Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    1895 points _l4jh | 11 comments | | HN request time: 1.277s | source | bottom
    Show context
    nubela ◴[] No.16727977[source]
    $ ping 1.1.1.1

    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=214.866 ms

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=173.416 ms

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=45 time=256.007 ms

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=45 time=196.638 ms

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=45 time=294.694 ms

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=45 time=314.883 ms

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=47 time=335.099 ms

    (From Singapore)

    Google's 8.8.8.8 has about <4ms

    replies(25): >>16727997 #>>16728003 #>>16728005 #>>16728021 #>>16728025 #>>16728075 #>>16728081 #>>16728094 #>>16728238 #>>16728298 #>>16728303 #>>16728369 #>>16728396 #>>16728424 #>>16728435 #>>16728820 #>>16729018 #>>16729061 #>>16729189 #>>16729269 #>>16729393 #>>16729428 #>>16729559 #>>16730054 #>>16731459 #
    1. veidr ◴[] No.16728075[source]
    Tokyo, Japan:

        [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$  ping 1.1.1.1
        PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=2.310 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=2.287 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=2.103 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=2.785 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=2.276 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=2.646 ms
        ^C
        --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
        6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.103/2.401/2.785/0.236 ms
        [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$ 
        [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$ 
        [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$ ping 8.8.8.8
        PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=2.217 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=1.837 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=1.838 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=2.010 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=1.827 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=2.056 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=1.807 ms
        ^C
        --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
        7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.807/1.942/2.217/0.145 ms
        [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$
    replies(2): >>16728168 #>>16728186 #
    2. gizmodo59 ◴[] No.16728168[source]
    How are you getting those single digit times? I can never get below 15 ms for both Google and CloudFlare. Any tips to improve this or its beyond my control?
    replies(2): >>16728276 #>>16728370 #
    3. technion ◴[] No.16728186[source]
    You're just trying to make Australians jealous aren't you?

        ping 1.1.1.1
    
        Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=58
        Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=58
        Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=58
        Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=58
    
        ping 8.8.8.8
    
        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=402ms TTL=59
        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=59
        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=59
        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=59
    replies(3): >>16728234 #>>16728325 #>>16728495 #
    4. systoll ◴[] No.16728234[source]
    I'm getting ~60 and ~50 from Canberra.
    5. zzzcpan ◴[] No.16728276[source]
    Big cities are within half a ms range of various PoPs and IXes on fiber. Makes it possible to go even below 0.5 ms.
    6. zurkotalto ◴[] No.16728325[source]
    My ISP peers with cloudflare in Sydney (~40ms), even though there is a CF datacenter in Auckland, New Zealand (~10ms)

    I'm in Wellington.

        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=37.9 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=36.9 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=36.7 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=35.9 ms
    
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=35.4 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=35.2 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=35.2 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=35.7 ms
    7. r1ch ◴[] No.16728370[source]
    If you're using a cable or DSL modem, most of that latency is from the signal modulation between you and your ISP.
    8. NamTaf ◴[] No.16728495[source]
    I'm getting ~40-50ms on both on Internode from Brisbane.
    replies(2): >>16728732 #>>16729266 #
    9. halbritt ◴[] No.16728732{3}[source]
    Australia, LOL.

    You guys are 100ms from anywhere cool.

    10. lugg ◴[] No.16729266{3}[source]
    What do you get to internode from there? (@192.231.203.132)

    I'm halfway up to newcastle getting ~10ms across the board, 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, and 192.231.203.132.

    Of course performance on each is a different matter.

    1.1.1.1 is giving the best response times @ 8-11ms.

    Internode's is giving decent @ 10-14ms

    8.8.8.8 is a bit wonky, sometimes I hit a 10ms route once they cache it, but propagation is very slow and most responses are 140-180ms.

    replies(1): >>16773590 #
    11. NamTaf ◴[] No.16773590{4}[source]
    Sorry for the late response: to Internode (192.231.203.132) I get 36 ms. This is all on (rather terrible) ADSL 2+