pete6032
Diamond Member
- Dec 3, 2010
- 7,579
- 3,124
- 136
I dont' think its possible to beat this. Well ping anyways.
*spits coffee into monitor*
I dont' think its possible to beat this. Well ping anyways.
I dont' think its possible to beat this. Well ping anyways.
root@falcon:~# ping 10.11.10.100
PING 10.11.10.100 (10.11.10.100) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=150 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=71.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=298 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=219 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=140 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=61.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=285 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=206 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=131 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=52.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=276 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=201 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=120 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=39.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=575 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=192 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=112 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=33.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=257 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=487 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=104 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=24.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=250 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=170 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=397 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=323 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=244 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=162 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=88.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=30 ttl=63 time=309 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=31 ttl=63 time=233 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=32 ttl=63 time=154 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=33 ttl=63 time=79.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=34 ttl=63 time=307 ms
64 bytes from 10.11.10.100: icmp_seq=35 ttl=63 time=222 ms
Well he is using college internet :awe:
So apparently the Wireless at the office sucks bigtime:
If I go from one of our servers thats actually on wired:
unless your device and router are setup for 802.11AC what did you expect from wifi?
802.11N might have gotten you up to 40-50% of wired, but for anything more than that, higher end 802.11AC devices would be needed. And those aren't exactly cheap. Your wireless as it is, is standard, i'd even say it's above average seeing as you saw NO improvement to ping when switching to wired. On wifi at my house I get 35 download and 50 upload with a 20ms ping. On wired I get 80Mbps download and 92Mbps upload with a 9ms ping.
traceroute to 142.166.129.36 (142.166.129.36), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 internet.firewall.loc (10.1.1.1) 0.338 ms 0.311 ms 0.293 ms
2 gw.fibreop.loc (192.168.2.1) 0.670 ms 0.800 ms 1.131 ms
3 nrbaon0436w-047055016001.dhcp-dynamic.FibreOp.on.fibreop.ca (47.55.16.1) 10.074 ms 10.371 ms 10.507 ms
4 irb-82.dr02.nrba.on.aliant.net (142.166.129.210) 37.780 ms 37.784 ms 37.771 ms
5 xe-0-0-0.dr02.sdbr.on.aliant.net (142.166.149.69) 45.705 ms 45.838 ms 45.983 ms
6 fost-on00.FibreOP.ca (142.166.129.36) 11.011 ms 8.816 ms 8.759 ms