Latency Test

News and Announcements

Which one or two give you the best tracert?

64.34.160.92 (SB-V)
37
36%
67.212.163.50 (SH)
36
35%
72.51.32.76 (SB-LA)
16
15%
66.226.72.172 (AP)
15
14%
 
Total votes: 104

Jdq5001
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:16 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by Jdq5001 »

my location : Erie, Pennsylvania

64.34.160.92 (SB-V) was best for me with an avg ping of 53 MS and a very tight variance

all of the rest were acceptable at ~120 ms

except

72.51.32.76 (SB-LA) which was a min ping of 124 and a max of 1029? weird... averaged out to be 357 if i spiked like that however... it'd probably be unplayable



upon re-pinging 72.51.32.76 (SB-LA) i got strange results seems to be that every now and then i have a random spike bringing my avg ping up.. not sure whats going on with it

User avatar
Derrick
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Cove
Contact:

Re: Latency Test

Post by Derrick »

bigcheez wrote:how about we just get a central server, dallas tx, like a normal person
I heart Texas and all, but we've been there before and have experienced major congestion.

esteban
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:27 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by esteban »

From Tokyo/JAPAN (Shared FTTH via DTI)
Anything except 64.34.160.92 will be an improvement.
All other three have RTT of around 120~150msec.

64.34.160.92 would be unbearable, since the routers en route to the destination appears to drop a lot of packets.

Soul
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Latency Test

Post by Soul »

First one is the best


Prague , Czech Republic

User avatar
Sulta
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:28 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Latency Test

Post by Sulta »

The first one was best for me.

North Carolina

eniave
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:01 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by eniave »

Colorado US
64.34.160.92 108 109

67.212.163.50 92

72.51.32.76 97-98

66.226.72.172 98-99

purplehazze
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Latency Test

Post by purplehazze »

Orlando, FL

64.34.160.92 - 40ms (15 hops)
67.212.163.50 - 38 ms (13 hops)
72.51.32.76 - 79 ms (16 hops)
66.226.72.172 - 80 ms (16 hops)

User avatar
son
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: I put an r in it http://my.uosecondage.com/Status/Player/67484

Re: Latency Test

Post by son »

traceroute 64.34.160.92
traceroute to 64.34.160.92 (64.34.160.92), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 6.300 ms 6.638 ms 9.329 ms
2 astound-66-234-201-1.ca.astound.net (66.234.201.1) 28.935 ms 40.655 ms 41.086 ms
3 10.50.2.1 (10.50.2.1) 44.507 ms 45.025 ms 51.709 ms
4 66-162-144-9.static.twtelecom.net (66.162.144.9) 52.634 ms 59.194 ms 59.685 ms
5 peer-02-so-0-0-0-0.chcg.twtelecom.net (66.192.244.20) 114.627 ms 115.129 ms 115.636 ms
6 oc48-po1-0.tor-1yg-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.114.142) 147.147 ms 97.261 ms 149.381 ms
7 10ge.xe-0-0-0.tor-151f-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.114.134) 149.743 ms 153.706 ms 157.173 ms
8 oc48-po3-0.mtl-bvh-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.114.198) 172.264 ms 172.783 ms 178.659 ms
9 10ge.xe-0-0-0.mtl-bvh-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.115.85) 211.273 ms 213.493 ms 215.748 ms
10 oc192.xe-4-0-0.nyc-telx-dis-1.peer1.net (216.187.115.54) 217.207 ms 437.306 ms 447.547 ms
11 10ge.ten1-2.wdc-sp2-cor-2.peer1.net (216.187.115.222) 455.460 ms 457.636 ms 456.350 ms
12 10ge.ten1-1.wdc-sp2-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.116.253) 139.211 ms 139.609 ms 143.987 ms
13 216.187.120.238 (216.187.120.238) 158.437 ms 172.863 ms 173.250 ms
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *

