High Latency

Hi, when trying to connect to my work VPN from my girfriends house the connection is unusable, speaking to the girlfriend she is regulally thrown off her VPN connection whilst working from home. After a few traceroutes I noticed very high latency on the route between the home hub and VPN gateway:
Traceroute:
traceroute to ukc1-twvpn.oraclevpn.com (144.24.19.20), 60 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 BThomehub.home (192.168.1.254) 17.482 ms 17.154 ms 17.062 ms
2 217.32.142.201 (217.32.142.201) 22.871 ms 25.683 ms 25.596 ms
3 217.32.147.174 (217.32.147.174) 25.350 ms 25.930 ms 26.414 ms
4 212.140.206.90 (212.140.206.90) 30.361 ms 31.576 ms 32.324 ms
5 217.41.169.215 (217.41.169.215) 32.262 ms 32.884 ms 33.496 ms
6 217.41.169.109 (217.41.169.109) 34.581 ms 20.622 ms 21.236 ms
7 acc2-xe-2-0-3.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net (109.159.255.223) 21.177 ms acc2-xe-0-2-1.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net (109.159.251.213) 321.036 ms acc2-xe-0-3-1.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net (109.159.251.237) 321.884 ms
8 core1-te0-4-0-2.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.251.129) 322.600 ms core1-te-0-13-0-12.ealing.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.251.169) 324.078 ms core2-te0-0-0-6.ealing.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.251.159) 325.564 ms
9 peer2-xe1-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.254.104) 323.088 ms 194.72.31.159 (194.72.31.159) 324.616 ms 326.111 ms
10 t2c3-xe-2-1-2-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.192) 329.071 ms t2c3-xe-0-1-1-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.164) 329.642 ms t2c3-xe-1-1-3-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.182) 327.789 ms
11 166-49-211-254.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.254) 326.511 ms 328.270 ms 67.958 ms
12 ae14-xcr1.lnd.cw.net (195.2.30.113) 68.455 ms 69.132 ms 105.162 ms
13 ae0-xcr2.lnd.cw.net (195.2.25.122) 103.959 ms 102.668 ms 101.729 ms
14 ae10-xcr1.bkl.cw.net (195.2.30.166) 105.256 ms 106.756 ms 105.887 ms
15 oracle-gw-bkl.cw.net (195.59.8.10) 109.243 ms 107.291 ms 108.281 ms
16 144.24.17.2 (144.24.17.2) 110.882 ms 111.875 ms 109.591 ms
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
Who can I get in touch with to help troubleshoot this issue? I have gone through all normal basic troubleshooting steps such as the ubiqutous reboots of all technology. Many thanks.
Chris.

Is that problem consistent? My ping/tracert is fine: also from Infinity connection. I can't check the VPN itself.
I see your route and mine are both pretty similar and indeed both go through 212.140.206.90
You seem to have very high pings even to the HomeHub. Normally that should show up as 1ms or less even with wireless.
Tracing route to ukc1-twvpn.oraclevpn.com [144.24.19.20]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms 172.16.14.14
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms 213.120.158.173
5 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms 212.140.206.90
6 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 217.41.169.219
7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 217.41.169.109
8 13 ms 30 ms 12 ms acc2-xe-1-3-0.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.251.203]
9 21 ms 23 ms 23 ms core2-te-0-13-0-10.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.251.179]
10 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms peer2-xe3-3-1.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.254.227]
11 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms t2c3-xe-0-1-2-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net [166.49.211.166]
12 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms 166-49-211-254.eu.bt.net [166.49.211.254]
13 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms ae14-xcr1.lnd.cw.net [195.2.30.113]
14 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae0-xcr2.lnd.cw.net [195.2.25.122]
15 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms ae10-xcr1.bkl.cw.net [195.2.30.166]
16 24 ms 23 ms 22 ms oracle-gw-bkl.cw.net [195.59.8.10]
17 21 ms 21 ms 20 ms 144.24.17.2
18 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms ukc1-twvpn.oraclevpn.com [144.24.19.20]

Similar Messages

Safari loading pages slowly / high latency

I have recently been asked by one of my clients to look at a problem with their 3 macs at their place of business. They are an iMac, a macbook and a macbook air. They have all started to exhibit the same problem of being slow to load web pages using safari as their web browser of choice.
Using the broadband speed test at speedtest.net shows that they are getting some extremely high latency (~4000ms) to some sites.
I have tested the broadband connection thoroughly using my own (linux) laptop and everything seems to be in working order. Tests on the macs themselves using a terminal show that latency to the internet and dns response times are all as they should be.
From some limited searching the problem appears to be similar to the problem described in http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8799710&#8799710 where safari itself is causing some problems for some reason.
What I'm looking for is some suggestions on how i can go about fixing the problem when i next visit the client

