no interleaving

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Zipper, Oct 26, 2006.

  1. Zipper

    Zipper Guest

    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, Oct 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Zipper

    Zipper Guest

    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, Oct 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Zipper

    EMB Guest

    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, Oct 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Zipper

    Zipper Guest

    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, Oct 27, 2006
    #4
  5. Zipper

    EMB Guest

    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, Oct 27, 2006
    #5
  6. Zipper

    Zipper Guest

    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, Oct 27, 2006
    #6
  7. Zipper

    Richard Guest

    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.
    Richard, Oct 27, 2006
    #7
  8. Zipper

    Mutlley Guest

    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..
    Mutlley, Oct 27, 2006
    #8
  9. 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, Oct 27, 2006
    #9
  10. 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 :)
    dilberts_left_nut, Oct 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Zipper

    juicyjuice Guest

    dilberts_left_nut wrote:
    > 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 :)


    but copper can power a lightbulb!? heh
    juicyjuice, Oct 27, 2006
    #11
  12. Zipper

    Richard Guest

    dilberts_left_nut wrote:

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

    >
    > But light does not travel through copper :)


    Does if you throw it hard enough.
    Richard, Oct 27, 2006
    #12
  13. Zipper

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-10-27, dilberts_left_nut <not@home> wrote:

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

    >
    > But light does not travel through copper :)


    "light" of sufficiently low frequency will follow copper wires :)


    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
    jasen, Oct 27, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mikey
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    629
    Mikey
    May 12, 2006
  2. Peter Gradwell

    affect of adsl interleaving on voip

    Peter Gradwell, Jun 15, 2006, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    7,008
    Nick Barnes
    Jun 21, 2006
  3. Nighthawk
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,642
    Nighthawk
    Mar 5, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page