MWEB Gaming Feedback

I agree, the equipment is there to ensure quality on services that need it, downloads can take whatever is left over. In our case we didn't make use of bypassing the device, we added it into a hostgroup on the device to give the same priority for those IPs. It works pretty decent enough that we automated the process.
 
Will@MWEB said:
I agree I think the spoofing is a pretty unlikely scenario.

The thing that perhaps we haven't made 100% clear is that the traffic manager's role is not just to shape P2P, in fact that's probably it's least important function. It's also configured to provide a high level of assurance (in other words QOS) to priority traffic. Quite frankly I think that the P2P side of things gets far too much attention,when really the purpose of the manager is not to prevent people from doing P2P, but rather to ensure that the flow of traffic on the network is correctly managed and that sensitive traffic, which very much includes gaming, is giving the best treatment possible.

We can potentially make use of Tinuvia's list to conduct a new test of bypassing the traffic manager and it is currently under consideration by the networks team. Perhaps it will provide a more comprehensive grouping of the WoW traffic than we have achieved with previous tests attempting to do this. However as I said earlier based on those tests and the current vendor feedback we are not at this point convinced that the traffic manager is the cause of the issue.
Click to expand...

So does this mean we can get an ETA as to when Mweb's Network team will test this? If we can get a date then we can test it also, and then the network team will know if it would be feasible in a normal network environment.
 
Last edited:
Tinuva said:
I agree, the equipment is there to ensure quality on services that need it, downloads can take whatever is left over. In our case we didn't make use of bypassing the device, we added it into a hostgroup on the device to give the same priority for those IPs. It works pretty decent enough that we automated the process.
Click to expand...

This is very much where our thinking is as well and ultimately management should be preferable to bypassing. The devices we use work on a signature basis and as far as we can see the current signature pack is correctly flagging 100% of WoW traffic as gaming, which then puts it into the appropriate assurance category. This is why we are at the point now where the vendor needs to come back with an explanation and I sincerely hope a proposed solution as to why this is not behaving as expected.
 
Will@MWEB said:
This is very much where our thinking is as well and ultimately management should be preferable to bypassing. The devices we use work on a signature basis and as far as we can see the current signature pack is correctly flagging 100% of WoW traffic as gaming, which then puts it into the appropriate assurance category. This is why we are at the point now where the vendor needs to come back with an explanation and I sincerely hope a proposed solution as to why this is not behaving as expected.
Click to expand...

Cant you just for the time being use the fix that Tinuva suggested? Then when the vendor gets back with an answer AND a solution you can switch gaming traffic back to your management device.
 
Beanbag said:
Cant you just for the time being use the fix that Tinuva suggested? Then when the vendor gets back with an answer AND a solution you can switch gaming traffic back to your management device.
Click to expand...
He already mentioned they will be looking at it again :) but not with bypassing but using the ip ranges on the management device.

The fact that they are willing to look at it again, counts for quite a bit in my books.
 
Thanks Tinuva :)

@Beanbag

We might actually attempt another bypass test depending on the timing of vendor feedback and how easy it will be to implement. As I've said we're happy that the signature is correctly identifying WoW traffic so it wouldn't be useful there, however a list like this can be used to effectively 'hijack' the traffic before it's inspected and divert it past the manager. We previously used a different mechanism to achieve the same result and it did not solve the problem, but at this point there is no harm in trying a different approach. It's a question of timing and change controls as to the when.

I will let you know if and when this is going to happen depending on what other feedback we get.
 
I think I noticed a bit of a problem with Mwebs Cache server and Minecraft, every time a new update rolls out for minecraft, mwebs cache server doesn't seem to update and sends the old files trough,resulting in a black screen when trying to play I know this because if I reconnect with with vodacom 3g and redownload the update it will work,until a new update is released, Ive compared both files with a hex editor and there very different,and other members of the minecraft community that's also mweb uncapped are experiencing the same thing.

PS Originally I started a thread about this on the minceraft forum http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=66053 , if mweb can look into it, it would be great.

