[ntp:questions] ARRGH!!! I woke up to a 50 SECOND clock error.

David J Taylor david-taylor at blueyonder.co.uk.invalid
Sun Mar 18 11:08:13 UTC 2012


"Rob" <nomail at example.com> wrote in message 
news:slrnjmbdn3.9ce.nomail at xs8.xs4all.nl...
> Uwe Klein <uwe at klein-habertwedt.de> wrote:
>> Regular DSL here has quite large and spread line delays
>> though speed is much higher delay is similar or slightly larger than
>> forex ISDN.
>> PING 87.186.242.38 (87.186.242.38) 56(84) bytes of data. ( my first 
>> pingable outside node )
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=48.3 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=34.3 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=77.4 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=70.8 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=5 ttl=254 time=108 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=6 ttl=254 time=89.0 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=7 ttl=254 time=109 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=8 ttl=254 time=64.1 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=9 ttl=254 time=76.1 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=10 ttl=254 time=145 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=11 ttl=254 time=199 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=12 ttl=254 time=104 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=13 ttl=254 time=247 ms
>> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=14 ttl=254 time=104 ms
>
> Funny network...
>
> I can ping the same address over my own DSL and get lower and more
> stable ping than you do:
>
> ping 87.186.242.38
> PING 87.186.242.38 (87.186.242.38) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=1 ttl=245 time=34.7 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=2 ttl=245 time=36.3 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=3 ttl=245 time=35.3 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=4 ttl=245 time=33.6 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=5 ttl=245 time=34.8 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=6 ttl=245 time=35.8 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=7 ttl=245 time=34.2 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=8 ttl=245 time=35.3 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=9 ttl=245 time=33.0 ms
> 64 bytes from 87.186.242.38: icmp_seq=10 ttl=245 time=34.2 ms
> ^C
> --- 87.186.242.38 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9043ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 33.069/34.776/36.339/0.943 ms
>
> Pinging something local in my provider yields stable pingtimes within
> 13-14 ms...
>
> Maybe your provider still uses old ATM technology between the 
> subscribers
> and the DSL router, and the network is heavily overbooked.
>
> This is, however, not a generic property of DSL.   DSL can have stable
> roundtrip times.

.. and from Edinburgh:

ping 87.186.242.38

Pinging 87.186.242.38 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 87.186.242.38: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=239
Reply from 87.186.242.38: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=239
Reply from 87.186.242.38: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=239
Reply from 87.186.242.38: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 87.186.242.38:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 45ms

That's at 11:07 on a Sunday morning.

David 



More information about the questions mailing list