traceroute 67.212.163.50
traceroute to 67.212.163.50 (67.212.163.50), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 2.882 ms 4.777 ms 6.878 ms
2 astound-66-234-201-1.ca.astound.net (66.234.201.1) 294.087 ms 298.345 ms 298.865 ms
3 10.50.2.1 (10.50.2.1) 300.257 ms 303.054 ms 307.292 ms
4 66-162-144-9.static.twtelecom.net (66.162.144.9) 307.831 ms 314.595 ms 315.056 ms
5 peer-02-ge-1-0-0-0.palo.twtelecom.net (66.192.243.98) 315.513 ms 316.005 ms 316.512 ms
6 tge2-4.ar1.sfo1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.143.122) 317.109 ms 86.842 ms 22.679 ms
7 tge1-1.ar1.slc1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.98) 32.342 ms 43.472 ms 43.931 ms
8 xe-2-1-0.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.101) 77.102 ms 81.136 ms 88.018 ms
9 111.xe-3-3-0.cr1.ord1.us.scnet.net (216.246.88.162) 122.821 ms 125.775 ms 126.272 ms
10 v21.ar2.ord1.us.scnet.net (216.246.95.244) 91.790 ms 102.704 ms 107.135 ms
11 as32475.1614.po2.ar2.ord1.us.scnet.net (75.102.19.139) 103.138 ms 107.587 ms 107.936 ms
12 10.97.198.99.no-rdns.ord02.singlehop.net (99.198.97.10) 92.647 ms 62.162 ms 73.345 ms
13 web01.singlehop.net (67.212.163.50) 74.065 ms 65.178 ms 68.414 ms


traceroute 72.51.32.76
traceroute to 72.51.32.76 (72.51.32.76), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 7.447 ms 14.894 ms 15.423 ms
2 astound-66-234-201-1.ca.astound.net (66.234.201.1) 22.068 ms 26.854 ms 37.378 ms
3 10.50.2.1 (10.50.2.1) 42.438 ms 53.780 ms 54.268 ms
4 66-162-144-9.static.twtelecom.net (66.162.144.9) 59.242 ms 59.820 ms 68.063 ms
5 peer-01-ge-0-0-0-0.snjs.twtelecom.net (66.192.242.190) 70.436 ms 71.794 ms 72.390 ms
6 10ge.ten1-1.sj-mkp2-dis-1.peer1.net (216.187.89.101) 74.936 ms 34.015 ms 16.177 ms
7 10ge-ten1-3.la-600w-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.88.130) 128.388 ms 128.965 ms 131.605 ms
8 216.187.88.58 (216.187.88.58) 43.506 ms 51.558 ms 52.102 ms
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *

traceroute 66.226.72.172
traceroute to 66.226.72.172 (66.226.72.172), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 25.403 ms 26.998 ms 32.822 ms
2 astound-66-234-201-1.ca.astound.net (66.234.201.1) 37.810 ms 44.621 ms 45.135 ms
3 10.50.2.1 (10.50.2.1) 632.656 ms 633.256 ms 633.783 ms
4 66-162-144-9.static.twtelecom.net (66.162.144.9) 52.774 ms 54.840 ms 68.383 ms
5 peer-01-ge-0-0-0-0.snjs.twtelecom.net (66.192.242.190) 69.432 ms 69.997 ms 73.566 ms
6 Te-9-4.car4.SanJose1.level3.net (4.68.111.161) 185.729 ms 53.689 ms 77.868 ms
7 vlan99.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.18.254) 40.935 ms vlan89.csw3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.18.190) 49.531 ms 64.877 ms
8 ae-73-73.ebr3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.229) 60.317 ms 60.750 ms ae-83-83.ebr3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.233) 77.727 ms
9 ae-2.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.132.10) 71.702 ms 75.014 ms 75.506 ms
10 ae-83-83.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.42) 84.394 ms ae-73-73.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.38) 94.737 ms 95.169 ms
11 ae-91-91.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.13) 108.430 ms ae-81-81.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.9) 106.140 ms ae-71-71.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.5) 105.340 ms
12 ae-5-5.car1.SanDiego1.Level3.net (4.69.133.205) 57.506 ms 50.380 ms 51.722 ms
13 ae-11-11.car2.SanDiego1.Level3.net (4.69.133.210) 51.846 ms 53.715 ms 49.569 ms
14 ABACUS-AMER.car2.SanDiego1.Level3.net (4.79.34.6) 50.456 ms 52.394 ms 62.166 ms
15 gi5-15.cr1.sandiego.abac.net (66.226.66.17) 65.080 ms 70.987 ms 89.254 ms
16 gi1-1.dr1.dedicated.abac.net (66.226.66.10) 106.827 ms 93.663 ms 108.067 ms
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *


Im mooching astound which is a local bay area cable company. I will be back on ATT which had the best ping/trace to your ultrahost.

