Menu
Reply
  • 4
  • 0
  • 0
Reestv
Joining in
156 Views
Message 1 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Packet Loss

Hi,

Over the past day or two I have noticed that all online games that I play have had lagging connections to the game servers. My ping is low, and my computer is able to run the games, although I am having quite substantial packet loss.

I have included a ping test to the Brawlhalla game servers, but the same problem appears on any game that I play.  

Spoiler
C:\WINDOWS\System32> ping -n 100 pingtest-ams.brawlhalla.com

Pinging pingtest-ams.brawlhalla.com [172.98.83.91] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=751ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=519ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=852ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.98.83.91: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 172.98.83.91:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 99, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 852ms, Average = 66ms

The problem seemed to arise a day or two ago, after Facebook was down for a short amount of time. Prior to then, there was no (noticeable) issue.

This affects both my Ethernet-connected computer and my laptop on WiFi, which makes me think that the problem is the internet itself. I have also updated my internet drivers to the latest ones.

If anybody is able to offer any advice then I would appreciate it.

Best regards.

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 9.73K
  • 313
  • 839
legacy1
Hero
143 Views
Message 2 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss

Which super hub model do you have and is it in router mode or modem mode?
You can login here and click the status top right to post you downstream, upstream and logs.
http://192.168.100.1
You could setup a BQM to see if it show anything
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 4
  • 0
  • 0
Reestv
Joining in
127 Views
Message 3 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss

Thank you for the response.

My super hub is a super hub 1, and is in router mode.

I have attached images of my downstream, upstream, and logs.

downstream.PNG

 

 

upstream.PNG

 

 

 

 

I hope this information helps.

All the best.

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 4
  • 0
  • 0
Reestv
Joining in
99 Views
Message 4 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 9.73K
  • 313
  • 839
legacy1
Hero
87 Views
Message 5 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss


Reestv wrote:

Here is a BQM, running since 10pm last night.

76a20cf2805f5cd27df4b5b922d5f742

 (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/76a20cf2805f5cd27df4b5b922d5f742.png)

 


Because your using router mode you need to turn it off and on but if you was to use modem mode it would be fine.

 

  • 4
  • 0
  • 0
Reestv
Joining in
82 Views
Message 6 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss

That seems to have reduced it to almost nothing. Thanks a lot for the help!

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 9.73K
  • 313
  • 839
legacy1
Hero
77 Views
Message 7 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss


Reestv wrote:

That seems to have reduced it to almost nothing. Thanks a lot for the help!


Really you should look for a router for modem mode then it be stable.

Apart from all that your power levels are high and could do with someone to adjust them.

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 12.48K
  • 353
  • 1.45K
Forum Team
Forum Team
41 Views
Message 8 of 8
Flag for a moderator

Re: Packet Loss

Hi Reestv,

Thanks for coming to us for help with this.

I must admit that your downstream power levels are much much too high, as recorded in your post. However, my tests are, for reasons unknown, not polling the current power level data, so I'm unable to see if they've reduced at all.

Would you take a look though please and let me know if they're still high (anything in excess of +10dBmV) and then reply to my PM (purple envelope icon, top right of page) so that I can arrange for an engineer visit. 

Thanks Smiley Happy

 


Jen
Forum Team



0 Kudos
Reply