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

IBB looking for testers for 2Mb product

12467…10

Comments

  • #92
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    flamegrill wrote:
    was using the gf's 1mb breeze in dundrum today.

    Absolutely crap, download speeds? hahaha. not funny, and pints were about 50% packet loss and about 700ms average.

    having issues are we?

    I'm in Ballinteer and my connection was having issues too yesterday, despite being on an 8:1 contention (512/512kb). High latency and roughly 50% packet loss too.

    But it's not like eircom *ever* have problems with their superduperextrafantasticlyorgasmicfortehw1n DSL service eh? :rolleyes:

    Incidentally, I would appear not to be one of the "lucky 7" :(
    Pantalonies!


  • #93
    Mutant_Fruit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    i thought all 512/512's had been upgraded! If you're sticking with it because of the lower contention, thats a tad stupid, because you should never really get affected by it, and if you are, 8:1 at 512 is pretty much the same as 16:1@1024 (doulbe the speed and double the people sharing it).... and the 1meg service is 20:1. So its not that much worse!


  • #94
    PowerHouseDan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,659 ✭✭✭PowerHouseDan


    you get topped up yet fruit


  • #95
    PowerHouseDan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,659 ✭✭✭PowerHouseDan


    i am only conecting at 500 ish now and pings have double.


  • #96
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Mutant_Fruit wrote:
    i thought all 512/512's had been upgraded! If you're sticking with it because of the lower contention, thats a tad stupid, because you should never really get affected by it, and if you are, 8:1 at 512 is pretty much the same as 16:1@1024 (doulbe the speed and double the people sharing it).... and the 1meg service is 20:1. So its not that much worse!

    It's not about maximum speed - it's about minimum speed. I am guaruanteed a higher minimum speed at 8:1 on 512 than I can 20:1 on 1024


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Mutant_Fruit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Lemming wrote:
    It's not about maximum speed - it's about minimum speed. I am guaruanteed a higher minimum speed at 8:1 on 512 than I can 20:1 on 1024
    Well, if you really think 8kB/sec is a LOT better than 6.4kB/sec, then fine, stick with your 8:1 contention. But i think 128kB/sec max as compared to 64kB/sec max is a hell of a lot more beneficial than the possible 1.6kB/sec extra i'd get if everyone i was contended with was downloading at full whack. (using theoretical max/min's). In fairness, if you are going that low speedwise, there is something seriously wrong. IBB have a lot more bandwidth than the minimum needed, so you'll never be limited by contention.

    @powerhousedan: Still no sign of an upgrade. But what can ya do. It is a bonus being allowed test it, so we can't really complain if we don't get it :(


  • #98
    Blaster99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Blaster99


    Mutant_Fruit wrote:
    IBB have a lot more bandwidth than the minimum needed, so you'll never be limited by contention.

    Aha. So what happened recently when you were only getting about 10KB/s? Incidently in my experience being on the more expensive packages offers no shelter against IBB's "growing pains".


  • #99
    Mutant_Fruit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Blaster99 wrote:
    Aha. So what happened recently when you were only getting about 10KB/s? Incidently in my experience being on the more expensive packages offers no shelter against IBB's "growing pains".
    Well, what happened there was tiscali was gently exploding :p Irish traffic was perfect, but anything routing through tiscali (in britain afaik) went dead slow.

    I'm not sure whos' fault it was, IBB's or tiscali's, but it wasn't contention in IBB causing the problem (unless their link to tiscali was completely saturated...). Even if i was on 512@8: contention, i still would have gotten the exact same performance. Which basically means upgrading to 1meg at 20:1 contention for no extra money really is a much better thing to do. Minimum performance is about 15% slower, maximum performace is 100% faster. I like those odds.


  • #100
    gsand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭gsand


    on the 512/512 8:1 vs 1meg 20:1 argument...

    i was quite worried about the contention issue and was inclined to move to 1meg 20:1 and pay the extra few quid. so i called them and outlined my thoughts and was told it would not be an issue, very fast etc etc...so i agreed to move up to 1meg and the woman said np np will be sorted shortly...

    waited a week, rang back, should be going soon etc etc

    still nothing about 6 months later so i assume they had a look at their records probably decided i did not have the vl gear and had no intention of coming over to change the gear and sort out my upgrade...

    at the end of the day as above i didnt cause chaos over it as i still have concerns over the contention-i was on 512k 20:1 at one stage and it was not acceptable at all...

    still im kinda thinking now if i didnt get my upgrade to 1meg then they are hardly gona move me to 2meg and i cud be stuck at 4 times below the minimum entry product???

    duno what to do to be honest lol


    edit: no problems with the service atm as other people seem to be having...