Welcome to the forums!
The following usually works on both Tiger and Leopard:
(First, if yours is an Intel Mac, check that Safari is not running in Rosetta, which is enough to slow it to a crawl.)
Adding DNS codes to your Network Settings, should gives good results in terms of speed-up:
Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu. Click on TCP/IP and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' enter the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(An explanation of why that is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 / )
Whilst in System Preferences/Network you should also turn off 'IPv6' in your preference pane, as otherwise you may not get the full speed benefit (the DNS resolver will default to making SRV queries). If you want to know what IPv6 is:
This is Apple's guidance on iPv6:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Mac/10.5/en/8708.html
Click on Apply Now and close the window.
Restart Safari, and repair permissions.
If that didn't do it, then try this as well:
Empty Safari's cache (from the Safari menu), then close Safari.
Go to Home/Library/Safari and delete the following files:
form values
download.plist
Then go to Home/Library/Preferences and delete
com.apple.Safari.plist
Repair permissions (in Disk Utility).
Start up Safari again, and things should have improved.

Extremely slow and high latency all day.

DSL is running extremely slow during peak hours from 12 afternoon to 12 midnight. Lower than 50% of rated speed and high latency
I have been frustrated with this DSL Service for months now. I am considering contacting BBB to file a complaint and I am tired of dealing with customer service giving me the run around. Internet is a monopoly in my area therefore verizon feels it doesn't have to do anything to keep its customers when they provide crappy service. I am on waitlist for another internet service provider and it is going to take almost a year because of how bad the internet options are in the area and demand for better options. I even had to pay over 100 dollars to get a truck roll come to my house to fix any issues within the house and the internet has not gotten better. Atleast I feel I should get a refund or something.
Here is my speedtest result just now. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2899553407
It has been even slower at other times. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2893509440
Modem is Westell 6100 or something.
Transceiver Statistics
Transceiver Revision:
7.2.3.0
Vendor ID Code:
4
Line Mode:
G.DMT Mode
Data Path:
Interleaved
Transceiver Information
Downstream Path
Upstream Path
DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec)
3360
864
Margin (dB)
15.5
13.0
Line Attenuation (dB)
21.5
13.0
Transmit Power (dBm)
7.6
11.9
Giganews line info
news.giganews.com
traceroute to {edited for privacy}, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 gw1-g-vlan201.dca.giganews.com (216.196.98.4) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 ash-bb1-link.telia.net (213.248.70.241) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
3 TenGigE0-2-0-0.GW1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (63.125.125.41) 3 ms GigabitEthernet2-0-0.GW8.IAD8.ALTER.NET (63.65.76.189) 3 ms TenGigE0-2-0-0.GW1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (63.125.125.41) 3 ms
4 P1-8-0-0.LSANCA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.151.237) 72 ms 72 ms 72 ms
5 P9-3.LSANCA-LCR-01.verizon-gni.net (130.81.193.123) 75 ms P8-0.LSANCA-DSL-44.verizon-gni.net (130.81.35.133) 75 ms 76 ms
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)
news-europe.giganews.com
traceroute to {edited for privacy}, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 vl201.gw1.ams.giganews.com (216.196.110.3) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 te7-8.ccr01.ams05.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.104.17) 0 ms te7-7.ccr01.ams05.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.104.9) 0 ms te7-8.ccr01.ams05.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.104.17) 0 ms
3 te0-7-0-16.ccr21.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.42) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
4 te0-3-0-0.ccr21.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.141) 8 ms 8 ms te0-2-0-0.ccr21.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.158) 8 ms
5 te0-7-0-4.ccr21.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.84.125) 90 ms te0-0-0-4.ccr21.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.84.129) 90 ms *
6 te0-3-0-6.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.5) 96 ms te0-0-0-2.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.25.238) 96 ms te0-2-0-7.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.1) 96 ms
7 be2042.ccr21.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.126) 97 ms 97 ms 97 ms
8 uunet.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.138) 99 ms verizon.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.226) 105 ms 105 ms
9 P0-8-0-0.LSANCA-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.29.127) 177 ms 178 ms P1-0-0-0.LSANCA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.199.39) 174 ms
10 P8-0.LSANCA-DSL-44.verizon-gni.net (130.81.35.133) 175 ms P9-3.LSANCA-LCR-02.verizon-gni.net (130.81.193.109) 187 ms 182 ms
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)
Here is what ICSI Netalyzer Results have stated.
Network Access Link Properties + –
Network performance (?): Latency: 580 ms, Loss: 15.5% –
The round-trip time (RTT) between your computer and our server is 580 ms, which is somewhat high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including distance between your computer and our server, a slow network link, or other network traffic.
We recorded a packet loss of 16%. This loss is very significant and will lead to serious performance problems. It could be due either to very high load on our servers due to a large number of visitors, or problems in your network. Of the packet loss, at least 14.0% of the packets appear to have been lost on the path from your computer to our servers.
TCP connection setup latency (?): 720ms –
The time it takes for your computer to set up a TCP connection with our server is 720 ms, which is quite high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including a significant distance between your computer and our server, a particularly slow or poor network link, or problems in your network.
Background measurement of network health (?): 3 transient outages, longest: 0.8 seconds –
During most of Netalyzr's execution, the client continuously measures the state of the network in the background, looking for short outages. During testing, the client observed 3 such outages. The longest outage lasted for 0.8 seconds. This suggests a general problem with the network where connectivity is intermittent. This loss might also cause some of Netalyzr's other tests to produce incorrect results.
Network bandwidth (?): Upload 700 Kbit/s, Download 2.3 Mbit/s +
Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink 5400 ms, Downlink 1200 ms –
We estimate your uplink as having 5400 ms of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
We estimate your downlink as having 1200 ms of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large downloads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large downloads at the same time.
HTTP Tests + –
Address-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK +
Content-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK +
HTTP proxy detection via malformed requests (?): OK +
Filetype-based filtering (?): OK +
HTTP caching behavior (?): OK +
JavaScript-based tests (?): OK +
DNS Tests + –
Restricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +
Unrestricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +
DNS resolver address (?): OK +
DNS resolver properties (?): Lookup latency 520 ms +
Direct probing of DNS resolvers (?): +
DNS glue policy (?): OK +
DNS resolver port randomization (?): OK +
DNS lookups of popular domains (?): OK +
DNS external proxy (?): OK +
DNS results wildcarding (?): Warning –
Your ISP's DNS server returns IP addresses even for domain names which should not resolve. Instead of an error, the DNS server returns an address of 199.101.28.20, which resolves to search.dnsassist.verizon.net. You can inspect the resulting HTML content here.
There are several possible explanations for this behavior. The most likely cause is that the ISP is attempting to profit from customer's typos by presenting advertisements in response to bad requests, but it could also be due to an error or misconfiguration in the DNS server.
The big problem with this behavior is that it can potentially break any network application which relies on DNS properly returning an error when a name does not exist.
The following lists your DNS server's behavior in more detail.
Please help. I am so frustrated I literally have fights with my family over internet problems. I am right now looking for other options and even starting to think about paying over 100 a month for dedicated line or T1 if they can service my area.

