Server pings
Comprox
*chortle*Canada Join Date: 2002-01-23 Member: 7Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Developer, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Which is the best?</div>Ok, this is a poll to see where I should order servers from, so go and ping each place please!
Start > Run > type "ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" (without quotes)
OR
Start > Run > type command > type "ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" in new window(without quotes)
Reoeat for each IP, and then vote for the one with the lowest avergae ping please. Sorry if there is a lot, but I want to make sure you get the best server <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Thanks guys!
FROM MONSE -
You 56k modem users can have a slightly more accurate test by pinging with a few extra parameters:
ping x.x.x.x -l 1024 -t
Let it run for at least 30 responses, then hit CTRL-C (Control and C) to stop it and see the stats. This will give a more statisically meaningful sample. (just moved it up here so they would see it)
<!--EDIT|Comprox|May 16 2002,18:50-->
Start > Run > type "ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" (without quotes)
OR
Start > Run > type command > type "ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" in new window(without quotes)
Reoeat for each IP, and then vote for the one with the lowest avergae ping please. Sorry if there is a lot, but I want to make sure you get the best server <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Thanks guys!
FROM MONSE -
You 56k modem users can have a slightly more accurate test by pinging with a few extra parameters:
ping x.x.x.x -l 1024 -t
Let it run for at least 30 responses, then hit CTRL-C (Control and C) to stop it and see the stats. This will give a more statisically meaningful sample. (just moved it up here so they would see it)
<!--EDIT|Comprox|May 16 2002,18:50-->
Comments
Just for the record, I'm in Toronto on DSL.
1) 158ms <-- pretty good
2) 154ms <-- pretty good
3) 216ms
4) 216ms
5) 223ms <-- TEH SUCK!
6) 151ms <-- WHEE!
ping x.x.x.x -l 1024 -t
Let it run for at least 30 responses, then hit CTRL-C (Control and C) to stop it and see the stats. This will give a more statisically meaningful sample.
That's ping, the address, then dash 'L' 1024, then dash T. This will force your packet size to be 1 KB, rather than the default 64 byte packet that the ping (ICMP) command sends. It will show you a more realistic response time. By putting the T switch, you tell it not to stop.
As for broadbanders, the above won't change your stats that much, although it's definitely more accurate.
/me high-fives Comprox for getting people to learn about networking!
<!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
Up to what layer of the OSI model does ping prove is working?
- Up to 1
- Up to 2
- Up to 3
- Up to 4
- Up to 5
- Up to 6
- Up to 7
Explanation is needed too! <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
<!--EDIT|Comprox|May 16 2002,19:25-->
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|May 16 2002,23:44-->
2) 67 ms
3) 51 ms <--- my choice
4) 57 ms <--- honourable mention
5) 81 ms
6) 53 ms <--- my second choice
Excellent pings to all servers , with server number 5 being the highest. 3 and 6 were the lowest (and the closest together) for me.
1. 401, 401, 390
2. 400, 401, 400
3. 430, 451, 420
4. 430, 421, 440
5. 471, 450, 471
6. 391, 371, 370
The reason is that layer one is... cables and such. Physical connections.
Layer two is network cards, switches, and such... MAC addresses.
Layer three is routers and IP addresses.
If you want to test all seven, connect using Telnet or something.
2. 80
3. 120
4. 100/110
5. 20/30 <!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->
6. 90/100
#5 seems to kick some serious ###!
<!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
well ... for me anyway ..
O_O
Im in Central/Southern California with DSL.
1 45 or 43 <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
2 45 to 90
3 80 ish
4 85 ish
5 90 with a jump to 156
6 37 to 60 <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
2: 331
3: 283
4: 284
5: 252
6: 305
Anyone care to use a string of airships to float a opticial cable over to this barbaric backwater known as Australia?
--Scythe--
<a href="mailto:the_only_scythe@subdimension.com">the_only_scythe@subdimension.com</a>
i can ping US server with a ping round the 100 but i've got a connection that most ppl in europe doesn't have.
on european servers i've got 4 sure a ping of under the 30ms.
Of course you should vote. I can understand if you're trying not to upset the balance, but honestly, by not voting you're basically only hurting yourself. Do YOU want some NS servers that you ping really well to? I thought so. <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Reply from 172.16.10.3: Destination host unreachable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me hates his firewall.
1 and 6 were very close indeed.
<!--EDIT|Comprox|May 17 2002,15:46-->