Hi
jobeard,
I stand corrected. The plan I suggested,
will not reduce the ping time.
I thought that main reason for the high ping time was Queuing, especially during the peak hours.
The only thing I had to work on was that it was a 0.5 MBPS connection.
Too many people opt for the BB Home UL 750 or BB Home Combo UL 750, getting lured by the unlimited usage.
Only, later do they realize how slow it is.
I felt that there would be a qualitative difference, other than just the bandwidth, amongst the different plans. This was based on the expectation of higher priority i.e. smaller queues.
I had never checked my own ping, but the bandwidth was fine, and my primary objectives for using the internet were reasonably well satisfied.
Hence I suggested a change in a plan.
I still think that the higher priced Business Plans might have a lower ping time. But then, I could be wrong again.
Anyway, I ran the ping and tracert commands and here are the (appalling) results:
Pinging techspot.com [74.55.96.66] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.55.96.66: bytes=32 time=382ms TTL=50
Reply from 74.55.96.66: bytes=32 time=375ms TTL=50
Reply from 74.55.96.66: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=50
Reply from 74.55.96.66: bytes=32 time=375ms TTL=50
Ping statistics for 74.55.96.66:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 374ms, Maximum = 382ms, Average = 376ms
Tracing route to techspot.com [74.55.96.66] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 47 ms 46 ms 46 ms 117.197.0.1
2 46 ms 46 ms 46 ms 218.248.166.166
3 296 ms 312 ms 312 ms 121.244.68.77.static-lvsb.vsnl.net.in [121.244.68.77]
4 327 ms 327 ms 327 ms if-3-3.mcore3.L78-London.as6453.net [195.219.144.61]
5 327 ms 327 ms 327 ms 80.231.131.33
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 312 ms 327 ms 312 ms Vlan551.icore1.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net [209.58.26.82]
8 327 ms 327 ms 327 ms pos-1-9-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.41]
9 328 ms 327 ms 327 ms pos-0-12-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.85.29]
10 343 ms 327 ms 327 ms pos-1-8-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.87.90]
11 468 ms 468 ms 468 ms pos-1-14-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.85.153] 12 468 ms 468 ms 468 ms pos-0-2-0-0-pe01.1950stemmons.tx.ibo
ne.comcast.net [68.86.86.150]
13 468 ms 468 ms 468 ms theplanet-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.228.2]
14 374 ms 359 ms 374 ms e1-1.ibr01.hstntx2.networklayer.com [70.87.253.50]
15 359 ms 359 ms 359 ms te2-2.dsr02.hstntx2.networklayer.com [74.55.252.38]
16 359 ms 359 ms 374 ms po2.car06.hstntx2.networklayer.com [74.55.252.114]
17 359 ms 359 ms 359 ms server1.techspot.com [74.55.96.66]
Trace complete.
So the bottleneck is quite apparent.
Just googled this up. How does it sound to you ?
T1 lease circuits - best quality in the market, can give you ping time less then 10ms. dam expensive.
MPLS circuits - good enough for most live application. ping time less then 50ms. half the cost of T1 yet realiable enough to even run voice over it. if voice can run, application definately no issue.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100812000053AAS7a1k