Not a single response from Verizon on this? And after you posted the tests & information they will need? I think I may have to make a service choice soon. Its bad enough Verizon can't post a simple email address for our support, they have removed Usenet access, removed access to our websites (I use HTML so their sitebuilder is useless)... Sheeshe...

Why does my 10GB iSCSI setup seem see such high latency and how can I fix it?

I have a iscsi server setup with the following configuration
Dell R510
Perc H700 Raid controller
Windows Server 2012 R2
Intel Ethernet X520 10Gb
12 near line SAS drives
I have tried both Starwind and the built in Server 2012 iscsi software but see similar results. I am currently running the latest version of starwinds free
iscsi server.
I have connected it to a HP 8212 10Gb port which is also connected via 10Gb to our vmware servers. I have a dedicated vlan just for iscsi and have enabled
jumbo frames on the vlan.
I frequently see very high latency on my iscsi storage. So much so that it can timeout or hang vmware. I am not sure why. I can run IOmeter and
get some pretty decent results.
I am trying to determine why I see such high latency 100'ms. It doesn't seem to always happen, but several times throughout the day, vmware is complaining
about the latency of the datastore. I have a 10Gb iscsi connection between the servers. I wouldn't expect the disks to be able to max that out. The highest I could see when running IO meter was around 5Gb. I also don't see much load
at all on the iscsi server when I see the high latency. It seems network related, but I am not sure what settings I could check. The 10Gb connect should be plenty as I said and it is no where near maxing that out.
Any thoughts about any configuration changes I could make to my vmware enviroment, network card settings or any ideas on where I can troubleshoot this. I
am not able to find what is causing it. I reference this document and for changes to my iscsi settings
http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/extras/m/white_papers/20403565.aspx
Thank you for your time.

