Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reasonable % Packet Loss

Options
  • 22-01-2008 4:32pm
    #1
    More Music
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭


    Hi Guys,

    Can I ask what you think is a reasonable % packet loss for a -t ping.

    I'm using a wireless provider.

    While we're at it, how about return times. I will post mine but I don't want to biase any posts yet.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    none to 10% pack loss. VOIP gets quite poor at 10% loss
    Metro Limerick, via WiFi.
    The longer ping times could be congestion on my WiFi or the Metro, or even I suppose on heanet!
    I'm also close to bottom limit on allowed SNR for Metro (A type of Fixed wireless comparable to DSL/Cable. There are about 7 main different types/technologies of Wireless, all quite different. Digiweb does 4 or 5 kinds)

    Even so I rarely ever see packet loss. Typically pings are under 50ms to local servers (i.e. close to Dublin MAN/INEX, the UK or USA will always be higher pings. A non Digiweb server next door will be a higher ping than heanet in Dublin as the packets have to go to Dublin and back via INEX.)
    Pinging heanet.webhost.heanet.ie [193.1.219.79] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=60
Reply from 193.1.219.79: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 193.1.219.79:
    Packets: Sent = 21, Received = 21, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 45ms


  • Options
    #3
    Onikage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭Onikage


    At layer 3 you should have very little packet loss.

    I've seen Wifi drop 20% of layer 2 packets and still have 100% receive at layer 3 (higher trip times though)


  • Options
    #4
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    watty wrote: »
    none to 10% pack loss. VOIP gets quite poor at 10% loss

    Just to add onto that, 10% is pushing the limit for G.711 but G.729 is exceptionally intolerant of packet loss. Mainly because each packet dropped for G.729 is much more info dropped than a G.711 packet. G.729 is heavily compressed.

    I have seen some material claiming that less than 1% packet loss is acceptable for G.729 "quality calls". I have only had one customer with relatively bad MPLS packet loss [~5%] using G.729. It was horrible. Moved them back to G.711 and it wasn't as noticeable.

    It all depends on what you use your internet connection for. If it's just for email or to a lesser extent surfing, you probably wouldn't notice [too much] anything up to about 10% loss.

    I wouldn't accept 10% packet loss from any provider, though.


  • Options
    #5
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Believe me the WiFi routers are mostly underpowered. When running one as Switch & Router for 5 laptops and all 4 network ports in use we got 20% packet loss and pings on our own wired ethernet between server & PC of over 150ms!!! . Now we only use it for WiFi and have added extra Netgear gigabit switchs and Clark Connect Linux Router on old PC. LAN pings now <1ms

    iLBC seems more tolerant of packet loss. I was thinking of Modem tests I did on VOIP. That of course was G.711. At 10% you can't even send one page of a fax. To send 10 pages in one go you need < 1%.

    > 10% packet loss is something broken. Getting to 10% may indicate serious contention/congestion or interference (Not just wireless, but can happen on cable or DSL).

    Mostly you shouldn't see any packet loss. But at up to 10% you might not realise it's there, except as you say G.729 etc. More obvious on good quality streaming video too as that also is UDP. TCP connections will resend, thus your speed drops. UDP does not resend thus the packets are really lost.

    You see it on Analogue dialup vs ISDN. A 64k ISDN connection at TCP can be 3 times faster than dialup allegedly connecting at 46k on 56K modem due to no errors on ISDN and high errors on the Analog. Indeed I have got poor lines to go "faster" by forcing 28K rather than allowing an optimistic auto-negotiated 40 to 46k in 56K mode

    And as an afterthought, pinging my own router via WiFi you can see the HIGH pings are infact something bad on my WiFi, laptop or LAN (again). I will investigate.

    So take up to 51ms of the high pings in earlier post! 
    C:\>ping doorman -t

Pinging doorman [192.168.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 51ms, Average = 12ms
    Linux will report times less than 1ms on Ping, Windows doesn't ever.

    Pinging the WiFi admin address:
    (I'm running 108Mbps super turbo G on a 1.8GHz XP laptop) 
    C:\>ping 192.168.0.2 -t

Pinging 192.168.0.2 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.2: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.2:
    Packets: Sent = 11, Received = 11, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 61ms, Average = 11ms

    Problem is looking like the WiFi box...


  • Options
    #6
    Peanut
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    More Music wrote: »
    Hi Guys,

    Can I ask what you think is a reasonable % packet loss for a -t ping.

    I'm using a wireless provider.

    Whenever I have setup wireless client connections, I gauge that if packet loss is consistently above 5%, then it's going to be problematic for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    More Music
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭More Music


    Thanks for that.

    I'm using CAT5 straight into my small hub which is connected to my wireless ISP CAT5 drop from the side of the house.

    Here is a selection of results take on different days since November.

    All pings are for www.google.ie

    sent: 4061
    received: 2988
    lost: 1073
    26% lost

    Round trip in ms
    min: 40ms
    max: 996ms
    avg: 65ms



    sent: 2303
    received: 1681
    lost: 662
    27% lost

    Round trip in ms
    min: 40ms
    max: 743ms
    avg: 58ms



    sent: 5566
    received: 4129
    lost: 1437
    25% lost

    Round trip in ms
    min: 40ms
    max: 3033ms
    avg: 139ms


    I'm not going to name just yet, I've made numerous calls to get it rectified and have even made allowances for the bad weather lately. It can't even stream a 20kbps radio station without buffering.

    Am I being too soft on them?


  • Options
    #8
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    Have you actually checked that you have line of sight to access point, absolute line of sight, not even a twig or branch in the way. How far are you from the AP?

    Weather doesn't make a difference, sometimes snow can, but not rain. So its BS what they're telling you


  • Options
    #9
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Some systems are affect by heavy rain, but the margin is built into the install pass/fail.

    You need to email them that post and phone again. I'd regard that as nearly unusable level of packet loss. Radio is UDP, it won't work at that loss. Web & Email, but at about 1/2 speed due to the amount of packets resent.

    You may need an ethernet WAN router. You can't usually sensibly connect a basic hubs/switch direct to ethernet port of a Wireless Subscriber unit (CPE). They usually only connect to one IP.


Advertisement