Can you post ping plotter image please to IP address 82.133.85.65 [Archive]

Noggo

06-02-2008, 16:12

Note: forgot to remove `ping plotter image' and add ping results in header sorry.

Hi,

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to post your `ping' results to this IP address: 82.133.85.65 as well as your county eg Worcestershire

Regardless of whether or not you are having problems with your Virgin Media cable connection.

Goto windows command prompt:
windows key + R key together, then type CMD and then hit enter.
Copy and paste the following

ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

into window and hit enter (remember to right click, then select paste. As ctrl + V doesn't work)

To copy the results, right click and `select all' (this should highlight all text)
hit Enter key, then copy ctrl+V your results on the thread.

Mine is as follows:

E:\Documents and Settings\Bob>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 65ms, Average = 36ms

E:\Documents and Settings\Bob>

Location: Worcestershire, cable.ubr01.brom.blueyonder.co.uk

TIA

Cerberus

06-02-2008, 16:23

C:\Documents and Settings\Chilli>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 44ms, Average = 24ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Chilli>

Location: South Lanarkshire cpc3-ruth2.renf.cable.ntl.com

May I also ask your reasoning for this?

Noggo

06-02-2008, 16:29

You may. I what to find out if anyone else is having the same problems with erratic latency times and I think it's about the easiest way to do it, I think.

I was going to ask people to use Ping Plotter hence title, but after a writing a short story on how to use it. I changed my mind.

Cheers,

zing_deleted

06-02-2008, 16:37

is that your ip address? wanna get hacked mate?

Cerberus

06-02-2008, 16:39

is that your ip address? wanna get hacked mate?

Zing :D

-Edit-

It's a Jolt Server

Delta Whiskey

06-02-2008, 16:39

If you do it this way, you'll redirect the output to a text file:
ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20 > c:\ping.txt

-----

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:

Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 19, Lost = 1 (5% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 26ms

cybernetic_tiger

06-02-2008, 16:51

No issues to that gameserver for me:

2620-TestLab-CE#pi ip
Target IP address: 82.133.85.65
Repeat count [5]: 20
Datagram size [100]:
Timeout in seconds [2]:
Extended commands [n]: y
Source address or interface:
Type of service [0]:
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]:
Validate reply data? [no]:
Data pattern [0xABCD]:
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: v
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 20, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 82.133.85.65, timeout is 2 seconds:
Reply to request 0 (12 ms)
Reply to request 1 (32 ms)
Reply to request 2 (12 ms)
Reply to request 3 (20 ms)
Reply to request 4 (48 ms)
Reply to request 5 (8 ms)
Reply to request 6 (12 ms)
Reply to request 7 (28 ms)
Reply to request 8 (12 ms)
Reply to request 9 (12 ms)
Reply to request 10 (12 ms)
Reply to request 11 (48 ms)
Reply to request 12 (24 ms)
Reply to request 13 (32 ms)
Reply to request 14 (12 ms)
Reply to request 15 (20 ms)
Reply to request 16 (24 ms)
Reply to request 17 (32 ms)
Reply to request 18 (28 ms)
Reply to request 19 (24 ms)
Success rate is 100 percent (20/20), round-trip min/avg/max = 8/22/48 ms
2620-TestLab-CE#

Location: Luton, Bedfordshire - lutn-lutn-ubr-3 cable 3/0

Noggo

06-02-2008, 17:21

is that your ip address? wanna get hacked mate?

There is no hacking involved in this thread, why not google the IP then???
It's a jolt games server. I bet you that's what Cerberus did before pinging.

I understand where you're coming from, but I little common sense like googling the IP address first. Then posting a reply back, if you find out its not part of a major player in the gaming world.