I have a iscsi server setup with the following configuration
Dell R510
Perc H700 Raid controller
Windows Server 2012 R2
Intel Ethernet X520 10Gb
12 near line SAS drives
I have tried both Starwind and the built in Server 2012 iscsi software but see similar results. I am currently running the latest version of starwinds free
iscsi server.
I have connected it to a HP 8212 10Gb port which is also connected via 10Gb to our vmware servers. I have a dedicated vlan just for iscsi and have enabled
jumbo frames on the vlan.
I frequently see very high latency on my iscsi storage. So much so that it can timeout or hang vmware. I am not sure why. I can run IOmeter and
get some pretty decent results.
I am trying to determine why I see such high latency 100'ms. It doesn't seem to always happen, but several times throughout the day, vmware is complaining
about the latency of the datastore. I have a 10Gb iscsi connection between the servers. I wouldn't expect the disks to be able to max that out. The highest I could see when running IO meter was around 5Gb. I also don't see much load
at all on the iscsi server when I see the high latency. It seems network related, but I am not sure what settings I could check. The 10Gb connect should be plenty as I said and it is no where near maxing that out.
Any thoughts about any configuration changes I could make to my vmware enviroment, network card settings or any ideas on where I can troubleshoot this. I
am not able to find what is causing it. I reference this document and for changes to my iscsi settings
http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/extras/m/white_papers/20403565.aspx
Thank you for your time.
If both StarWind and MSFT target show the same numbers I can guess it's network configuration issue. Anything higher then 30 ms is a nightmare :( Did you properly tune your network stacks? What numbers (x-put and latency) you get for raw TCP numbers (NTtcp
and Iperf are handy to show)?
StarWind VSAN [Virtual SAN] clusters Hyper-V without SAS, Fibre Channel, SMB 3.0 or iSCSI, uses Ethernet to mirror internally mounted SATA disks between hosts.

Windows 7 and Networks with High Latency

We are currently trying to rollout Windows 7 on our network to replace XP but have encountered an issue whereby we have remote clients that access the network over high-latency satallite links (BGAN and Vocality/Satellite). The latency of the links (based
on ping results) can be 600ms for Vocality and 1-3s for BGANs.
The particular services that don't work are a full motion video solution using TVI Viewer 7.9.1 and Outlook 2003 or 2007. These work fine on Windows XP. Shares can be accessed but are significantly slower than XP and ping does respond fine.
Windows 7 is running on Panasonic Toughbook CF52 and CF74 and I've tested in with a vanilla install with no updates and not on the Domain (2008R2 native) to eliminate GPO interference and tried it with all MS updates as of about 2 months ago.
I've tried removing the extra services on the network card (Topology Discovery, ipv6 and QoS), updated to the latest NIC drivers from Panasonic and drivers from Intel themselves. Reduced the MTU to as low as 500 and increased the Frame size (I forget what
to but was following a guide for slow links).
I've successfully replicated the issue on out development system using a satallite simulator.
Windows 7 with Outlook and TVI work fine on our network when connected via the LAN, ADSL, 3G and WiFi.
I'm currently analysing Wireshark captures but they don't seem any different to the XP ones.
Any help would be much appreciated.

Hi,
I noticed that your issue just happened when you use satellite transmission connection.
The fact is that this kind of connection in Windows 7 use TCP protocol. Transmission Control Protocol ( TCP ) under ideal conditions can provide reliable data delivery, but it is inherent in the existence of a throughput bottleneck, with the emergence on
the long-distance WAN packet loss and latency increases, the bottleneck is becoming more prominent and serious. In satellite networks with high loss, effective throughput may be as low as 0.1% - 10% of available bandwidth.
However, FASP can be the solution.
FASP
http://asperasoft.com/technology/transport/fasp/#overview-464
This response contains a reference to a third party World Wide Web site. Microsoft is providing this information as a convenience to you. Microsoft does not control these sites and has not tested any software or information found on these sites; therefore,
Microsoft cannot make any representations regarding the quality, safety, or suitability of any software or information found there. There are inherent dangers in the use of any software found on the Internet, and Microsoft cautions you to make sure that you
completely understand the risk before retrieving any software from the Internet.
Thanks for your understanding.

ISE 1.2.1 Complaining about High latency - can´t figure out why.

Hello!
my 2 node (16 core, 32 GB Ram, SAN) ISE installation on VMWARE is, complaining about High latency. I have about 250 Test clients connected, and the VMWARE guys can´t seem to find anything wrong. Is there anyway to get a more detailed test WHAT actually is causing this high latency? CPU´s are idling, ram is at 2% and disk I/O is almost not messurable.. but the software is still complaining. (the Dashboard shows latency at 100+ ms) I think this might be the external CA, againt which the client certificates are run. but I don´t know if I can test this theorie!
I have 2 Hardware Appliances coming, but I thought my Test enviroment should be more then enough to handel 250 clients.. I am abit concerned about the going live with 5000 clients in the future.. if it is already complaining with 250 active clients.
and yes, I will be splitting the tasks up between the 2 Physical Boxes (Profiling and such) and the 2 VM Boxes (Management) but at the moment, for 250 clients the 2 VM´s should be enough.

