Tech / Special Interest → PC Hardware Discussion/Reviews > [Laptop] Latency sucks..

[Laptop] Latency sucks..

My laptop has been getting continually slow .. my gaming on World of Tanks sucks to the hi heaven past few days.. from 120fps to 10-20 .. I'm using charter and i see charter direct forum has been closed down here.. i just did a malware clean up which found a few things.. but still nothing has changed much.. when i go to start firefox it's slow to respond i think.. actually all my browsers are in my mind.. my pinging was like 156ms yesterday to like 58 all the time now.. the speed tests seem fine which charter thinks that's great you have no problem.. ya right..getting ready to go back to dsl.. i had this same problem a year ago..
»speedtest.ookla.com/result/2302628937.png
--

'rocking the awakening mind'!

are there other ways to check latency besides these online tests? oh i'm running windows 7 with a SD harddrive.. it's a 160gig harddrive with 52 gigs free

Doesn't sound like a connection problem but a problem with your machine or OS.

If you found malware it might be that something got messed up or that it isn't fully clean.
Which specific laptop? If it has optimus or something are you sure that it is using the correct graphics chip?

Very good questions.. I have a sager with GForce GTX 460m, i7.. I've been using DriverMax to keep me updated.. i know it's probably not a good idea but it seems to have been working well for me for 2 years..i just ran it last night and it told me i have 17 out dated drivers.. chipset, video etc. Come to think of it i was getting the icon by the clock telling me my wireless card wasn't found.. but it was still working..DriverMax did fix that
--

'rocking the awakening mind'!

Latency is a tricky thing to measure because it varies depending how you use your bandwidth. E.g. if you use all your bandwidth you latency will be much worse than if you use a little of your bandwidth. You need to measure latency and bandwidth at the same time and almost no one does this.

icsi netalyzr »n2.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/
Will measure you latency in the worst case, take a look at the buffer latencies

If netalyzr show a problem then you have the second problem. Your ISP will not have a clue what you are talking about.

Post you buffer latencies that you get from icsi netalyzr.

Thanks.. here we go

Address-based Tests + %u2013

port sequence plot

NAT detection (?): NAT Detected +

Local Network Interfaces (?): OK +

DNS-based host information (?): OK +

NAT support for Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) (?): Not found +

Reachability Tests + %u2013

TCP connectivity (?): Note %u2013

Direct TCP access to remote FTP servers (port 21) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote SSH servers (port 22) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote SMTP servers (port 25) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote DNS servers (port 53) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote HTTP servers (port 80) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote POP3 servers (port 110) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote RPC servers (port 135) is blocked.

This is probably for security reasons, as this protocol is generally not designed for use outside the local network.

Direct TCP access to remote NetBIOS servers (port 139) is blocked.

This is probably for security reasons, as this protocol is generally not designed for use outside the local network.

Direct TCP access to remote IMAP servers (port 143) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote SNMP servers (port 161) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote HTTPS servers (port 443) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote SMB servers (port 445) is blocked.

This is probably for security reasons, as this protocol is generally not designed for use outside the local network.

Direct TCP connections to remote SMTP/SSL servers (port 465) succeed, but do not receive the expected content.
The client received an empty response instead of our normal banner. This suggests that a firewall, proxy, or filter initially allowed the connection and then terminated it, either because it did not understand our server's reply or decided to block the service.

Direct TCP access to remote secure IMAP servers (port 585) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote authenticated SMTP servers (port 587) is allowed.

Direct TCP connections to remote IMAP/SSL servers (port 993) succeed, but do not receive the expected content.
The client received an empty response instead of our normal banner. This suggests that a firewall, proxy, or filter initially allowed the connection and then terminated it, either because it did not understand our server's reply or decided to block the service.

Direct TCP connections to remote POP/SSL servers (port 995) succeed, but do not receive the expected content.
The client received an empty response instead of our normal banner. This suggests that a firewall, proxy, or filter initially allowed the connection and then terminated it, either because it did not understand our server's reply or decided to block the service.

Direct TCP access to remote OpenVPN servers (port 1194) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote PPTP Control servers (port 1723) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote SIP servers (port 5060) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote BitTorrent servers (port 6881) is allowed.

Direct TCP access to remote TOR servers (port 9001) is allowed.