I doubled in ping when you moved out of Texas :(
Image
rdash wrote:BLACKFOOT STAY AWAY FROM MY FRIENDS OR MEET A BLADE OF VANQUISH AND ADDITIONAL TACTICS

User avatar
son
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: I put an r in it http://my.uosecondage.com/Status/Player/67484

Re: Latency Test

Post by son »

~ $ ping 64.34.160.92
PING 64.34.160.92 (64.34.160.92) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.34.160.92: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=86.8 ms
64 bytes from 64.34.160.92: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=93.0 ms
64 bytes from 64.34.160.92: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=111 ms
64 bytes from 64.34.160.92: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=89.1 ms
64 bytes from 64.34.160.92: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=108 ms
^C
--- 64.34.160.92 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4054ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 86.825/97.876/111.672/10.285 ms
~ $ ping 67.212.163.50
PING 67.212.163.50 (67.212.163.50) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 67.212.163.50: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=65.6 ms
64 bytes from 67.212.163.50: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=71.3 ms
64 bytes from 67.212.163.50: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=63.0 ms
64 bytes from 67.212.163.50: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=71.5 ms
^C
--- 67.212.163.50 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3040ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 63.058/67.902/71.585/3.666 ms
~ $ ping 72.51.32.76
PING 72.51.32.76 (72.51.32.76) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 72.51.32.76: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=27.5 ms
64 bytes from 72.51.32.76: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=27.6 ms
64 bytes from 72.51.32.76: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=32.4 ms
64 bytes from 72.51.32.76: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=22.6 ms
^C
--- 72.51.32.76 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3036ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 22.692/27.560/32.443/3.447 ms
~ $ ping 66.226.72.172
PING 66.226.72.172 (66.226.72.172) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 66.226.72.172: icmp_seq=1 ttl=112 time=57.6 ms
64 bytes from 66.226.72.172: icmp_seq=2 ttl=112 time=49.0 ms
64 bytes from 66.226.72.172: icmp_seq=3 ttl=112 time=54.8 ms
64 bytes from 66.226.72.172: icmp_seq=4 ttl=112 time=49.1 ms
64 bytes from 66.226.72.172: icmp_seq=5 ttl=112 time=52.1 ms
^C


These all ping better to me than ultrahost, and I ddint clarify I am in the silicon valley.

Raptor
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:19 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by Raptor »

From San Francisco, CA

Pinging 64.34.160.92 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.34.160.92: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=48
Reply from 64.34.160.92: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=48
Reply from 64.34.160.92: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=48
Reply from 64.34.160.92: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=48
Ping statistics for 64.34.160.92:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 95ms, Maximum = 121ms, Average = 106ms


Pinging 67.212.163.50 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.212.163.50: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=49
Reply from 67.212.163.50: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=49
Reply from 67.212.163.50: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=49
Reply from 67.212.163.50: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=49
Ping statistics for 67.212.163.50:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 81ms, Maximum = 91ms, Average = 85ms

Pinging 72.51.32.76 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 72.51.32.76: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.51.32.76: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.51.32.76: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.51.32.76: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Ping statistics for 72.51.32.76:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 44ms, Average = 29ms

Pinging 66.226.72.172 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.226.72.172: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.226.72.172: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.226.72.172: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.226.72.172: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=114
Ping statistics for 66.226.72.172:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 51ms, Average = 37ms

helmet
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:12 pm

Re: Latency Test

Post by helmet »

I'm in california and had the following results:

[64.34.160.92] 17 hops, 93ms
[67.212.163.50] 14 hops, 66ms
[72.51.32.76] 10 hops, 25ms
[66.226.72.172] 17 hops, 29ms

My vote is for [72.51.32.76] * Serverbeach FTW please :)

DiMe
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:27 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by DiMe »

I live in Pennsylvania.

64.34.160.92:

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.0.1 1 1ms
gateway-c5-0-0-comm-10-229-50-1.c10.229.50.1 2 7ms
gateway2-ge2-1-058-sthblocal1.str216.144.187.62 3 7ms
gateway-t3-2-nyc2str2.nyc.ptd.net207.44.125.6 4 13ms
* Unknown Host * 12.116.102.29 5 13ms
cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net 12.122.130.50 6 21ms
cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net 12.122.3.38 7 18ms
gar1.ascva.ip.att.net 12.122.134.129 8 19ms
* Unknown Host * 12.118.44.50 9 20ms
* Unknown Host * 0.0.0.0 10 0ms
* Unknown Host * 0.0.0.0 11 0ms
cachens2.iad2.serverbeach.com 64.34.160.92 12 19ms





67.212.163.50:

