For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

just wondering eny gamers out there who are on Be* on the fast path thingy can u post a ping result pls

ping 82.133.85.65 -n 10

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

I'll be joining BE shortly, and hopefully will be able to get put on fastpath.

I'll try and remember to post a ping then if no one else has in the meantime.

But thats over a week away...

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

K thanks hope you remember

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

I've posted on the BE forums so maybe one of the people there will do it for you in the meantime.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Here's the results.

From: smaugy
From rich1068 (pinged CF by mistake)

From: matt-s From: Siteguru

Additonal Notes: Via wi-fi


From: ntriantafyllou

From: gillyallan

Thanks to the people at the BE forums.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

thankyou dragon your that appreciated

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Heres mine from BT broadband.

C:\Users\Dragon>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 10

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 298ms, Average = 73ms

C:\Users\Dragon>

Although

C:\Users\Dragon>ping 192.168.1.1 -n 10

Pinging 192.168.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 4ms, Maximum = 87ms, Average = 23ms

C:\Users\Dragon>

Quite a bit of that variation can be attributed to my UPA (powerline) adaptors.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:57 ----------

C:\Users\Dragon>ping 192.168.1.1 -n 10

Pinging 192.168.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 11ms

C:\Users\Dragon>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 10

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms 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=16ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=51
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 17ms

C:\Users\Dragon>

That made a slight difference (Swapped the UPA adaptors for a pair of homeplugs I had handy)

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Be* fastpath

C:\Users\Dragon>ping 82.133.85.65 -n 10

Pinging 82.133.85.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms 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=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=53
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms 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

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 27ms

C:\Users\Dragon>

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Thanks Dragon glad u remembered btw were are you

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

basingstoke

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

i used to be with an entanet reseller titanadsl and i was averging sub 20ms on most sites well impressed.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

My powerline adaptors can add 5ms + and if i get a bit of noise on the mains it can go waay up.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Are we talking about ADSL or LLU here?

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

llu is adsl :)

llu is simply unbundled adsl I think it stands for local loop unbundling but not sure. Typically an isp like ukonline or be who are unbundled have much lower traffic costs as they dont have to pay for expensive bt centrals and in addition they use their own dslam equipment so can offer adsl2+ services, in addition they are also not subject to bras automatic profiling so synch speed is the speed you get. Not all llu isps rock of course, tiscali who utilise llu decide to take advantage of the lower costs by cramming customers in and charge them minimal prices so the contention ratio is too high.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

From my Be Fastpath connection at work:

HTH

Dave

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

What is 'fastpath'? Iam moving back to Basingstoke later this month, what kind of connection speeds do you get?

Thanks

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

interleaving delays the packets to reduce errors it can actually increase synch speed as a result and is generally more stable. The downside is it adds latency, fast path doesnt do this and as a result has faster latency.

The defaults as far as I know are like this.

Ukonline and sky adsl 1 fast path
All bt ipstream services fast path
BE and ukonline/sky adsl2+ interleaving

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Nope... the Majority of ADSL cct's ive seen are interleaved by default.

Also Fastpath can on a stable line actually give faster sync speeds due to the error correction overheads are removed.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

which isp are you seeing interleaving by default?

pretty much anyone on adslguide who has a ipstream based service is on fastpath unless the automated systems have changed them to interleaving for stability reasons. But I guess its possible some of the isps may be setting interleaving I think BT retail possibly I read actually. But thats just one isp. In truth interleaving is a way to hide actual problems on a line.

Interleaving alongside the error correction algorithm uses 576kbit of synch speed (on adsl1) but it increases the actual RCO (capacity) of the line as well, in my scenario I gain about 1300kbit RCO on interleaving takeing away the 576kbit I get about 700kbit net gain.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Might have been automated systems seeing as I tend to only look at faulty ADSL's ;)

On adsl2+ it can make a much bigger difference
For instance adsl 2+ Annex M 6db interleaved I sycned at 18Mbit down 2.3Mbit up

Adsl2+ Annex M 6Db Fastpath @ 22.8 Down ~2350 up (I think can't remember exactly what the upstream was)

Adsl2+ Annex M 3Db snrm @

Bandwidth (Up/Down) [kbps/kbps]: 2,589 / 24,514

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

yeah thats why I said I am not sure about adsl2+ as reports on adsl2+ defenitly seem to indicate fast path is a higher synch. Also the guys with adsl2+ typically have decent attenuation, when I said interleaving boosts synch speed I noticed its making little difference to strong tones but boosts the weaker tones so probably provides more of its boost to weaker lines.

I am on a LLU isp myself ukonline and I would love to go on adsl2 but I dont want interleaving and from what I read ukonline are anal about using fast path on adsl2. Although I expect an improvement on adsl2 it would be small on my line maybe just a few hundred kbit so I prefer to keep my super low latency.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

Be seem to be quite good about setting the SNR margin on the DSLAM and interrupting DLM for you :)

They did mine for me the day after I joined :D

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

So this is really great for FPS etc games?

That last post Whooosh over my head!
So if I’m going with Be I ask for Fastpath

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

if you a gamer fastpath may be better but not always.

If fast path is stable its better.
If its unstable then it will be worse because you will have packet loss which is worse then haveing steady higher pings.

Re: For enyone on Be* on fast path
 

ME?
between 19 and 24Mbit

I did have 24 down 2.5 but it became unstable as i had the SNR profile set at 3 (norm is 6) so I had it reset back to 6.

P.s my connection is above the average though as im very close to the exchange.