Insane Lag Between TSTT & FLOW

[TriniXaeno]

I am baffled.

How is it that you can have the following results.



and at the same time, this:

Last Result:
Download Speed: 2993 kbps (374.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 178 kbps (22.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Latency: 54 ms
Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:04:22 PM

TSTT pulling stones?? or is it a flow lapse? (seeing as the speedtest server is hosted by flow)

Pings to google are high, at 400+ so I'm leaning on the TSTT pulling stones side of things.

some sort of mega lag inducing traffic shaping module must have been installed at their HQ.

Unacceptable!

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.93.99] with 32 bytes
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=489ms TTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=500ms TTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=502msTTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=497ms TTL=234

Ping statistics for 74.125.93.99:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% los
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 489ms, Maximum = 502ms, Average = 497ms


Pinging tstt.net.tt [196.3.132.8] with 32 bytes of da
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=123
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=123
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=123
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=123

Anyone on Flow and awake, kindly run a ping test to google and let me know the result. Thanks

[Arcmanov]

LOL @ the pic name though...

[Redlum08]

W1nTry has been complaining about this for 2 weeks now n00b, he suffering at home with Latency issues...

[TheApprentice]

LOL @ the pic name though...

LOL, I can imagine NGW, saving the screencap..
>> *What to name this???*
and types blink followed by hard keystrokes at "mc" 3 times.

XD

[TriniXaeno]

Yeah redfish, I read through w1ntry's thread but I am extremely curious to see what the ping to google looks like from a flow connection tonight.

If it is considerably lower than TSTT, I'm scrapping this dsl connection tomorrow.

hahhaha, arc/apprentice, real frustration with that latency.

Is stop motion animation in street fighter immc. Played a few games against Seiryuki and was level matrix.

A local player on flow 10mb.

No way you should be getting such hefty lag between two players on the same mc island, even if they're on different ISPs.

Unacceptable!

[Redfish]

well I got this with blink pinging google and then tstt

seems like it have jumbie in d lines 

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.93.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=235
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=235
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=235
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=235

Ping statistics for 74.125.93.104:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 116ms, Maximum = 120ms, Average = 117ms



Pinging tstt.net.tt [196.3.132.8] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=121
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=121
Reply from 196.3.132.8: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 196.3.132.8:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 25ms

[TheApprentice]

Pinging google.navigation.opendns.com [208.69.32.230] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=52
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=52
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=52
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 208.69.32.230:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 85ms, Average = 67ms

[TriniXaeno]

Pinging 208.69.32.230 with 32 bytes of data: (Apprentices OpenDNS ip thingy)
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=54
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=354ms TTL=54
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=54
Reply from 208.69.32.230: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=54

Pinging 74.125.93.104 with 32 bytes of data: (redfish's Google IP)
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=235
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=257ms TTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=235
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=234

Hmm,

That's 4 times as high latency as Apprentice on Flow

and 3 times as high latency as Redfish whose on TSTT

So maybe it is not all of TSTT that is sucking.

I'll change my router tomorrow on the off chance that it has decided to play possom.

If a new router still produces horrid lag at peak times, then is FLOW immc.

[Eroo]

As a blink customer I can tell you that in the past few weeks I have had pings to google as high as 500

[W1nTry]

The latency between Flow and TSTT has ALWAYS been ridiculous... the reason being HOW they are interconnected... anywhos here's a wdmc moment... I am on a 2mbps blink connection... look what I get when utilization is low...



I wish it could remain like that right through... *sighs*

[TriniXaeno]

Interesting Eroo. Yes, it seems to be fluctuating wildly.

Just returned to normal for a few mins (off peak I guess)

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.93.104] with 32 bytes
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=235
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.104: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=235

A lot of good that does me now.

Can't stay up till after 1AM every night just to get a decent online sweat.

Would love to know what is causing this on their end. They can't expect customers to accept this sort of treatment. If it is only temporary because of the upgrades, they should send an email or something. (goes to check his tstt email in case they did)

Looks like Flow here I come.

But Win, how could we get decent ping all the way to new york but we can't get decent pings to a flow server right on the same island??

That seems to defeat the very logic of internet routers in general, which (correct me if I am wrong) should find the shortest route to any destination.

You're telling me the shortest route to a flow node on this island @ peak times sits around 800-900ms away? Yet, to one in new york, 200 - 300ms?

Somethings wrong somewhere.

Would be interesting to compare the traceroutes of the two.

[mailman166]

Some blink guys had 900ms pings on our Flow COD server LOL

[Spazosaurus]

Hard luck noob...late to the party here...

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.67.147] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.67.147: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=244
Reply from 74.125.67.147: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=244
Reply from 74.125.67.147: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=244
Reply from 74.125.67.147: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 74.125.67.147:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 71ms, Maximum = 76ms, Average = 73ms

[TriniXaeno]

better late than never bro. thanks for the ping results.

things looking more and more grim for my blink connection.

If I win pick2 or lotto then I can keep both.

[SPK]

Ping to google on my side here:


Pinging google.navigation.opendns.com [208.69.32.231] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=46
Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=46
Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=46
Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=46

Ping statistics for 208.69.32.231:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 108ms, Maximum = 115ms, Average = 110ms

[TriniXaeno]

On flow here and doing better than TSTT even on off peak.