Laters,

AntiSilence

06-02-2008, 17:28

C:\>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 17ms

Location: Nottinghamshire.

nquinnathome1

06-02-2008, 17:36

ping -c 20 82.133.85.65
PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=24.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=25.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=34.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=27.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=39.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=51.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=19.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=28.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=16.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=54 time=35.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=54 time=15.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=54 time=14.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=54 time=40.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=54 time=23.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=54 time=41.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=54 time=18.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=54 time=20.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=54 time=21.2 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 18 received, 10% packet loss, time 19039ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.858/27.650/51.726/10.263 ms

Loc: Hertfordshire

zing_deleted

06-02-2008, 17:39

There is no hacking involved in this thread, why not google the IP then???
It's a jolt games server. I bet you that's what Cerberus did before pinging.

I understand where you're coming from, but I little common sense like googling the IP address first. Then posting a reply back, if you find out its not part of a major player in the gaming world.

Laters,

That would of course have meant I had to assume you had common sense and why would I for all I knew you could have been just another noob doing something silly why would I think otherwise? Now a clever guy would have informed everyone where he wanted them to ping but still maybe thats asking to much

Ben B

06-02-2008, 17:45

Here's what I get (currently on a sky broadband connection as not at home):

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Compaq_Owner>ping 82.133.85.65

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 84ms, Maximum = 84ms, Average = 84ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Compaq_Owner>

bigdavep

06-02-2008, 18:06

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=52
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 21ms

Location : Bolton, Gtr Manchester

Cerberus

06-02-2008, 18:10

There is no hacking involved in this thread, why not google the IP then???
It's a jolt games server. I bet you that's what Cerberus did before pinging.

I understand where you're coming from, but I little common sense like googling the IP address first. Then posting a reply back, if you find out its not part of a major player in the gaming world.

Laters,

In all fairness Noggo, Zing was looking out for you and not criticising. There have been people here before that have posted their actual IP Address, without thinking of the consequences or just because they are pure stupid enough to do so. I don't think of you as either.

I actually did a tracert on the IP to see where it was heading.

Jonathan90

06-02-2008, 18:13

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Jonathan>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 13ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Jonathan>

Wolverhampton **-**-**-**.cable.ubr02.wolv.blueyonder.co.uk

Ermintrude

06-02-2008, 18:29

Sauron

06-02-2008, 18:32

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=54

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:

Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 15ms

eth01

06-02-2008, 19:52

Manchester:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=53

US:

PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=135 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=54 time=136 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=54 time=136 ms

G UK

06-02-2008, 20:07

Nottinghamshire NG17

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6000]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

F:\Users\G>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 23ms

Noggo

06-02-2008, 20:38

Thanks for your input guys.

Almost everyone who has posted results apart from Jonathan90, has occasional spikes in lag, some worse that others.
(lucky git Jonathan90 and If I'm right in saying you're not to far from me. I'm in Kidderminster, I take it wolv. is Wolverhampton?)

I know ping ICMP requested are low priority when it comes to network traffic, but why straight after doing ping tests. I can load a game and connected to server and find the results where near as damn it the same. With spikes every second or so, sometimes more often and sometimes higher in value.

I was getting 18-25ms all the time peak or off-peak upto mid October last year, but since then it gone down hill and especially bad since Christmas.

This is a ping test done by a kind Gent who his on Plusnet ADSL. Although high in ms value, but hardly any difference between min and max values, which is what you need when it comes to gaming (very stable)
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34460977-post9.html

My current results at 20:00 (Footies on so very good results for me tonight, with only 1 above 25ms at 37ms).
E:\Documents and Settings\Bob>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 37ms, Average = 21ms

Does anyone know why almost everyone is getting these spikes?

Thanks again

Laters

Cobbydaler

06-02-2008, 20:46

ping -c 20 82.133.85.65
PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=18.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=17.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=15.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=17.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=17.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=17.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=17.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=18.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=18.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=52 time=17.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=52 time=17.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=52 time=17.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=52 time=16.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=52 time=18.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=52 time=17.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=52 time=19.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=52 time=17.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=52 time=17.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=52 time=17.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=52 time=21.3 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.678/17.922/21.339/1.123 ms

Ashton under Lyne
cpc2-asht1-0-0-custxxx.manc.cable.ntl.com

Ben B

06-02-2008, 21:07

Right, at home now on VM Connection. UBR: cpc1-oldh3-0-0-cust***.manc.cable.ntl.com