If your wondering what files are effected, heres a copy from java console:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/lwjgl.jar
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/lwjgl.jar with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com:80/ with proxy=DIRECT
http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/jinput.jar
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/jinput.jar with proxy=DIRECT
http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/lwjgl_util.jar
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/lwjgl_util.jar with proxy=DIRECT
http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDo...RKFOX&ticket=cf58623021d5a189b16274b529afa200
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDo...RKFOX&ticket=cf58623021d5a189b16274b529afa200 with proxy=DIRECT
http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/windows_natives.jar.lzma
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/windows_natives.jar.lzma with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/lwjgl.jar with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/jinput.jar with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com:80/ with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/lwjgl_util.jar with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com:80/ with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDo...RKFOX&ticket=cf58623021d5a189b16274b529afa200 with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com:80/ with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com/MinecraftDownload/windows_natives.jar.lzma with proxy=DIRECT
network: Connecting http://s3.amazonaws.com:80/ with proxy=DIRECT
network: Cache entry not found [url: file:/C:/Users/GH/AppData/Roaming/.minecraft/bin/minecraft.jar, version: null] <- This is the error youll get when the corrupt files are downloaded
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hey Will, not sure if it's been brought to your attention before but there are multiple ISP's around the globe facing similar issues with WoW.

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5...e/World-of-Warcraft-Latency-Issues/m-p/161857

As of lastnight, still nothing has been sorted by Virgin Media as a good few of our raiders aren't able to play atm. Same situation with O² in the UK.

To the rest who can't play atm due to this problem, do yourselves a favour and use a tunneling service, the fact that any of you can raid or pvp with latency higher than 300 is beyond me :p And c'mon, if you can afford to pay WoW subs you can afford R50 more a month.
 
Yeah I am pretty sure most of those ISPs make use of the same devices, and I haven't seen a new protocol update in a while.
 
FaSMaN said:
I think I noticed a bit of a problem with Mwebs Cache server and Minecraft, every time a new update rolls out for minecraft, mwebs cache server doesn't seem to update and sends the old files trough,resulting in a black screen when trying to play I know this because if I reconnect with with vodacom 3g and redownload the update it will work,until a new update is released, Ive compared both files with a hex editor and there very different,and other members of the minecraft community that's also mweb uncapped are experiencing the same thing.

PS Originally I started a thread about this on the minceraft forum http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=66053 , if mweb can look into it, it would be great.

If your wondering what files are effected, heres a copy from java console:
Click to expand...

Hi FaSMaN

I'll pass this onto the team that looks after the caching environment and ask them to look into this.
 
@bradrap

Yes thanks Brad we're aware. I went through the o2 thread again on Friday to see if there had been any new developments on their side.
 
Anyone here playing Lord of the Rings Online? Im having issues bad latency issues with it as well.
 
I have a 4mb line and trying to play Call of Duty : Black ops (on PS3) is a nightmare. Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread before though

This is my ping test - stays constant regardless of the time of day I run it.
Can something be done with this as well?

28235811.png
[/URL][/IMG]
 
MWeb and Gaming shouldn't even be in the same sentence...
 
there could be a problem with your line its quality its c, ive been playing black ops 40ms etc on pc though
 
Call of Duty Black Ops, ps3 or xbox is very bad at the moment. The Ps3 is far worse and the lag makes you want to break something.

it is retarted that you guys are giving WOW players better latency and we get the crappy one, really not happy
 
egenis said:
I have a 4mb line and trying to play Call of Duty : Black ops (on PS3) is a nightmare. Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread before though

This is my ping test - stays constant regardless of the time of day I run it.
Can something be done with this as well?

28235811.png
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...

egenis can you post a tracert result to mweb.co.za please.
 
Dark Soul said:
Call of Duty Black Ops, ps3 or xbox is very bad at the moment. The Ps3 is far worse and the lag makes you want to break something.

it is retarted that you guys are giving WOW players better latency and we get the crappy one, really not happy
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we have very little control over the console gaming experience right now. I have checked and can confirm that the traffic is correctly categorized for XBox, Wii and PS3 and is given exactly the same treatment as the PC game traffic. However there is no local server presence for console games and most of your games are either player to player connections, or international, which is not ideal for a first person shooter like Black Ops.
 
Dark Soul said:
Call of Duty Black Ops, ps3 or xbox is very bad at the moment. The Ps3 is far worse and the lag makes you want to break something.

it is retarted that you guys are giving WOW players better latency and we get the crappy one, really not happy
Click to expand...

Are u getting 2500ping avg? If not I suggest you retract that statement as my friends and I have been getting 1600-6000 ping on WoW for WEEKS now!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X