  • #101
    joolsveer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭joolsveer


    I am on the 512k Breeze Light product. I think I have the VL gear - a solid diamond shaped antenna (please feel free to correct me). My connection speeds have deteriorated over the weekend. According to the ADSLguide speed test I am getting the following:

    Broadband Speed Test Results
    Results from broadband speed test recorded on Tuesday, 29 March 2005, 14:34.
    Your Connection
    Direction Actual Speed True Speed (estimated)
    Downstream 129 Kbps (16.1 KB/sec) 139 Kbps (inc. overheads)
    Upstream 132 Kbps (16.5 KB/sec) 142 Kbps (inc. overheads)
    'Actual Speed' is the amount of useful data that your connection can transmit/receive per
    second. The 'True Speed' figure includes an approximation of data overheads (non-useful
    data) and is estimated to be around 8%. 'True Speed' is for informational purposes only and
    is not used in any ISP rankings.

    Is there a connection between the new performance and the 2Mb test?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    mag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭mag


    yea, im on 1mb vl & the connection was crappy over the weekend having been largely flawless for 9 mths.

    on doing a tracert it looked like a server had fallen over after the sandymount hop, not sure if this was ibb's or not...


  • #103
    Mutant_Fruit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Well, considaring only 7 users were on the 2meg test, i don't think and additional 7mbps would really be noticed over the network. Unless IBB have segmented bandwidth away into different sections, i.e. a 2meg section (where everyone will be moved to) and a 1 meg section (Where some people will remain). But that sounds kinda stupid. So i doubt that.

    Best thing to do is ask oldtitan when he comes back. But i doubt 7 people on 2meg would have any noticeable impact.


  • #104
    Blaster99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Blaster99


    Mutant_Fruit wrote:
    I'm not sure whos' fault it was, IBB's or tiscali's, but it wasn't contention in IBB causing the problem (unless their link to tiscali was completely saturated...).

    You draw some interesting conclusions. Obviously nothing wrong with IBB but no other ISP had the same problem... And obviously nobody is suffering from performance problems with IBB anywhere. You do read this forum, yes?

    I incidently have no problem with the likes of OldTitan and that other guy who ran away trying to stand up for IBB, but it gets a bit tiring to read people saying that IBB's service is faultless when it quite obviously isn't.


  • #105
    pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭pete


    I'm on the VL 1mb product here, via ballycoolin & performance is way down on normal levels. waaaay down.

    Particularly bad timing for me since i'm trying to FTP a 4.05GB file up to a server to get a site back online.

    I've fired off an email to support, so.....


  • #106
    Steffano2002
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Steffano2002


    Well my Download & Upload speeds have been awesome since the test-upgrade to 2MB. :D Unfortunately, my ping issue remains... :(

    I uploaded 2 DVDs to a French FTP over the week-end (around 9.5Gb) and transfer speed was 220-230 KB/sec solid which is quite impressive! ;)


  • #107
    PowerHouseDan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,659 ✭✭✭PowerHouseDan


    :( stop your makin me depressed, hopefully there is still hope me being upgraded today
    Steffano2002 wrote:
    Well my Download & Upload speeds have been awesome since the test-upgrade to 2MB. :D Unfortunately, my ping issue remains... :(

    I uploaded 2 DVDs to a French FTP over the week-end (around 9.5Gb) and transfer speed was 220-230 KB/sec solid which is quite impressive! ;)


  • #108
    Drapper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭Drapper


    Steffano2002 wrote:
    Well my Download & Upload speeds have been awesome since the test-upgrade to 2MB. :D Unfortunately, my ping issue remains... :(

    I uploaded 2 DVDs to a French FTP over the week-end (around 9.5Gb) and transfer speed was 220-230 KB/sec solid which is quite impressive! ;)


    Uploading glad to see your giving a little back to the Net Steph :-)

    All that leeching is bad for you !!!


  • #109
    enigma_b17
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭enigma_b17


    Steffano2002 wrote:
    Well my Download & Upload speeds have been awesome since the test-upgrade to 2MB. :D Unfortunately, my ping issue remains... :(

    I uploaded 2 DVDs to a French FTP over the week-end (around 9.5Gb) and transfer speed was 220-230 KB/sec solid which is quite impressive! ;)

    that is so depressing i think i might go cancel my ibb now :/
    j/k

    give em a few more days and then bb :P

    220kb hhhmmmm speed


  • #110
    Drapper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭Drapper


    enigma_b17 wrote:
    that is so depressing i think i might go cancel my ibb now :/
    j/k

    give em a few more days and then bb :P

    220kb hhhmmmm speed

    burst of 500 kb/s at times !!!

    :-)

    Speeeeeddddddddddddd up and down !!!


  • #111
    Mutant_Fruit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Blaster99 wrote:
    You draw some interesting conclusions. Obviously nothing wrong with IBB but no other ISP had the same problem... And obviously nobody is suffering from performance problems with IBB anywhere. You do read this forum, yes?
    No, i didn't make myself clear. The fact that i could get 120kB/sec (full speed) from IRISH sites meant (to me) that IBB's internal network was fine. Thats what i meant by "it wasn't contention in IBB causing the problem". I did go on to say that it could have been their link to tiscali. But since i don't know much about that, i can't comment. Other than that, it could have been some problem at tiscali's end. I don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Adey2002
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭Adey2002


    I'm on the 1Mb VL onto SIAC and was on the net pretty much all day and my pings were notmal (good/excellent) and my download speed was pretty much top whack.