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Ben>ping 82.133.85.65

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 228ms, Average = 114ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Ben>

AmAtoL

06-02-2008, 21:13

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Paul>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20
Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 57ms, Average = 25ms

That's mine from Stockport, a bit up and down, which tells more of a story than the average time at the end. A spread of over 40 isn't real good. A stable 40 is ok and a stable 14 is ok, just the up and down we can't get along with.

browney

06-02-2008, 22:58

C:\Users\Steven Brown>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 79ms, Average = 23ms

xpod

06-02-2008, 23:49

Ma heart is back hame oan the Bonnie Banks but ma ping.......is fae SE Landon...innit;)

dad@home1:~$ ping -c 20 82.133.85.65
PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=27.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=15.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=14.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=17.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=50.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=47.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=52.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=29.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=15.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=18.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=16.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=18.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=28.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=14.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=53 time=16.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=53 time=18.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=53 time=26.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=53 time=20.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=53 time=17.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19036ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.648/24.157/52.069/11.817 ms
dad@home1:~$

I`ve got a spare ip/connection if any of you would be hac....crackers/skiddies fancy a go:p:

Beware of the dog though:erm:

Jonathan90

07-02-2008, 00:15

The reason being if i am right is that your ubr is more laoded than mine i do find my ping does go up to about 19 21 on saturdays because the load is higher thats just my opinion

SMHarman

07-02-2008, 03:13

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 93ms, Maximum = 113ms, Average = 95ms

Where is the server. Mine was from Hoboken, NJ, USA

Sirpingalot

07-02-2008, 08:50

is that your ip address? wanna get hacked mate?

How would pinging yourself return results of 25ms and above? ;p

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53

On the Baguley server.

zing_deleted

07-02-2008, 08:52

he may have been pinging his home ip from a works address or from somewhere else . As there wasnt information on the IP and it was left for the membership to find out the location of the IP could have been anyones. For all we know he could have been posting someones ip deliberately in the hope someone malicious looked by. All I did was saw an IP that was obviously physical and point out the risks involved ,ok it turns out to be a game server which should be secure but on reading the thread I did not do that. Its upto the OP to put all the information required in a post not the readers job to do homework on it to ensure its ok or not ;) :p:

Paul

07-02-2008, 08:54

Can we stop debating the IP address now please.

No problems to it from here ;

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 19ms

zing_deleted

07-02-2008, 08:59

In future ill not bother pointing it out and just let them hang themselves or wait for someone else to care

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 17ms

Noggo

07-02-2008, 09:51

I know Paul M said stop it, but as I started the thread here's the last note on IP address, hopefully.

I think zinglebarb was right to point out about the IP address, it could have been a deliberate attempt to hack someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s PC and it was a lack of information on my part about who owns the server and the location, sorry.

BTW: its a jolt games server, located in London

He was just looking out for you.

keep the results coming in.

Laters,

Pogo stick

07-02-2008, 21:04

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 19, Lost = 1 (5% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 89ms, Average = 39ms

County is Hampshire

janipewter

07-02-2008, 21:08

is that your ip address? wanna get hacked mate?

Just out of interest, how do you plan to "hack" him?

Kymmy

08-02-2008, 13:56

bogusone

10-02-2008, 17:13

County Wiltshire SN4 Area

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20
Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 22ms

Sinth

10-02-2008, 22:11

Through my wifi lappy. Will retest tomorrow on main pc.
Location Cambs/Essex

ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 25ms

xpod

11-02-2008, 00:29

Just out of interest, how do you plan to "hack" him?

rotflmao.
OOPS..........me thinks me just woke the kids up.:dozey:

Sorry(for the txt spk),it must just be my mad half hour.

EDIT:just to stay OT;-)

PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=20.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=18.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=19.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=19.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=17.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=18.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=28.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=18.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=19.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=39.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=37.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=18.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=27.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=53 time=24.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=53 time=18.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=53 time=30.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=53 time=16.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=53 time=35.2 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19017ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.867/22.979/39.147/7.316 ms

Druchii

11-02-2008, 06:10

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 15, Received = 15, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 43ms

Oslo, Norway.

