tekmunki
Tekmunki
Premium
join:2001-12-06
Lake City, FL
clubs: 
 ·NuVox Communications
 ·Comcast
| Question...
I was running this speedtest on Sprints network for comparison...
I get 396k (on evdo)...
but the latency reports back 1000ms 1000ms 0ms 0ms 1000ms... Mind you, this is directly using the phone browser.
I usually average around 100-150ms ping on my cell tethered to my PC. Anyone know why this speedtest reports back latency like this?
--
TekMunki
"There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't."
www.tekmunki.com |
|
gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
clubs: | I get 661kbps on att 3G network. The latency is the same as what you are getting. either 0ms or 1000ms. |
|
nnaarrnn
join:2004-09-30
Nitro, WV | reply to tekmunki
happens with sprint from handsets, especially if you're in a building or moving. I have the same issue with my 700wx, except when attached to an external antenna which is outside my office. |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | reply to gdm
Due to a wait state in the way the network handles requests. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to tekmunki
said by tekmunki  :but the latency reports back 1000ms 1000ms 0ms 0ms 1000ms... Mind you, this is directly using the phone browser. That browser (some phone browsers) are unable to do sub-second timings so you either get a full second, or zero seconds. Sorry. I should be able recalculate an average latency from 10 latencies like that, though, so all is not lost. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to gdm
Tethered ZX-20 on AT&T 3G over bluetooth
Latency:313ms 312ms 344ms 1125ms 313ms 296ms 329ms 328ms 297ms 328ms
Speed: 499kbps
Latency is a bit high... but then again, I'm on the other side of the country
$ tracert i.dslr.net
Tracing route to i.dslr.net [209.123.109.176]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 149 ms 130 ms 151 ms 172.26.248.2
2 149 ms 156 ms 152 ms 172.26.248.2
3
$ ping i.dslr.net
PING i.dslr.net (209.123.109.177): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.123.109.177: icmp_seq=0 ttl=46 time=218 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.177: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=203 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.177: icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=218 ms
----i.dslr.net PING Statistics---- |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | yep that looks about right. Latency for icmp ping at 200ms would mean higher latency to completely fetch a null file. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
·Speakeasy
·Comcast
| reply to tekmunki
Latency with TCP can be very different from latency with ICMP. That's my guess.
Personally I don't get why so much attention is paid to latency. I know that it's a big deal for gamers. Are 95% of all Internet users there just for games?
Any IP latency pales in comparison to the latency caused by the multiple DNS lookups that have become the norm on most popular websites. Everything else that I care about can be buffered. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
edit:
July 9th, @12:30PM
| here is why. To "complete" loading a page, even a well designed one like news.yahoo.com, there are too many requests to do all in parallel (on default configured browsers) and some requests wait, or are caused by, the completed loading of previous requests.
Anything with terrible latency multiplies perceived loading time many times as the serial nature of some of the request blocks involves waiting for the turnaround multiple times.
The DNS issue is different and IMO less important, if you use a site you've previously used, it is probably cached (unless the site uses a variety of different and annoying ad services which always seem to involve new DNS lookups).
Anyone based overseas using US sites immediately recognizes how annoying a high latency connection becomes, and that involes usually no more than a 250ms turnaround. If a wireless network tends to offer 500ms or more latency then you are standing the equivalent of 24,000 miles away from the site. This can be annoying if you're actually standing on a san francisco street, trying to load news.yahoo.com. |
|
bignate
join:2005-12-05
Austin, TX | reply to gdm
on my att 8525 on 3G i have seen as high as 900kbps down, 290kbps up, and about 100ms avg ping time.
but on average i would say it is more like: 770 down, 260 up, 130ms ping |
|
tekmunki
Tekmunki
Premium
join:2001-12-06
Lake City, FL
clubs:
·NuVox Communications
·Comcast
| reply to justin
said by justin :said by tekmunki :but the latency reports back 1000ms 1000ms 0ms 0ms 1000ms... Mind you, this is directly using the phone browser. That browser (some phone browsers) are unable to do sub-second timings so you either get a full second, or zero seconds. Sorry. I should be able recalculate an average latency from 10 latencies like that, though, so all is not lost. That makes sense. Thanks. I was using IE/WM5 on a Moto Q. Using tethering and a Vista PC, I get around 200-250ms.
--
TekMunki
"There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't."
www.tekmunki.com |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to justin
Most definately. |
|