I have a couple of my customers complaining about this as well. I believe it is cosmetic and it is due to this bug CSCup97285
The suggested action for this alarm in ISE is:
Check if the system has sufficient resources, Check the actual amount of work on the system for example, no of authentications, profiler activity etc.., Add additional server to distribute the load
I have confirmed with both clients that the appropriate resources were allocated and reserved in VM. In addition, neither client is reporting any issues so this leads me to believe that it is just a cosmetic bug.
Thank you for rating helpful posts!

Flash Media Live Encoder high latency

Hello,
we are trying to stream via Flash Media Live Encoder over a satellite connection (high latency of 1500 ms) and we get data rates no more of 500 kbps although there is available bandwidth to use. Is there any configuration parameter value to compensate the high latency issue. I searched in the knowlegdge db and I found that there were configuration settings for the TCP window size that were solved after the version 2.
Any ideas?
Thomas

No... FME does not have any facilities for negotiating with a
webservice or communicating with a browser. You can create an FME
profile xml document and distribute that (sort of like Justin.tv
does), but your users will need to apply that profile
manually.

High latency with MSI 790XT-G45 under W7

I have decided myself to go for W7 one one of my rigs.I ve got some genuine disks of 32 and 64 and loaded W7 for testing purposes .
As my intention is to use the 790XT-G45 (considering it more W7 suited than my Platinum beeing newer more CPU support) tryed both W7 versions , but there is a problem.
Using the DPC high latency tool i get like 100 us under any W7 version with this 790XT-G45.The same board is ok latency wise under XP ,it hovers around 10-20 us when you re not doing anything serious with it .I have to remind that on this board i ve also had some issues with the big mouse cursor thing that seems to be related to motherboard latencyes.
In the past i ve used the K9A2 Platinum with W7 64 RC with the same video card and sound card that i use now on the 790XT-G45 ,but the latency was always 10-20 us.In fact trying again the Platinum gives me under W7 like 10-20 us.
I ve tryed disableing onboards ,removing the Creative and updating to latest BIOS version but no joy.The latency also adds some drag to the system i mean W7 windows don t look to snappy like it feels on Platinum.
So is this board compatible to W7 for real ?
What is so different between the 2 boards ,does the 790X have bigger latencyes than the 790 FX from the Platinum.One of the issues is that even if i would choose the Platinum CPU upgrade path closes.
I repeat i ve tested both boards with default W7 drivers and with vendors drivers and same thing.
Any user with 790XT-G45 encountering this under W7 ?
At first glance it s not a very big issue ,but i m very sure this 100 us get s me while playing to more and i really hate input lag and static on my sound.
Any ideas ?

Hi Guys,
I agree with Sm3K3R that a 70+ microsecond increase in average DPC latency will have an undesirable affect on some apps (games, real-time streaming, etc.). I also believe that what is good for XP will almost certainly not be good for Windows 7. Too much of the architecture has changed. Better drivers may help going forward. To me, the bigger question is why this mobo takes so much longer to run these routines than the K9A2.
I do not have any serious problems with the apps I run. Some of them may run better with a shorter average DPC latency. I have no way to tell with what I currently have to work with. Other bottlenecks may be in play. I was just responding to Sm3K3R's request for feedback. My power option is set to high performance and my base configuration has 41 processes running, including Diskeeper real-time defragmenter, Avira Antivirus, Logitech SetPoint, Process Lasso's process governor, PeerBlocker, and TaskDock. It also includes the Microsoft search functions and the sidebar with 2 gadgets running. Most of these processes run as services. I thought it was the search, sidebar, or one or more of the non-Microsoft products causing my base 100+ average latency indicated by the DPC high latency tool, so I ran LatencyMon to find out.
I ran it several times for 2 to 5 minutes at a time, starting when the system was idle. The Nvidia display and NT Kernel & System drivers always topped the list, with latencies from 50 to 114 microseconds. The display driver's routine also ran much more often than any thing else, followed, about 60% less often, by the NT Kernel & System driver. Thus these 2 drivers contribute the most to my average DPC latency. The other products listed above most often had 0 or less than 15 microsecond DPC latencies. Once I saw this, I did not bother to check my game configuration which does not have the search, sidebar, and the non-Microsoft products listed above in it.
During a Google search of this issue, I read that someone reduced their average Windows 7 DPC latency by 50 microseconds by turning off the HPET timer. I tried this and it did not work for me.
Looking forward to the results of Sm3K3R's further testing and feedback from others.

High latency when only me on the internet!!!!!!!!!...

why is it that im still getting high latency with just me on the internet not downloading and just playing a game, there are only 30 people in the cabinet out of 100 and ive just noticed the latency has only gotten really high since its gotten windy, also gettting awful packet loss , the engineer also changed the connection at the pole. look at this cable though is it supposed to be this bad when it gets to the house wall ???????? http://gyazo.com/51d69c5c9b34a4230c945ed87733efd3
speedtest result: http://gyazo.com/d7f9d2b852be797637c4547f33f924ee

look at these, a bit blury but yeah iphone camera lol had to zoom
http://gyazo.com/6c8652db116846e0f0d8f0a0a0747c46
http://gyazo.com/79447e2a61549d0547f44f7f7d6a7ac8
http://gyazo.com/8ecbcb53fcea2cd323d2d8936ffdd89d

Hyper-V Guest - RDP Connections cause high latency.

