No more packet loss?

[arf9999]

Well, one thing looks better...Packet loss seems to be a thing of the past...for now.

Resolving host 'www.sentech.co.za'
Pinging [66.18.65.115] x 20 with 32 bytes of data
*snip*
Min=91 : Max=374 : Ave=153 ms : Packetloss = 0%

Resolving host 'www.google.com'
Pinging [64.233.167.99] x 20 with 64 bytes of data
*snip*
Min=375 : Max=1119 : Ave=569 ms : Packetloss = 0%



MW128, Tower <b>60</b>(Northpark Plaza), Signal:16%,S-N-L: 7, BER: 45%

 

[guest2013-1]

google.com

250 pings,239 received,Min 428ms,Max 2985ms,Avg 1111ms,Loss 4%

sentech.co.za
250 pings,250 received,min 65ms,max 650ms,Avg 142ms,0% Loss

mweb.co.za
250 pings, 250 received,min 93ms,max 720ms, avg 167ms,0% loss

Local seems fixed.....Still a bit spiky though, not really what I want



Hell, my gran on a scooter with a memory stick is faster than Sentech's MyWireless!

 

[arf9999]

my local pings don't seem as spiky as before...international is still quite spiky but that may not be sentech, could just be network conditions. But I'm definitely not getting 3000ms spikes on local anymore.

MW128, Tower <b>60</b>(Northpark Plaza), Signal:16%,S-N-L: 7, BER: 45%

 

[guest2013-1]

true, i should try a fps on local...

Hell, my gran on a scooter with a memory stick is faster than Sentech's MyWireless!

 

[loosecannon]

well for the first time ever i was able to send 512 packet to there network with no loss ...
still to irratic ...

and what is with the 3.7KB/s hard cap on 128k is my prediction of 32/64/128 coming ot pass ??


PING www.sentech.co.za (66.18.65.115): 504 octets data
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=0 ttl=249 time=582.6 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=1 ttl=249 time=622.4 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=2 ttl=249 time=362.5 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=3 ttl=249 time=604.4 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=4 ttl=249 time=281.5 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=5 ttl=249 time=302.5 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=6 ttl=249 time=242.5 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=7 ttl=249 time=262.4 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=8 ttl=249 time=342.4 ms
512 octets from 66.18.65.115: icmp_seq=9 ttl=249 time=986.3 ms

--- www.sentech.co.za ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 242.5/458.9/986.3 ms

 

[pmik]

What firmware are you lot using?

 

[arf9999]

4.2.1.8

MW128, Tower <b>60</b>(Northpark Plaza), Signal:16%,S-N-L: 7, BER: 45%

 

[pmik]

I'm on 4.2.1.8 too, but I'm still getting a bit of packet loss.

Speed does seem better tho', and oddly enough my signal has decreased from 18% to 15%. Guess they messed with the tower again (126 Fourways).

 

[arf9999]

my signal also dropped, and SNL is lower, but packet loss is consistently 0 for local and international ..... pings are not right yet, but are a bit more stable.

MW128, Tower <b>60</b>(Northpark Plaza), Signal:16%,S-N-L: 7, BER: 45%

 

[kickass72za]

The pings are better BUT......

Run a ping for a couple of hours and well.....

Ping statistics for 196.xx.xx.xx:
Packets: Sent = 19665, Received = 19196, Lost = 469 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 62ms, Maximum = 1469ms, Average = 227ms

Thats to a server that I manage so....

 

[pmik]

Pinging www.sentech.co.za [66.18.65.124] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=376ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=379ms TTL=250
Request timed out.
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=240ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=250
Request timed out.
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=379ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=222ms TTL=250
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=250
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.18.65.124:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 17, Lost = 3 (15% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 379ms, Average = 215ms

Hmmph!

 

[bb_matt]

Since 9am this morning :-

Pinging www.google.akadns.net [66.102.9.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=978ms TTL=228
Request timed out.
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=733ms TTL=228
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=705ms TTL=228
Request timed out.
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=620ms TTL=228
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=530ms TTL=228
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.102.9.104:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 5, Lost = 5 (50% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 530ms, Maximum = 978ms, Average = 713ms


50 f u ck ing percent - very nice eh ?

Everytime I think I'm coming right with Pooptech, it goes all f uck ed up again - Gonna have to cancel this piece of s h i t connection tommorrow - I've had enough of it. [}]

 

[loosecannon]

it is patheticv i agree the only company i know off that tells you the service is improving when you can measure the decline in service on a daliy bassis the first is coming the orcs are reminding us the end of the month as if the arival of spring will bring some bandwidth ... if anythhing summer rains will interfere with the signal and wash it away ...