«

It seems I just got upgraded with Orcon to the FS/FS plan.

My ping times to stuff dropped from an average of about 100 down to this.

Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=57

Now I'll test the speed, but that drop in latency is awesome enough.

Zipper wrote:
> It seems I just got upgraded with Orcon to the FS/FS plan.
>
> My ping times to stuff dropped from an average of about 100 down to this.
>
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=57
>
> Now I'll test the speed, but that drop in latency is awesome enough.

Ok well it seems I have only been partially switched over, because my
speed is still the same 256/128 but my modem reports Interleaving is set
to "FAST"

and I just disconnected and then conected again and my ping times are
even faster..

Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=57

My line speed has gone up but I'm not going any faster than 256/128 so I
imagine Orcon have to do something still..

Zipper wrote:
> It seems I just got upgraded with Orcon to the FS/FS plan.
>
> My ping times to stuff dropped from an average of about 100 down to this.
>
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=57

Not really - my ping times (interleaving on) have always been

Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=60
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=60
Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=60

on an ihug 2Mb/s connection


--
EMB

EMB wrote:
> Zipper wrote:
>> It seems I just got upgraded with Orcon to the FS/FS plan.
>>
>> My ping times to stuff dropped from an average of about 100 down to this.
>>
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=57
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=57
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=57
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=57
>
> Not really - my ping times (interleaving on) have always been

Yes really, i said mine dropped from 100 to 50, thats a 50 ms drop.
That is great.


>
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=60
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=60
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=60
>
> on an ihug 2Mb/s connection
>
>

So imagine what yours would be like with no interleaving.
I am quite far from the exchange which is why mine was so high to begin
with, but on average it knocks off 40-50 MS of latency.

Zipper wrote:

> So imagine what yours would be like with no interleaving.
> I am quite far from the exchange which is why mine was so high to begin
> with, but on average it knocks off 40-50 MS of latency.

Distance from exchange should make bugger all difference - the latency
involved in the maximum 7km from the exchange is well sub 1ms. Your
ping results point to some sort of bottleneck in your ISP's network. A
tracert or pathping would probably pinpoint where this is happening.


--
EMB

EMB wrote:
> Zipper wrote:
>
>> So imagine what yours would be like with no interleaving.
>> I am quite far from the exchange which is why mine was so high to
>> begin with, but on average it knocks off 40-50 MS of latency.
>
> Distance from exchange should make bugger all difference - the latency
> involved in the maximum 7km from the exchange is well sub 1ms. Your
> ping results point to some sort of bottleneck in your ISP's network. A
> tracert or pathping would probably pinpoint where this is happening.
>
>

Heh, yes I guess it doesn't take long to send a signal down a wire of
that distance .

Zipper wrote:
> It seems I just got upgraded with Orcon to the FS/FS plan.
>
> My ping times to stuff dropped from an average of about 100 down to this.
>
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=57
> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=57
>
> Now I'll test the speed, but that drop in latency is awesome enough.

Hmm, well thats about what we get now with it on, so perhaps when its
taken off it will drop to near 0.. doubt it but its hopeful.

Zipper <> wrote:

>Zipper wrote:
>> It seems I just got upgraded with Orcon to the FS/FS plan.
>>
>> My ping times to stuff dropped from an average of about 100 down to this.
>>
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=57
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=57
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=57
>> Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=57
>>
>> Now I'll test the speed, but that drop in latency is awesome enough.
>
>Ok well it seems I have only been partially switched over, because my
>speed is still the same 256/128 but my modem reports Interleaving is set
>to "FAST"
>
>and I just disconnected and then conected again and my ping times are
>even faster..
>
>Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=57
>Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=57
>Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=57
>Reply from 202.135.111.130: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=57
>
>My line speed has gone up but I'm not going any faster than 256/128 so I
>imagine Orcon have to do something still..
Have you rebooted your router to see if the speeds goes up?? When i
went from Orcon's 256/128 to 3500/128 nothing happen until then..

In article <ehrhln$5f2$>, EMB <>
wrote:

> Zipper wrote:
>
> > So imagine what yours would be like with no interleaving.
> > I am quite far from the exchange which is why mine was so high to begin
> > with, but on average it knocks off 40-50 MS of latency.
>
> Distance from exchange should make bugger all difference - the latency
> involved in the maximum 7km from the exchange is well sub 1ms. Your
> ping results point to some sort of bottleneck in your ISP's network. A
> tracert or pathping would probably pinpoint where this is happening.

7km is less than 78 microseconds round trip delay due to speed of light
in copper.

Michael Newbery wrote:
> In article <ehrhln$5f2$>, EMB <>
> wrote:
>
>> Zipper wrote:
>>
>>> So imagine what yours would be like with no interleaving.
>>> I am quite far from the exchange which is why mine was so high to begin
>>> with, but on average it knocks off 40-50 MS of latency.
>> Distance from exchange should make bugger all difference - the latency
>> involved in the maximum 7km from the exchange is well sub 1ms. Your
>> ping results point to some sort of bottleneck in your ISP's network. A
>> tracert or pathping would probably pinpoint where this is happening.
>
> 7km is less than 78 microseconds round trip delay due to speed of light
> in copper.

But light does not travel through copper