Internet connectivity woes

[bodminman]

Hi there,

we're having a lot of internet performance issues at the moment. Below is a snapshot of the ping response times to Google.

How do these look to you? Are your times similar?

The config is PC > Local Smartcache proxy > RM SafetyNet Upstream proxy > WWW

Pinging Google [209.85.227.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=412ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=499ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=380ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=469ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=424ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=377ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=529ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=541ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=518ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=54
Reply from 209.85.227.104: bytes=32 time=455ms TTL=54
Ping statistics for 209.85.227.104:
Packets: Sent = 14, Received = 13, Lost = 1 (7% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 365ms, Maximum = 541ms, Average = 452ms

[glennda]

From our Lea Line I sent 37 and dropped 9 with response's between 98ms and 115ms. (resolving 209.85.147.103)

From my ADSL line i sent 51 recieved 51 with a response time of between 21/26ms resolving to 209.85.147.147


so yes it looks like your line is struggling majorly!

[DaveP]

Our results:

Pinging google.com [209.85.147.105] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.85.147.105: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=48


Ping statistics for 209.85.147.105:
Packets: Sent = 65, Received = 65, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 9ms

We use our LEA proxy to connect [no ISA server, SmartCache etc] onsite.

[glennda]

@DaveP I want your connection!

[DaveP]

@DaveP I want your connection!

100 Mb uncontested.

[glennda]

100 Mb uncontested.

little old me with 10mb for 900 clients..... soon to hopefully be leased line 100mb

[bodminman]

Thanks for the replies.

We have an ad-hoc D-Link wireless network here which is a right royal pita!

We manually disabled the wireless on all 33 access points via the web inerface. When they were all disabled the ping time went down to 35-40ms which was great. We then enabled them 1 by 1 leaving a 5 minute gaps between each. We got to a particular AP which when emabled the ping shot up to 300-400ms and also we started getting the packet loss issues.

Disabling the AP again brought the pings down and re enabling shit the pings back up. We then looked at what clients were connect to that particular AP and then one by one disabled the mac address on the AP. Eventually we got to one mac address that when disabled the pings when down to 30-40ms but when enabled again the pings shoot up to 300-400ms constantly!

However this morning that particular mac address is nowhere to be seen but we have started to get 'Request timed out' errors again when pinging out!

This is doing my nut in!

Anyone got any ideas?

[Shaun_Dark_Lord]

Has the problem client changed from wifi to wired?

Assuming you don't keep a list of mac addresses in your inventory (it's a pain, but really handy in these instances), is your AV management console reporting any dodgy staff laptops?

You know which AP they were connected to - That gives you a rough location. If you allow their mac back on wifi, you may be able to locate the problem machine.

Looks like you're in for a fun morning.