Some tests. blah

Karnaugh · Dec 14, 2003

Apparently the beta testers cant disclose their tests anyway.

I didnt sign any contracts, so here are some reversed tests...

international:

Code:

14  internet-solutions-ltd.Londonlnt.cw.net (166.63.223.178)  17.850 ms  15.996 ms  17.408 ms
15  168.209.247.158 (168.209.247.158)  17.732 ms  12.805 ms  12.615 ms
16  168.209.100.30 (168.209.100.30)  160.293 ms  81.359 ms  84.342 ms
17  168.209.0.85 (168.209.0.85)  329.617 ms  332.316 ms  334.381 ms
18  isl.nmszone.is.co.za (196.26.0.3)  330.819 ms  332.499 ms  329.953 ms
19  168.209.18.62 (168.209.18.62)  331.339 ms  329.775 ms  331.515 ms
20  gige-0-0-22.stpcr01.infosat.net (66.18.65.206)  334.664 ms  336.300 ms  339.740 ms
21  [A mywireless router] (xx.xx.xx.xx)  333.334 ms  338.460 ms  341.595 ms
22  [A mywireless IP] (xx.xx.xx.xx)  421.358 ms  421.581 ms  422.992 ms

Local (From IS's core)

Code:

Tracing the route to [some wireless oke]

  1 196.34.7.194 [AS 3741] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec
  2 isl.nmszone.is.co.za (196.26.0.3) [AS 3741] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec
  3 168.209.18.62 [AS 3741] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec
  4 gige-0-0-22.stpcr01.infosat.net (66.18.65.206) [AS 22572] 4 msec 8 msec 8 msec
  5 [A mywireless router] [AS 22572] 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec
  6 [A mywireless IP] [AS 22572] 100 msec 88 msec 100 msec

<hr noshade size="1">
"Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak."

NetLink Research

Cerberus · Dec 14, 2003

damn if that is the case then it's really nice 400-500 ping? omw sat signals are faster than I thought

jus · Dec 14, 2003

If that's the case, then the actual wireless portion of the link introduces 80-90 ms of latency to the connection.

-jus

Cerberus · Dec 14, 2003

my guess is it depends probably on distance from the tower ?? could be wrong

jus · Dec 14, 2003

I doubt it, seeing as the cell size is only anticipated to be a radius of 3-5km.. (radio travels at the speed of light).. latency may be affected by distance if you are at the edge of the service area and receiving bad signal, and hence you'll get a lot of error correction, etc.

-jus

sybawoods · Dec 14, 2003

And I wonder if this is by design - Cape Town ADSL was down for most of today. It came back up, only with blistering international latency. Let's see how long it lasts, but currently getting sub 200ms to Europe:

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

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=56
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=199ms TTL=56
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=56
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 198ms, Maximum = 207ms, Average = 200ms

ProAsm · Dec 15, 2003

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">latency may be affected by distance if you are at the edge of the service area and receiving bad signal<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Latency on Wireless transmissions is very dependant on distance.
Like ADSL, anything after 8 km of copper wire = bad pings + some packet loss.
Wireless example:
Person (A) lives 3 km from cell = good ping, no packet loss.
Person (B) lives 10 km from cell, but is a rich guy and has a 3 meter dish, receives a better and cleaner signal than Person (A) but his ping will suck and he will experience some packet loss.

Btw, current cells going up in Durban:
Durban North, Bluff, Overport, Springfield Park, SunningDale, Gateway (near hospital).

chopsky · Dec 15, 2003

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=625ms TTL=56
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=857ms TTL=56
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 2, Lost = 2 (50% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 625ms, Maximum = 857ms, Average = 741ms

I'm also a Cape Town ADSL user. Can't say my tests were quite as pleasing as yours.

sybawoods · Dec 15, 2003

1.15am, and still going strong here. Rondebosch exchange, Cape Town.

Target Name: clarity.jolt.co.uk
IP: 195.149.21.11
Date/Time: 15 Dec 03 01:13:45 AM

1 10 ms 10 ms wblv-224-01.telkomadsl.co.za [165.165.224.1]
2 232 ms 164 ms [196.43.10.138]
3 196 ms 196 ms london-dir-telecity-pos-8-0-0.telkom-ipnet.co.za [196.43.9.50]
4 196 ms 196 ms pos2-1.cr02.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.52.17]
5 199 ms 196 ms pos5-1.br01.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.12.130]
6 202 ms 197 ms lon1-9.nildram.net [195.66.224.59]
7 196 ms 197 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net [195.149.20.126]
8 198 ms 197 ms clarity.jolt.co.uk [195.149.21.11]

Ping statistics for clarity.jolt.co.uk
Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0.0%)
Round Trip Times: Minimum = 197ms, Maximum = 198ms, Average = 197ms

grubman · Dec 15, 2003

9:30, Monday ( during business hours )

1 18.514 ms 18.151 ms 18.058 ms wblv-224-01.telkomadsl.co.za (165.165.224.1)
2 18.390 ms 19.045 ms 18.635 ms 196.43.10.138 (196.43.10.138)
3 205.489 ms 204.511 ms 206.805 ms london-dir-telecity-pos-8-0-0.telkom-ipnet.co.za (196.43.9.50)
4 204.448 ms 209.175 ms 205.565 ms pos2-1.cr02.ldn01.pccwbtn.net (63.218.52.17)
5 208.420 ms 205.009 ms 206.581 ms pos5-0.br01.ldn01.pccwbtn.net (63.218.12.90)
6 206.544 ms 205.363 ms 206.925 ms lon1-9.nildram.net (195.66.224.59)
7 212.130 ms 206.047 ms 207.322 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net (195.149.20.126)
8 205.718 ms 205.104 ms 208.390 ms clarity.jolt.co.uk (195.149.21.11)

hmmm, u think telskum is *fixing* ADSL because of competition? Oh well, too late ... they'll loose me as a customer for good.

guest2013-1 · Dec 15, 2003

ProAsm, I understand that RadioKop and parts of Roodepoort is covered, would you care to mention exactly which parts like you did for Durban just now?

Thanks man... If I have to move closer to a tower then so be it

Just before I sign my new lease I would like to know, hehehe

ProAsm · Dec 15, 2003

noone, I believe there are 63 cells earmarked for Gauteng but exactly where they are or how many will be up for the launch I'm not sure.
But where you mention is currently up at Helderkruin which I believe will cover Roodeport and Krugersdorp.

guest2013-1 · Dec 15, 2003

It's cool, I spoke to some guy over the phone (think Carl) and he lives really close to me and said that the probability of coverage for me would be very good, as well as a good signal.

So now I'm just waiting for the release date... tell me, if I slip you a six pack and an extra 500, would you come install me on the 5th of Jan? [

]

ProAsm · Dec 15, 2003

[^][

]

guest2013-1 · Dec 15, 2003

Seriously now.. [}

][

]

Karnaugh · Dec 16, 2003

can someone tell me what the **** these ADSL traceroutes have to do with anything in this discusion?!

I think the node that I tracerouted did have bad reception at the time.

<hr noshade size="1">
"Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak."

NetLink Research

sybawoods · Dec 16, 2003

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Karnaugh
 can someone tell me what the **** these ADSL traceroutes have to do with anything in this discusion?!

I think the node that I tracerouted did have bad reception at the time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Mmm - it has plenty to do with the discussion from where I am coming. One of the things that has disappointed me about ADSL is the extent to which international latency has deteriorated since port shaping was introduced. One of the deciders for me, is how Sentech's option will improve on international latency. I will therefore be looking very closely at the traceroutes posted by the beta testers.

I found it noteworthy that almost on the same day that Sentech's testing started, that my ADSL international latency is suddenly back where it was 12 months ago (sub 200ms to the UK is pretty awesome i.m.o.). I'm not sure how long it will last, but am still getting the same response for the last 3 days.

I posted my traceroute so that that others who have similar needs can have some frame of reference to compare the Sentech traceroute. On what basis do we decide whether it's good or bad if we don't have something to compare it against? Make sense?

Andre · Dec 16, 2003

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sybawoods
 And I wonder if this is by design - Cape Town ADSL was down for most of today.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not all of Cape Town. I spent hours playing Freelancer on SAIX with no problems. I'm in Muizenberg.

Andre · Dec 16, 2003

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sybawoods
Let's see how long it lasts, but currently getting sub 200ms to Europe:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My goodness. I didn't read this part of your post properly.

This is the lowest latency I've ever seen (Wed. 16 Dec).

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

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=55
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=55
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=55
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 203ms, Maximum = 205ms, Average = 204ms

sybawoods · Dec 16, 2003

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Andre
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sybawoods
Let's see how long it lasts, but currently getting sub 200ms to Europe:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My goodness. I didn't read this part of your post properly.

This is the lowest latency I've ever seen (Wed. 16 Dec).

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

Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=55
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=55
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=55
Reply from 195.149.21.11: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 203ms, Maximum = 205ms, Average = 204ms
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And withour belaboring the point - 1.30pm Tuesday - and still going strong:

Target Name: clarity.jolt.co.uk
IP: 195.149.21.11
Date/Time: 16 Dec 03 01:36:01 PM

1 11 ms 12 ms wblv-224-01.telkomadsl.co.za [165.165.224.1]
2 12 ms 12 ms wblv-ip-er-1-fe-11-1-0.telkom-ipnet.co.za [196.43.10.138]
3 198 ms 198 ms london-dir-telecity-pos-8-0-0.telkom-ipnet.co.za [196.43.9.50]
4 198 ms 200 ms pos2-1.cr02.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.52.17]
5 199 ms 198 ms pos5-1.br01.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.12.130]
6 198 ms 198 ms lon1-9.nildram.net [195.66.224.59]
7 199 ms 199 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net [195.149.20.126]
8 200 ms 199 ms clarity.jolt.co.uk [195.149.21.11]

Ping statistics for clarity.jolt.co.uk
Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0.0%)
Round Trip Times: Minimum = 199ms, Maximum = 200ms, Average = 199ms

Join the MyBroadband community

Get started

Some tests. blah

Banned

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Well-Known Member

guest

Expert Member

guest

Expert Member

guest

Banned

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member