  • #113
    Steffano2002
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Steffano2002


    Well, my ping is atrocious since last Wednesday (23rd March). :(

    Could anybody here on the Guinness transmitter please do a ping test, of about 1 minute, of the transmitter itself (62.231.34.209 I believe)?

    Here's what I'm getting right now:

    Pinging 62.231.34.209 with 32 bytes of data:

    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=857ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=418ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=231ms TTL=255
    Request timed out.
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=255
    Request timed out.
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=345ms TTL=255
    Request timed out.
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=721ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Request timed out.
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=255
    Request timed out.
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Request timed out.
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255

    Ping statistics for 62.231.34.209:
    Packets: Sent = 74, Received = 68, Lost = 6 (7% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 857ms, Average = 73ms

    Now try playing an online game with these kinds of erratic pings... :( :mad: :( :mad:


  • #114
    Narcom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Narcom


    Steffano2002, I'm on Guinness using 1Mb VL equipment. No obvious issues with pings, maxing out at 40ms

    Pinging 62.231.34.209 with 32 bytes of data:

    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=254
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254

    Ping statistics for 62.231.34.209:
    Packets: Sent = 52, Received = 52, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 7ms


  • #115
    Steffano2002
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Steffano2002


    Thanks a million Narcom! ;)

    I also had the 1MB with VL Gear and 8:1 Contention Ratio when the problem started... Now I'm helping IBB test the 2MB with 16:1 Contention Ratio.

    So it's not the transmitter... It must be my radio then? Pfff... I'm so gutted... :(


  • #116
    Narcom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Narcom


    Steffano2002 wrote:
    Thanks a million Narcom! ;)

    I also had the 1MB with VL Gear and 8:1 Contention Ratio when the problem started... Now I'm helping IBB test the 2MB with 16:1 Contention Ratio.

    So it's not the transmitter... It must be my radio then? Pfff... I'm so gutted... :(

    I'm on the 20:1 1Mb VL rather than 8:1 if that is of any use to you. Hope you find out the source of the problem.....


  • #117
    joolsveer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭joolsveer


    Pinging 62.231.34.209 with 32 bytes of data:

    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=1297ms TTL=251
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=1472ms TTL=251
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=1484ms TTL=251
    Reply from 62.231.34.209: bytes=32 time=1664ms TTL=251

    Ping statistics for 62.231.34.209:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1297ms, Maximum = 1664ms, Average = 1479ms


  • #118
    OldTitan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭OldTitan


    No, i didn't make myself clear. The fact that i could get 120kB/sec (full speed) from IRISH sites meant (to me) that IBB's internal network was fine. Thats what i meant by "it wasn't contention in IBB causing the problem". I did go on to say that it could have been their link to tiscali. But since i don't know much about that, i can't comment. Other than that, it could have been some problem at tiscali's end. I don't know.
    IBB uses 3 carriers for transit - Tiscali, PacketExchange (MFN and Level3) and Cable and Wireless. Your route out and returning to IBB will depend on routing preferences and could vary even within a day, depending on congestion. IBB has more than enough IP transit capacity - presently only about 60% maximum is used by customers.


  • #119
    OldTitan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭OldTitan


    joolsveer wrote:
    Pinging 62.231.34.209 with 32 bytes of data:

    Ping statistics for 62.231.34.209:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1297ms, Maximum = 1664ms, Average = 1479ms
    That is NOT a healthy connection joolsveer! I suggest you contact IBB Support. If you are on RipWave, it should be around 95 to 175ms, jumping to 500+ if you are downloading, and if you are on VL, it should be around 15 to 35ms with nearly no effect when you are downloading. Over 1,000ms indicates serious interference being experienced by your connection to the basestation, or a radio that is going faulty.


  • #120
    flamegrill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭flamegrill


    oldtitan:

    not sure if your aware, but most Major ISP's don't allow their core trunks to exceed 30% capacity at anyone time, if they do they upgrade the link.

    Perhaps at peak times, bursting is maxing out 1 or more of your links and this is causing issues.

    I remember a few weeks ago, mid feb .. pings to heanet were fine as you have a direct feed to them via Inex - but everything else was piss poor.

    IIRC it was Packetexchange that appeared to carry the traffic externally that i tested.

    Paul


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    joolsveer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭joolsveer


    OldTitan wrote:
    That is NOT a healthy connection joolsveer! I suggest you contact IBB Support. If you are on RipWave, it should be around 95 to 175ms, jumping to 500+ if you are downloading, and if you are on VL, it should be around 15 to 35ms with nearly no effect when you are downloading. Over 1,000ms indicates serious interference being experienced by your connection to the basestation, or a radio that is going faulty.

    I have asked IBB support to investigate but so far I have not received a substantive response.

    BTW As I have already informed you OldTitan I am on the 512Kb Breeze VL product.

    I think there is a problem with the time on this site as I posted this message at 22:39 approx.


Advertisement