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.0.1 1 1ms
gateway-c5-0-0-comm-10-229-50-1.c10.229.50.1 2 7ms
gateway2-ge2-1-058-sthblocal1.str216.144.187.62 3 7ms
gateway-t2-2-ban2str2.ban.ptd.net204.186.238.54 4 8ms
gateway2-t8-1-sm22ban.sm.ptd.net 204.186.241.18 5 9ms
gateway-t3-3-abn2sm2.abn.ptd.net 207.44.125.2 6 24ms
ae0-821.cr2.iad1.us.nlayer.net 69.31.31.205 7 17ms
xe-1-2-0.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net 69.22.142.62 8 30ms
111.xe-3-3-0.cr1.ord1.us.scnet.ne216.246.88.162 9 31ms
v21.ar2.ord1.us.scnet.net 216.246.95.244 10 33ms
as32475.1614.po2.ar2.ord1.us.scne75.102.19.139 11 32ms
10.97.198.99.no-rdns.ord02.single99.198.97.10 12 30ms
web01.singlehop.net 67.212.163.50 13 39ms




72.51.32.76:

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.0.1 1 1ms
gateway-c5-0-0-comm-10-229-50-1.c10.229.50.1 2 7ms
gateway2-ge2-1-058-sthblocal1.str216.144.187.62 3 8ms
gateway-t3-2-nyc2str2.nyc.ptd.net207.44.125.6 4 13ms
* Unknown Host * 12.116.102.29 5 12ms
cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net 12.122.130.50 6 89ms
cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net 12.122.3.38 7 87ms
cr1.attga.ip.att.net 12.122.1.173 8 89ms
cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net 12.122.28.174 9 88ms
cr2.la2ca.ip.att.net 12.122.28.178 10 96ms
gar2.lsrca.ip.att.net 12.122.129.49 11 88ms
* Unknown Host * 12.118.130.42 12 90ms
10ge-ten1-2.la-600w-cor-1.peer1.n216.187.88.126 13 109ms
* Unknown Host * 216.187.88.34 14 89ms
cachens1.lax1.serverbeach.com 72.51.32.76 15 92ms



66.226.72.172:

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.0.1 1 12ms
gateway-c5-0-0-comm-10-229-50-1.c10.229.50.1 2 7ms
gateway2-ge2-1-058-sthblocal1.str216.144.187.62 3 7ms
gateway-t3-2-nyc2str2.nyc.ptd.net207.44.125.6 4 13ms
xe-7-3-0.edge1.NewYork1.Level3.ne4.78.132.69 5 12ms
vlan99.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net 4.68.16.254 6 19ms
ae-94-94.ebr4.NewYork1.Level3.net4.69.134.125 7 24ms
ae-3.ebr2.Dallas1.Level3.net 4.69.137.121 8 59ms
ae-4-4.car2.SanDiego1.Level3.net 4.69.133.213 9 79ms
ABACUS-AMER.car2.SanDiego1.Level34.79.34.6 10 80ms
gi1-1.cr1.sandiego.abac.net 66.226.66.1 11 81ms
gi1-1.dr1.dedicated.abac.net 66.226.66.10 12 79ms
66-226-72-172.dedicated.abac.net 66.226.72.172 13 79ms

User avatar
Isuldur
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:35 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by Isuldur »

Iceland

64.36.160.92
AVG 134ms

67.212.163.50
AVG 123ms


72.51.32.76
AVG 241ms

66.226.72.172
AVG 139ms

User avatar
Derrick
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Cove
Contact:

Re: Latency Test

Post by Derrick »

Number One looks like the popular choice. While Number Two was a close second and cheaper, multiple reports of packet loss scared me off on that location.

I've just ordered a new server at the new data center. Today is a great day to donate if you can, and haven't recently, as we'll be paying for servers at both locations during the transition in addition to a recurring fee increase. In addition to the expected network performance increase, we'll be doubling our server capacity as well in both memory and bandwidth.

This is a top rated data-center in an area with very little congestion and the preliminary tests look great, with a especially good improvement for players who are currently pinging in excess of 150ms.

User avatar
Hemperor
UOSA Subscriber!
UOSA Subscriber!
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Latency Test

Post by Hemperor »

Derrick wrote:Number One looks like the popular choice. While Number Two was a close second and cheaper, multiple reports of packet loss scared me off on that location.

I've just ordered a new server at the new data center. Today is a great day to donate if you can, and haven't recently, as we'll be paying for servers at both locations during the transition in addition to a recurring fee increase. In addition to the expected network performance increase, we'll be doubling our server capacity as well in both memory and bandwidth.

This is a top rated data-center in an area with very little congestion and the preliminary tests look great, with a especially good improvement for players who are currently pinging in excess of 150ms.
are we looking at shorter save times?

When we originally moved to the current server, saves were instant but sometimes they are over 8 seconds now.

Post Reply