karnallie
Well-Known Member
Dodgey Line
Hi Guys,
I think you would all agree that my line is quite shot at the moment?? I had my 2mbps upgraded to 4mbps last week, but since then I noticed my line really is quite slow. I am actually quite sure it was this problematic before the upgrade!
Zertop's LineTool Results
Date/Time: Tue Mar 01 17:45:39 CAT 2016
Basic Report:
Your packet loss was 3%.
Your average ping was 68ms.
Your maximum ping was 119ms.
You seem to have some packet loss. This indicates an issue on the line.
Looking at your average ping, your line seems to be a bit dodgy. This may account for any slow speeds you may be experiencing. However, it could just be related to a high-latency home network (eg... Wi-Fi). If you feel the need, please post the results (at the end of the program) into the forum for advice!
Detailed Report:
Hi Guys,
I think you would all agree that my line is quite shot at the moment?? I had my 2mbps upgraded to 4mbps last week, but since then I noticed my line really is quite slow. I am actually quite sure it was this problematic before the upgrade!
Zertop's LineTool Results
Date/Time: Tue Mar 01 17:45:39 CAT 2016
Basic Report:
Your packet loss was 3%.
Your average ping was 68ms.
Your maximum ping was 119ms.
You seem to have some packet loss. This indicates an issue on the line.
Looking at your average ping, your line seems to be a bit dodgy. This may account for any slow speeds you may be experiencing. However, it could just be related to a high-latency home network (eg... Wi-Fi). If you feel the need, please post the results (at the end of the program) into the forum for advice!
Detailed Report:
Code:
Pinging 169.0.22.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=254
Reply from 169.0.22.1: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=254
Ping statistics for 169.0.22.1:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 29, Lost = 1 (3% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 49ms, Maximum = 119ms, Average = 68ms