Hi all,
In a test environment we have a HP ProLiant DL360p Gen8 server with Windows Server 2012 R2 - Standard installed with the Hyper-V Role and no others.
On the server there is a Switch Independent network team configured with 2 of the 1GB NICs.
There is a virtual Swtich (External) configured on the Host linked to the Team with allow management selected.
The Guest VM has a single NIC (not a legacy setup) connected to the virtual Switch
The issue we are having is that once an RDP session is connected to a Guest OS, for example another 2012 R2 Server, it experiences high latency (which makes the RDP session appear to run in a very jerky way)
Using Hyper-V VMConnect, the server has no issues at all although the window is smaller.
We can verify this is being caused by an RDP session by observing ping times:
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=127 <RDP SESSION STARTS>
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=127
......... Snipped ........
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127 <RDP SESSION CLOSES
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 10.101.3.152: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
This issue does not affect RDP sessions to the Host.
I have seen posts about disabling VMQ on the host/guest servers as there may be an issue with this model - this has had no effect at all, the issue persists after changing VMQ and restarting both the guest and the host OS.
I have seen another fix for a similar issue by running these commands: bcdedit.exe /set USEPLATFORMCLOCK on and this also has not resolved the issue.
I have also set the Guest VM to use 256Mbps minimum (512maximum - also tried with no maximum) bandwidth allocated, but again this does not resolve the issue.
There are no backup jobs or reporting jobs running on these servers (they are in test).
Is this caused by the specific hardware we have chosen or is there further diagnostics that can be performed? Any help would be appreciated.

Hi DalamarUK83,
"I have seen posts about disabling VMQ on the host/guest servers as there may be an issue with this model - this has had no effect at all, the issue persists after changing VMQ and restarting both the guest and the host OS."
Did you disable the feature in advanced settings of physical NICs ?
I would suggest to re-create virtual switch after disabling VMQ .
What is the make of that NIC ?
Best Regards
Elton Ji
We
are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

Extremely high latency from 4am - 12pm in Baltimore, MD

Lately for the past month I have been getting extremely high latency 1500ms+. I am directly wired to the Actiontec router using a new cable on a confirmed working lan card. I believe the problem maybe at the POD card. How would I go about proving to Verizon without going through numerous transfers of people that don't have a clue?