Sinth

11-02-2008, 17:30

Ok main Pc.

ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 13ms

What`s daft is my download speed is sheet. At least UT3 should be ok with a London based server. :dozey:

Kymmy

11-03-2008, 12:14

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0%
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 56ms, Average = 23ms

That's from South Bedfordshire

Kymmy

As I've just gone from residential to business broadband I thought it'd be interesting to see the difference.

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0%
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 11ms

Kymmy

chamelion

11-03-2008, 14:34

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 9ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 11ms

do i win do i win?

london.

andre321

11-03-2008, 16:26

do i win do i win?

london.doesn't look like it ;)

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 8ms

another londoner here :)

Druchii

11-03-2008, 21:14

Do i... er, get the consolation prize?

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 40ms

Chrysalis

12-03-2008, 13:48

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=222ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 247ms, Average = 91ms

Watford, Herts.

haha memories those pings remind of me when I was on cable in a student analogue area :)

here is 20 pings on my ukonline fast path adsl connection.

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=57
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 10ms

Munkeh

13-03-2008, 20:10

No probs here..
[munkeh@w00p /]$ ping -s 82.133.85.65 32 20
PING 82.133.85.65: 32 data bytes
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=0. time=3. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=1. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=2. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=3. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=4. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=5. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=6. time=3. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=7. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=8. time=3. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=9. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=10. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=11. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=12. time=3. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=13. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=14. time=3. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=15. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=16. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=17. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=18. time=2. ms
40 bytes from secure.jolt.co.uk (82.133.85.65): icmp_seq=19. time=2. ms
----82.133.85.65 PING Statistics----
20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 2/2/3
[munkeh@w00p /]

slowcoach

22-04-2008, 11:00

Hi,

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to post your `ping' results to this IP address: 82.133.85.65 as well as your county eg Worcestershire

PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=15.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=15.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=15.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=15.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=15.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=16.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=15.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=15.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=16.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=15.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=16.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=16.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=53 time=17.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=53 time=16.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=53 time=15.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=53 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=53 time=16.8 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19026ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.006/15.985/17.428/0.691 ms

Location: Oldham, Lancashire. Time 10.45AM

Will do another this evening.

Noggo

22-04-2008, 11:09

wow good results, ta

Robertus

22-04-2008, 11:16

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 21ms, Average = 17ms

slowcoach

22-04-2008, 18:01

PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=24.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=16.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=17.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=16.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=14.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=16.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=16.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=16.1 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=16.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=14.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=53 time=16.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=53 time=17.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=53 time=17.9 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=53 time=16.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=53 time=21.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=53 time=17.9 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 18999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.567/17.214/24.115/2.027 ms

Location: Oldham, Lancashire. Time 6.00PM

One more to follow later.

Jonathan90

22-04-2008, 18:08

Waaaaaaaaaaaaat @ Munkeh dude you have some serious connection lol u living in the same room as the server?

slowcoach

22-04-2008, 21:07

PING 82.133.85.65 (82.133.85.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=15.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=15.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=15.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=15.0 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=17.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=15.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=15.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=15.5 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=16.6 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=17.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=15.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=15 ttl=53 time=16.3 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=16 ttl=53 time=17.2 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=17 ttl=53 time=16.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=18 ttl=53 time=18.4 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=19 ttl=53 time=17.7 ms
64 bytes from 82.133.85.65: icmp_seq=20 ttl=53 time=19.8 ms

--- 82.133.85.65 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19002ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.055/16.423/19.887/1.228 ms

Location: Oldham, Lancashire. Time: 9.00PM

Not being a gamer it doesn't mean much to me but I hope it is of help to you. :dunce:

Noggo

23-04-2008, 09:55

Thanks for doing that Slowcoach.

hoggie

24-04-2008, 23:50

ping 82.133.85.65 -n 20

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=55
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 9ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 11ms

Thurrock,essex.