UDP connectivity (?): OK +

Traceroute (?): OK +

Path MTU (?): OK +

Hidden Proxy Detection (?): Warning %u2013

Netalyzr detected the following proxies:
%u25E6Port: 25 , Response Time: 3 ms
%u25E6Port: 110 (POP3), Response Time: 3 ms
%u25E6Port: 143 (IMAP), Response Time: 0 ms
%u25E6Port: 465 (SMTP/SSL), Response Time: 0 ms
%u25E6Port: 587 (Authenticated SMTP), Response Time: 3 ms
%u25E6Port: 993 (IMAP/SSL), Response Time: 3 ms
%u25E6Port: 995 (POP/SSL), Response Time: 2 ms

Network Access Link Properties + %u2013

Network performance (?): Latency: 17 ms, Loss: 0.0% +

TCP connection setup latency (?): 27ms +

Background measurement of network health (?): no transient outages +

Network bandwidth (?): Upload 2.6 Mbit/s, Download 7.2 Mbit/s +

Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink is good, Downlink is good +

HTTP Tests + %u2013

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 + %u2013

Restricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +

Unrestricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +

DNS resolver address (?): OK +

DNS resolver properties (?): Lookup latency 120 ms +

Direct probing of DNS resolvers (?): +

DNS glue policy (?): OK +

port sequence plot

DNS resolver port randomization (?): OK +

DNS lookups of popular domains (?): Warning %u2013

90 of 90 popular names were resolved successfully. Show all names.

2 popular names have a moderate anomaly. The returned IP address suggests that the name lookup was blocked using DNS. Instead of returing the proper IP address for the name, the IP address of your own system was returned instead, effectively blocking access to the site.
Show all names.

27 popular names have a mild anomaly. The ownership suggested by the reverse name lookup does not match our understanding of the original name. The most likely cause is the site's use of a Content Delivery Network. Show all names.

3 popular names have a mild anomaly: we are unable to find a reverse name associated with the IP address provided by your ISP's DNS server. This is most likely due to a slow responding DNS server or misconfiguration on the part of the domain owner. Show all names.

DNS external proxy (?): OK +

DNS results wildcarding (?): Warning %u2013

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 198.105.251.24, which does not resolve. 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.
%u2022www.{random}.com is mapped to 198.105.251.24.
%u2022www.{random}.org is mapped to 66.152.109.25.
%u2022fubar.{random}.com is correctly reported as an error.
%u2022www.yahoo.cmo [sic] is mapped to 66.152.109.25.
%u2022nxdomain.{random}.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu is correctly reported as an error.

DNS-level redirection of specific sites (?): OK +

Direct probing of DNS roots (?): OK +

IPv6 Tests + %u2013

DNS support for IPv6 (?): OK +

IPv4, IPv6, and your web browser (?): No IPv6 support +

IPv6 connectivity (?): No IPv6 support +

Network Security Protocols + %u2013

DNSSEC Support from the DNS Roots (?): OK +

Host Properties + %u2013

System clock accuracy (?): OK +

Browser properties (?): OK +

Uploaded data (?): OK +

Feedback + %u2013

User-provided feedback %u2013
--

'rocking the awakening mind'!

I've been updating the drivers nothing working.. guess it's a reformat time

Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink is good, Downlink is good +

The above line needs to be expanded to see the actual numbers, but when they say good the actual numbers tend to be OK for regular use. You might be more sensitive when you game.

Well just been using my desktop (i don't use very often) my gaming was experiencing 100% packet loss and getting cut off after 5 min of playing.. i'll take my laptop to a starbucks and see how it does..i had this problem a year ago with charter.. they even could see it in there files.. i forgot what they did.. they did send a tech out and got it fixed.. oh i think they buried new cabls here.. anyway i'm calling billing and getting myself off if they don't send someone.. sure miss charter direct forum here..

Thanks for replying redholm
--

'rocking the awakening mind'!

"Well just been using my desktop (i don't use very often) my gaming was experiencing 100% packet loss and getting cut off after 5 min of playing.. "

If you have a separate router in the picture then take that out of the equation and connect directly to your cable modem with ethernet. Also have you tried rebooting your modem?

Yes tried all re-booting procedures .. i just have the modem with built in router (wireless etc,)right now still working on malware elimination. I will try connecting the laptop directly after this is done..thanks

Well it was my isp.. 4-5 days being down pretty much..