I had the same problem since Mid-June. Seems like it's anywhere in North Eastern United States. I myself is located about 20 Minutes from Washington DC. I get the latency right around 12~50 ms on first hop to Google or verizon.net on a good day with trace route test. The people in Verizon tells me that's normal but I don't buy that because my neighbor gets around less than 20 ms, never higher. It gets progressively bad around prime time and onward. Around 12 AM it can reach from 100~400 ms on latency to Google or verizon.net server.
I am a late night gamer and need that low latency badly. Seems like most of the people I have talk to from FSC (Fios solution Center) had no idea what is the difference between Bandwidth to Latency. They just call it "Speed". I have spoken with these people for almost every night for a month and a half, when I get a hint that they have no idea what they're talking about, I just hang up and call another one up or just request a supervisor to speak with.
Here is my trace route result, I have highlight the part that are unacceptable.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2    61 ms    54 ms    23 ms L100.WASHDC-VFTTP-62.verizon-gni.net [96.231.212.1]
3    25 ms    15 ms    19 ms G11-3-662.WASHDC-LCR-06.verizon-gni.net [130.81.104.182]
4    36 ms    17 ms    33 ms so-4-2-0-0.RES-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.28.146]
5    57 ms    65 ms    58 ms po1.ctn-border1.vzlink.com [206.46.225.85]
6    56 ms    67 ms    54 ms po121.ctn-core1.vzlink.com [206.46.225.18]
7    60 ms    71 ms    68 ms 206.46.228.130
8    76 ms   102 ms   141 ms 206.46.232.39
Trace complete
I'm going to list the things I have done so that perhaps if you are having the same issue, maybe you can anticipate or maybe save you time with this issue.
Replaced Router
This will be my 3rd Router in my possession. The odds of having 3 bad routers are astronomical but yet FSC will try to keep sending you more.
Replaced coax cable (twice), ONT, and splitter.
Once again, the problem still persist. To get these fix, I had total of 4 dispatchers. From the word of their mouth, they stated it's beyond their level and when it comes to latency the tech at verizon server will be the best people to help you.
Reset ONT by unplugging it for 5 minutes or more to pull up a new Gateway IP.
Appearently, someone were able to fix their latency issue this way but the results are mixed. Either it's a permanent fix or temporary fix or it made the problem even worse.
Optimizing connection/wired connections
I have a gaming PC, when they ask to clear the cache to solve my problem, it's an insult. Not only it's irralavent, in order for the computer to bog down because of cache overload, I must possess a computer that is less than of Pentium 2 back from 1995.
Anti-virus and FireWall
If these were actually the source of my problem then the high latency should be constantly bad.
Potentially hacked or other connection to your router.
While this problem can be an issue, I can see who uses the internet and even turned off the wireless. There's no way an uninvited person can slow down my connections.
The server that I am connecting to such as website and gaming server is not guaranteed by the verizon.
Yes, that is true but what are the odds of having google, verizon.net, altavista, gaming server from Steam, etc are having the latency issue all at the same time? It is as if they are blaming traffic problem on I-95 for having bad congestion on I-66. It's not relevant at all!
Verizon in-home Agent
Must I continue?
I will now list the solutions that others have found. Please keep in mind that these problems may not be relevant to you.
1) Bad PON card
Good luck convincing the verizon that this is the issue. For this to be the issue, people from your neighborhood must experience the same problem. Sadly, the problem is the latency and most people will be completely unaware of the problem as long as they are "online". There were cases where group of people resolved the problem but unfortunately the problem came back again the next day because the network tech at Verizon decided to switch them back to the old one.
2) Faulty hardware on rack
As far as I have been told, couple claimed that this has been the issue and was permitted to move their line into another rack.
3) Switching Gateway IP
One have claimed that certain Gateway IP they have been assigned are bad. For example, the house you're trying to drive away from has a huge pothole so you have to go around it by taking a detour.
4) Resetting the ONT by unplugging the battery
There has been claim that doing this for 5 mintues clears it up. What this actually does is it allows you to get a new Gateway IP and re-establish connections.
5) They blocked my IP
Yes, this can happen. I have been blocked once or more perhaps because sometimes I like to purchase and download games from Steam. When I do download, it does so for about an hour to 3 hours depending on the size of the game. Whilst this is going on, my room mate watches movie on Netflex and perhaps download music on the side. Also I watch On-Demand (requires internet). Also not to mention sometimes torrent and other P2P downloads. Check to see if you are blocked.
6) Last but not least, Verizon is purposely gimping our latency to squeeze budget.
There has been talks and speculations that since many primary account holders are not advance users. In otherwords, many would settle for just being "online". This supports the claims for having such a low standard for latency management in verizon. If so, Verizon must stop advertising their "fast" gaming gimmick that they display on their commercial.

Very high latency in fetching static files

Problem : Really high latency in fetching static files upon first request.
Environment : Weblogic V8.1 App Server and Web Server running using jdk1.4.2_13
Mem Setting: -Xmx2048M -XX:MaxPermSize=1024M
Situaton: Restart the weblogic server, fetch a static file using " wget hostname:port/script.js". Comes back in around 100 ms for us. Then from browser we request "http://hostname:portname/Logon.do". Then again we do " wget hostname:port/script.js" and now it comes back in 400 ms. The above times are in our TEST environment. In PROD it is really worse 1300ms for one file !!!
Tests:
Wrote a servlet to handle all static file (CSS,js,gif,jpeg etc) and all requests would go through this servlet. Did not solve the problem, latency is still high.
Wrote a test servlet to load about 1000 classes explicitly (Class.forName) and then fetched the static file with out accessing Logon.do from browser. Latency was high after loading classes. This lead to conclusion that it is number of classes we are loading which is causing the problem.
Ran application under JProfiler, Took a heap dump right after starting server. About 1300 classes loaded. Took a heap dump after fetching Logon.do. About 2100 classes loaded.
Question :
1) Isn't 1300 too high for just the server to start? (there are some classes loaded because of our references in ejb's)
2) We use prototype factory to instantiate classes. All the interface and implementation definitions are specified in config file and it seems to load all the classes. May be we can change this. But what confuses me is that the response time was okay when we had 1300 classes loaded how come it became so bad when there were 2100 classes ?
If any body is using these same set of technologies, what is the average number of classes loaded on initial start up?
I am running out of options to test?

There's no way from what you posted that you could draw a conclusion that you are infected.
I totally missed that tracert, but from a ping response time, it looks healthy.
The packet loss, could easily cause your problem.
Does it consistently loose packets there ? Cause I've pinged it from here and got no loss.
Also remember that in this case, ping is also the time it takes the blizzard servers to response to your network message, so it could be local to blizzard, and ping might not detect that.
Have you tried a netstat -p tcp -b command too see whats active on your PC ? That could point you towards something local.

High latency causing problems... and frustration w...

