Sponsored Links

Ping monitor's/latency

yfuser2024

Regular Member
Just wondered if other YF users on static ipv4 care to share latency charts and approx location.
I'll start

2gb/2gb - somerset currently latency around 7.5ms (down from recent longterm figure of 11ms)

ipv4
ipv6

Internet speed in general attached
Screenshot_20240308_121338_Samsung Internet.webp


thanks
 
Consistently around 7ms to Cloudflare from the North East and has been since October.

IMG_0449.jpeg
 
I think there's a growing reliance on perceived performance based on latency that doesn't mean anything. Of course there are going to be differences based on location. That's inherently how it works.

The chances of a data center that hosts Cloudflare or Google DNS near Somerset are slim, and your latency reflects that. Where as I, being in Kent, am significantly closer to those larger sites, whether Slough or Docklands, which is more than likely where these are. Manchester as well.

That said, latency to a DNS provider is a very small piece of the puzzle.

As proof to that end, I'm 2.3 and 1.6ms RTT to the above providers respectively.
 
Sponsored Links
I think there's a growing reliance on perceived performance based on latency that doesn't mean anything. Of course there are going to be differences based on location. That's inherently how it works.

The chances of a data center that hosts Cloudflare or Google DNS near Somerset are slim, and your latency reflects that. Where as I, being in Kent, am significantly closer to those larger sites, whether Slough or Docklands, which is more than likely where these are. Manchester as well.

That said, latency to a DNS provider is a very small piece of the puzzle.

As proof to that end, I'm 2.3 and 1.6ms RTT to the above providers respectively.
I wish I had those results of yours! 🤣
 
I think there's a growing reliance on perceived performance based on latency that doesn't mean anything. Of course there are going to be differences based on location. That's inherently how it works.
On the contrary, I'd argue that latency tells much more of a story than you are give it credit for. Firstly, if you are constantly testing against the same location, then any variability in the latencies would often highlight bad traffic management, overwhelmed pipes or routing anomalies.

Secondly, in the case of YouFibre, testing against Cloudflare is a pretty good choice for roughly measuring latency to YouFibre's main transit boundaries. The bulk of YouFibre's internet routing goes via two sites in London and one in Manchester, and Cloudflare have direct presence/peerings with YouFibre and anycast their DNS service in those locations, so you can get a pretty good idea of what your baseline latency is to cross the YouFibre network itself.
 
My latency with recent improvement..hope it stays..
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240310_064216_Samsung Internet.webp
    Screenshot_20240310_064216_Samsung Internet.webp
    38.5 KB · Views: 94
This is probably a bit odd coming from a guy on their 8000 service but I don't actually measure latency, loss, jitter or transfer speeds routinely.

Still lots to do before the YF network hits its final form so some changes not a surprise.
 
Sponsored Links
On the contrary, I'd argue that latency tells much more of a story than you are give it credit for. Firstly, if you are constantly testing against the same location, then any variability in the latencies would often highlight bad traffic management, overwhelmed pipes or routing anomalies.

Secondly, in the case of YouFibre, testing against Cloudflare is a pretty good choice for roughly measuring latency to YouFibre's main transit boundaries. The bulk of YouFibre's internet routing goes via two sites in London and one in Manchester, and Cloudflare have direct presence/peerings with YouFibre and anycast their DNS service in those locations, so you can get a pretty good idea of what your baseline latency is to cross the YouFibre network itself.
That's just it...you have to get to those locations. As mentioned, Somerset is nowhere near, so comparing my results to the OP's results are irrelevant. We're no where near each other geographically so you can't possibly compare the two. Then, you need to know who/where is actually responding. Yes, Cloudflare has presence in those locations. But you have no way to guarantee who is answering at any given point in time. All you know is that ICMP, which is terrible at validating anything in any consistent way, had some result at that point in time. What HW is the user using? What load on their own network exists at the time? Any variability with that throws results out the window. There is no control over how anyone tests, what HW they use, where they are, who is responding, or any other issue between point A and B that may or may not exist at the time.

If you know all of that, THEN you have some baseline for the results and check for anomalies after the fact.

The OP even shows a 3ms difference. Why? What changed? What was responding prior to the change if there was a difference to begin with? There is no way to know. I mean...there IS a way to know...but from an end user, no one can know in any detail.
 
Here is mine, I'm on the 1GB service.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-03-10 at 16.48.52.webp
    Screenshot 2024-03-10 at 16.48.52.webp
    19.4 KB · Views: 94
  • Screenshot 2024-03-10 at 16.51.08.webp
    Screenshot 2024-03-10 at 16.51.08.webp
    4.5 KB · Views: 96
Sponsored Links
I don't have a static IPv4 and run tbb monitor to my IPv6, when I first signed up the graph was flat smooth but then it went weird sometime last summer and it gets a couple of spikes to 20ms in every minute (confirmed by pinging various IPv6 enabled sites myself) so the graph looks like this, not too sure why.

0df8138388dfe62ec9f3e56f2e8b7242ddb488be.png
 
I don't have a static IPv4 and run tbb monitor to my IPv6, when I first signed up the graph was flat smooth but then it went weird sometime last summer and it gets a couple of spikes to 20ms in every minute (confirmed by pinging various IPv6 enabled sites myself) so the graph looks like this, not too sure why.
Reminded me, also have the same.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-03-10 at 21.21.30.webp
    Screenshot 2024-03-10 at 21.21.30.webp
    29.6 KB · Views: 90
Sponsored Links
Don't really see any. WAN never saturates other than under artificial conditions and not bothered about that 😉

The XGSPON port itself provides very frequent timeslots to customers upstream so even saturated customers get capacity in a pretty timely fashion, just perhaps not as much as they would like. Downstream YF's network runs without congestion to the OLTs and no ports saturate for any length of time 😊

Only bloat I've seen is on customers with gigabit service over gigabit ONT ports connected in a certain way: ONT saturated gigabit port so queueing not a thing.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6024)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2720)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2144)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1899)
  10. 4G (1814)
  11. Virgin Media (1763)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1405)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules