This is fscking "FIXED" ?

M

malec

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
555
Resolving voxel.dl.sourceforge.net... done.
Connecting to voxel.dl.sourceforge.net[69.9.164.2]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 2,051,527 [application/octet-stream]

6% [==> ] 127,747 4.65K/s ETA 06:43

Ping has started ...

PING www.myadsl.co.za (209.128.108.131): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=0 ttl=105 time=720.87 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=1 ttl=105 time=996.519 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=2 ttl=105 time=992.161 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=3 ttl=105 time=1116.65 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=4 ttl=105 time=1696.36 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=5 ttl=105 time=700.765 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=6 ttl=105 time=1899.3 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=7 ttl=105 time=915.472 ms
64 bytes from 209.128.108.131: icmp_seq=8 ttl=105 time=2003.81 ms

--- www.myadsl.co.za ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 10% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 700.765/1226.88/2003.81 ms

PING www.sentech.co.za (66.18.65.124): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=0 ttl=249 time=1623.84 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=1 ttl=249 time=1396.79 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=2 ttl=249 time=2235.46 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=3 ttl=249 time=1420.25 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=4 ttl=249 time=439.28 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=5 ttl=249 time=235.884 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=6 ttl=249 time=249.344 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=7 ttl=249 time=1368.54 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=8 ttl=249 time=387.057 ms
64 bytes from 66.18.65.124: icmp_seq=9 ttl=249 time=1974.2 ms

--- www.sentech.co.za ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 235.884/1133.07/2235.46 ms

And these assholes give me back a mere 400 bucks for all the anal damage they've inflicted upon my ass and those SMUG sh*thead Orcs tell me, "Oh yes sir. The problem has certainly been resolved!"
 
T

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,882
Hmm ... I get this (believe it or not, and yes that's a 46ms ping in there):

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

Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=249
Reply from 66.18.65.124: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 66.18.65.124:
Packets: Sent = 32, Received = 32, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 281ms, Average = 89ms

(La Montagne, Pta.) Bandwidth is not too great though, downloads are around 4K/s at the moment.
 
G

gripen

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
1,693
i dont care much for latency..

with *only* international stuff going on (like these pages..ughh):

Pinging apollo.is.co.za [196.4.160.2] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.4.160.2: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 196.4.160.2:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 87ms, Maximum = 247ms, Average = 148ms

And an international ping: (typically around 500ms)

Pinging www.google.akadns.net [216.239.59.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=2498ms TTL=230
Request timed out.
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=3335ms TTL=230
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=3279ms TTL=230
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=3417ms TTL=230
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=1659ms TTL=230
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=1195ms TTL=230
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=1817ms TTL=230
Reply from 216.239.59.104: bytes=32 time=3118ms TTL=230
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 216.239.59.104:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 8, Lost = 2 (20% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1195ms, Maximum = 3417ms, Average = 2539ms


<font size="1"><center>** still capped at <b>48kbps</b> and who knows for how long ** <font color="green"> proof </font id="green"></center></font id="size1">
 
K

Kai

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
418
it's not fixed... and if this is fixed, they can sod off!

<hr noshade size="1"><font size="1"><i><div align="right"><font color="red">one day we will all look back at this... laugh nervously... and change the subject...</font id="red">
tower82(mintek).randparkridge.jhb|sig:9%|node:3|snl:0%|ber:28%|256k</div id="right"></i></font id="size1">
 
D

donn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
213
Time to post your comments at
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2004/0409021139.asp

Sentech: ‘We're still improving'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top