I have a femtocell that requires the latency on any single hop on the internet to be less than 240ms, any longer than this and it drops my phone call. On contacting the supplier of the femtocell, they asked me to use Traceroute to see how long the path to a server was (I used Google.com) and many of the hops were over 240ms, some as long as 4922ms.
On scanning this forum, there are other users out there (mostly gamers) who are suffering from latency problems. Has anyone had any success resolving the problem? I can send copies of the Traceroute outputs that clearly show high latency between routers with addresses such as interconnect2-gig1-0.manchester.fixed.bt.net, core2-pos0-6-1-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net and core4te-0-7-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net, to anyone that may be able to help.
The best I've so far had from BT is that:
- It's a problem with the femtocell supplier: no, the supplier requested from ISPs their longest expected latency prior to releasing the femtocell and set the timeout to be equal to this
- It's a problem with my Mac mail: the fact that I use a Mac has absolutely nothing to do with network latency
- There's interference between my mobile phone and my wireless: this isn't the case (I'm a wireless communications engineer by background) and, if it was, almost no-one would be able to use mobile phones given the number of wireless access points in homes and offices.
Every time I get a call from the call centre it's someone different, who doesn't understand the problem, doesn't know what a femtocell is and hasn't read the notes which clearly state that I want to be called on my mobile, not on my home phone. It's looking like my best option may be to try to find another ISP who doesn't have this problem.

I think you have the result of what is maybe a 2 fold issue.
Femtocell technology is still a relatively new technology as you;ll know from your job.
If you think about the security issues of running a femtocell, that;s to say what it actually has to fulfil,
Security for femtocell networks spans several distinct requirements. The service provider must authenticate users as they arrive on the network. The RF link between the handset and the femtocell must be secured for both user and control plane traffic. And lastly, the mobile network traffic must be placed into a virtual private network as it traverses the wired ISP network to ensure that the traffic is protected while transiting this public network and only authorized users can forward traffic to the mobile operator's network.
There is however one very important element of femtocell security which makes the implementation significantly more complex. This relates to latency as you say, which must be carefully managed especially for applications such as VoIP/SIP. Compounding this challenge is the unknown nature of the latency across the ISP network, which has resulted in service providers requiring latency in the femtocell to be minimized, as you say.
If you add to that the fact that the BT broadband system is based on an algorithm packet handled system to ensure data quality across maybe noisy telephone lines, it all compounds to add to the problems of the running of the femtocell.
In other words if you have a highly error corrected and interleaved broadband line, it's not going to help the femtocell out by adding additional latency to what is already a fairly complicated situation where data handling is concerned....

High latency/ping times

Greetings
I have had DSL for a while and have had no real issues until recently
My problem is that I am receiving high latency/ping times while using VPN and while playing internet games (doing each exclusive of one another of course). I am continually being dropped or if I stay connected the LAG is so bad that it makes using the VPON or playing games impossibly frustrating. All of this started about 5 days ago or so, so I am wondering what the problem could be.
My modem is new; I just got DSL in December. I have tried bypassing my router and still get the same result. I have also used computers running XP sp3, Vista Sp2 and Win 7 64 bit, all with the same result.
Any ideas? Also can inclement weather in Northern VA be causing issues with the verizon's overall network performance? all of that snow cant be good thing for DSL.
I am in SW VA and we have had alot of snow as well.
Anyways, if anyone has any ideas, please let me know.. because VPN is how I work some days and this latency issue is causing me to re think my switch to DSL

#1 What is the brand and model of your modem?
#2 What is the brand and model of your router?
If you are the original poster (OP) and your issue is solved, please remember to click the "Solution?" button so that others can more easily find it. If anyone has been helpful to you, please show your appreciation by clicking the "Kudos" button.

High Latency in Windows 7 64Bit on MacBook Air 2010 NVIDIA with DPC Software

High latency in Windows 7 that is interrupting sound on BootCamp partition with NVIDIA Drivers
3000us all the time
I can't use my interface with it.
Anybody know how to fix it?

Thanks for posting the pictures...it makes it much easier to see what's going on.
First off, use the proper Focusrite ASIO driver, not ASIO4ALL. Make sure you have the latest driver installed, available here: Downloads | Focusrite
Then, on the screen shown in your first picture, use the slider on the Focusrite control panel to change the Buffer length to the lowest setting at which you can get reliable recording and playback. It's currently set to 10ms which is 480 samples (as shown in the Audition Preferences/Audio Hardware panel. I tend to use 128 samples which is between 2 and 3 ms but exactly what works for you will depend on all sorts of factors. Some people like to use a low setting for recording and the highest possible setting when mixing a multitrack session.
Finally, for pretty much all recording, I'd recommend the use of the Direct Monitoring feature on the 2i2 rather than trying to monitor via a round trip.

High Latency

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for