Ping shoot-out - UUnet vs SAIX

Haha, those of you touting the SAIX ADSL for WoW should try playing it in the afternoons, it is completely unplayable (highly unstable pings, huge lag spikes and an average in-game latency of around 3000+ms). Frankly, if UUNET can provide better pings on average over the entire course of the day, then it's easily the better option for WoW.

That and the fact that there's no cap, that's a big selling point right there.
 
R720 .... that is extremely cheap! (compared to other options) if you on 512k try dropping to home384 save R230. R230 + R250 = R480, R720 - R480 = R240...
if you had 2 accounts there's cost covered....
 
Tharaxis - UUNET is not aiming this at the gaming market, WOW would not be a selling point for them. Uncapped and available, thats a selling point right now to the masses.
 
Yes, I will have to agree with Clipse on that one except that I think they should have a 'gamers package' because one of the uses of being uncapped is to play lots of online games.
 
Er you will notice I didn't say that they were aiming at the gaming market, I was merely indicating that SAIX is not the "Gamer's paradise" in comparison to UUNET, especially in the afternoons. Frankly, UUNET is the better option due to the availability and capless nature. The fact that the pings seem better during afternoons compared to SAIX is also a bonus.
 
Well we all know how bad the ping are with wireless services. Never compete with wired technologies, bad jitter, high packet loss.
Well maybe we need to rethink things. Below ping is on iburst - Not as good as saix unshaped but seems to better than shaped or uunet.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\David>ping 195.149.21.11 -n 20

Pinging 195.149.21.11 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=46

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 333ms, Maximum = 342ms, Average = 338ms
 
Dave, interesting. Also...

stoke said:
Telkom 512 Prolog :
Pinging bzflag0.gamesunited.de [212.6.108.237] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=478ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=472ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=472ms TTL=53
UUNET:
Pinging bzflag0.gamesunited.de [212.6.108.237] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=294ms TTL=43
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=43
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=43
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=43
Click to expand...

Code: 
IBurst:
Pinging 212.6.108.237 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=381ms TTL=44
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=44
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=44
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=44
 
Mmmm...Iburst will not keep up with UUnet if the bandwidth is okay check it out :)
Pinging 195.149.21.11 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=46
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=46

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 283ms, Maximum = 303ms, Average = 289ms

The main thing with UUnet is the Uncapped part... where Ibrust still applies the 3gig cap account... I got UUnet and I have to say... it's so nice at night :) during the day pings to international servers are good but the bandwidth is lacking... I'm holding thumbs for the upgrade to the line and I can confirm it sounds like it's happening but it's up to telkom just to come and install it... from what I hear it might even be before the weekend. They said they would mail me when the upgrade is done :)

Regards
Hellhound a.k.a Cerberus
 
Last edited:
Now for a REALITY CHECK - ALSO iBurst...

For control purposes this experiment conducted as per Daveogg's post to the same IP address:
Code: 
[size=3]D:\Documents and Settings\...>ping 195.149.21.11 -n 20

Pinging 195.149.21.11 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=491ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=451ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 2, [b][color=red]Lost = 18 (90% loss)[/color][/b],
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 451ms, Maximum =  491ms, Average =  47ms[/size]
The only way to be sure that you get Daveogg's iBurst results is if you camp out on his lawn...
 
The only way to be sure that you get Daveogg's iBurst results is if you camp out on his lawn...
Click to expand...

...or dangle from my roof.

Yep, we know IC and others have unstable speed and signals. The point is that GIVEN a good connection, these are the pings that can be acheived.

However, as a mobile technology, getting a good, stable connection is far from being a "given".
 
ic, your unit is broken, and seeing as ADSL is getting cheaper at the end of this month, i'm strongly considering getting it with an UUNET account. Much better than Sentech uncapped, much better than iBurst capped....

Now all I need is to move :D
 
Gatecrasher said:
...
However, as a mobile technology, getting a good, stable connection is far from being a "given".
Click to expand...
Sure, but that refutes the previous post claiming that iBurst is better despite the fact that it is wireless.

Anyway, I have never said that the iBurst technology is junk, on the contrary I believe that WBS is totally incompetent and keep messing with stuff that back in December was working like a dream, from January I all of a sardine get massive packet loss & major signal fluctuations - tell me they didn't change a bunch of stuff at my base-station and others as well...

Basically the problem is not iBurst it is WBS, and I haven't even mentioned all the billing problems...:rolleyes:

So far, I haven't seen a single complaint in the Vodacom 3G forum about billing problems - and Vodacom's 3G is wireless just like iBurst is wireless.

I conclude that the technology is not the problem - it is a human incompetence factor that makes WBS the wrong choice for a broadband solution.
 
Last edited:
ic said:
I conclude that the technology is not the problem - it is a human incompetence factor that makes WBS the wrong choice for a broadband solution.
Click to expand...

I agree with that 100%. Thats what makes companies like Vodacom (to a certain extent) and UUNET so attractive. UUNET is run by international standards. At UUNET Saix is a four letter word.

The thing about wbs is that they're completely new to all this. There's talk about forum members meeting up with them to help sort out caps and shaping issues. You would expect a licensed ISP would know how to do that stuff on their own. When it comes to experience they're obviously extremely lacking and thats going to have a big impact on the type of service they provide. Better to go with a solution thats been around a couple of years like ADSL. At least you know what you're in for.
 
fergus, precisely, the instability of iBurst is directly related to the inexperience of the company controlling the iBurst network, and before anyone mentions the Lottery, let me say that the Lottery network is not the same network as iBurst, they are 2 totally different beasts, and you don't see people using the lottery machines to browse the net & send/receive email...

I should also add that I am sad I didn't listen to TheRoDent & others back in November of 2004, but it is my bed & I suspect ADSL will be lying in it if WBS cannot get their act together very soon.
 
I'm also considering getting ADSL sometime soon. If I can setup a Wifi link to some of my neighbours and share the connection it might work out to be a good deal. I suspect we've seen the last of ibursts glory days for the near future at least. It'll be interesting to see if they survice the next couple of years and where they'll be in 2 years time if they do. ic, you think you'll be able to sell your UTD?
 
Last edited:
I cannot sell it as I don't own it, however less than 64Kbps was not part of the contract I signed, so I consider it to be officially breached.
 
maybe u should have tried isdn, this is my 128k :P


C:\>ping 212.6.108.237 -t

Pinging 212.6.108.237 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 212.6.108.237:
Packets: Sent = 13, Received = 13, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 220ms, Maximum = 221ms, Average = 220ms
Control-Break
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55

C:\Documents and Settings\br34k.KHA0Z-2LXV4QHFY>cd \

C:\>ping 195.149.21.11 -t

Pinging 195.149.21.11 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=50
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 270ms, Maximum = 271ms, Average = 270ms
Control-Break

later
 
My gprs connection whips the lot of you!

Pinging 212.6.108.237 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=2217ms TTL=52
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=1248ms TTL=52
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=1766ms TTL=52
Reply from 212.6.108.237: bytes=32 time=3537ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 212.6.108.237:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1248ms, Maximum = 3537ms, Average = 2192ms

2192ms Average!

Whats that? Lower is better!? Oh, ok, forget it then :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X