Pinging 208.69.32.231 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=51
Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=51
Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=51
Reply from 208.69.32.231: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=51

and another for added salt in the wound

Reply from 74.125.67.104: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=243
Reply from 74.125.67.104: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=243
Reply from 74.125.67.104: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=243
Reply from 74.125.67.104: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=243

  5    48 ms    50 ms    47 ms  so-0-3-0-nmi-core02.nwnnetwork.net [6
]
  6    48 ms    48 ms    51 ms  so-1-0-0-nam-core02.columbus-networks
5.5.68]
  7    50 ms    49 ms    48 ms  ge-1-1-0-nam-core01.columbus-networks
5.5.81]
  8    52 ms    84 ms    49 ms  63.245.46.22
  9    48 ms    49 ms    49 ms  72.14.236.178
 10   112 ms    65 ms    64 ms  209.85.254.252
 11    66 ms    65 ms    67 ms  72.14.239.131
 12    66 ms    72 ms    73 ms  209.85.255.198
 13    67 ms    65 ms    67 ms  gw-in-f104.google.com [74.125.67.104]

mcmcmc, TSTT, why have you forsaken me??

[rb]

cause they sticking to interconnect, so buying all this bandwidth from flow working against them.

[W1nTry]

As far as I am aware EVEN IF they are going all the way to the NAP of America in Florida the latency shouldn't be as high as it is... meaning Flow latency to FL + TSTT latency to FL != Latency between Flow and TSTT.... so honestly I think it's politics...mc mc mc

[TriniXaeno]

Posting this TSTT DSL during the day to compare with the peak time performance tonight.

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [74.125.93.99]


  1     2 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  x.x.x.x
  2    21 ms    23 ms    24 ms  tservx.tstt.net.tt [201.238.73.230]
  3    21 ms    23 ms    22 ms  201.238.73.236
  4    74 ms    75 ms    74 ms  ge-3-10-nmi-edge05.nwnnetwork.net [63.245.69.33]

  5    75 ms    75 ms    75 ms  ge-6-0-0-nmi-core02.columbus-networks.com [63.24
5.5.86]
  6    75 ms    74 ms    75 ms  so-1-0-0-nam-core02.columbus-networks.com [63.24
5.5.68]
  7    76 ms    76 ms    74 ms  ge-2-0-0-nam-core01.columbus-networks.com [63.24
5.5.82]
  8    91 ms    91 ms    91 ms  63.245.46.22
  9    92 ms    91 ms    91 ms  72.14.236.178
 10    92 ms    92 ms    92 ms  72.14.236.172
 11   108 ms   110 ms   116 ms  209.85.251.224
 12   110 ms   109 ms   126 ms  72.14.239.48
 13   140 ms   185 ms   110 ms  72.14.239.85
 14   116 ms   116 ms   116 ms  209.85.248.75
 15   116 ms   115 ms   116 ms  209.85.254.237
 16   116 ms   128 ms   126 ms  216.239.46.78
 17   116 ms   116 ms   114 ms  qw-in-f99.google.com [74.125.93.99]


Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.93.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=240
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=240
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=240
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=240

[W1nTry]

The suckage continues...

 

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.93.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=483ms TTL=233
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=469ms TTL=234
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=455ms TTL=233
Reply from 74.125.93.99: bytes=32 time=479ms TTL=233

Ping statistics for 74.125.93.99:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 455ms, Maximum = 483ms, Average = 471ms

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [74.125.93.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     2 ms     4 ms     1 ms  x.x.x.x
  2    25 ms    21 ms    27 ms  cuscon121309.tstt.net.tt [190.59.96.1]
  3    26 ms    24 ms    23 ms  201.238.123.73.business.static.tstt.net.tt [201.
238.123.73]
  4    23 ms    21 ms    24 ms  cuscon66800.tstt.net.tt [190.58.140.18]
  5    25 ms    28 ms    27 ms  cuscon66915.tstt.net.tt [190.58.140.133]
  6   419 ms   428 ms   436 ms  ge-3-11-nmi-edge04.nwnnetwork.net [63.245.68.81]

  7   438 ms   430 ms   412 ms  ge-7-0-0-nmi-core01.columbus-networks.com [63.24
5.5.84]
  8   414 ms     *      397 ms  xe-0-0-0-brx-teracore01.columbus-networks.com [6
3.245.5.64]
  9   344 ms   334 ms   335 ms  xe-0-0-1-brx-teracore02.columbus-networks.com [6
3.245.5.67]
 10   410 ms   403 ms   427 ms  xe-1-0-0-nam-core01.columbus-networks.com [63.24
5.5.72]
 11   507 ms   452 ms   498 ms  63.245.46.22
 12   474 ms   456 ms   448 ms  72.14.236.178
 13   449 ms   434 ms   436 ms  72.14.236.172
 14   468 ms   476 ms   458 ms  209.85.251.224
 15   410 ms   382 ms   397 ms  72.14.239.48
 16   453 ms   430 ms   443 ms  72.14.239.85
 17   499 ms   482 ms   445 ms  209.85.248.75
 18   507 ms   449 ms   459 ms  209.85.254.239
 19   487 ms   450 ms   459 ms  64.233.175.14
 20   441 ms   455 ms   497 ms  qw-in-f99.google.com [74.125.93.99]

Trace complete.