[m0zy]

My UUNET Pings to the Ip of jolt.co.uk

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=45
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=45
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=45
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=45

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 315ms, Maximum = 327ms, Average = 319ms

Time Test Ping was done (11:02am - Monday/April-24th)

 

[hArTh]

m0zy ... interesting my international pings have gone back down as well:

cs.jolt.co.uk
Ping statistics for 195.149.21.9:
Packets: Sent = 24, Received = 24, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 304ms, Maximum = 378ms, Average = 320ms

 

[sybawoods]

Not really comparing apples with apples here, but for some perspective on what unshaped gaming pings *can* look like, see TELKOM unshaped below. This at 1.20pm in the afternoon, week-day.

Pinging clarity.jolt.co.uk [195.149.21.11] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=51
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=51
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=51
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 261ms, Maximum = 261ms, Average = 261ms

That's what I get 24x7, (at a substantial premium) - but that's what is possible and what all ADSL accounts were capable of before shaping was introduced. My point?

(1) TELKOM is artificially throttling latency on their shaped accounts (the traffic traverses the same routes)
(2) Other ISP's using their own infratructure i.e. bypassing SAIX, should be able to offer equivalent or better latency if they really aren't applying any shaping other than P2P

It's not all about the pings though, but it's a very important dimension for many of us.

 

[bwana]

uunet local pings are not good i dont think

So you mean UUNet pings are good?