[NoAhB0Dy]

Just curious here...I've noticed on my Torch (running .337) that there seems to be some serious latency issues when connected to wireless networks (both "g" and "n"). Are other people experiencing the same? Could I possibly see some others' ping results (with OS version)? (need to provide at least a sample of 10 (ie, for windoze, ping -n 10 x.x.x.x)


Here are my results:

scooter@wpg1lx02:~$ ping 192.168.1.94
PING 192.168.1.94 (192.168.1.94) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=1 ttl=128 time=220 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=2 ttl=128 time=40.2 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=3 ttl=128 time=61.8 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=4 ttl=128 time=79.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=5 ttl=128 time=101 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=6 ttl=128 time=22.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=7 ttl=128 time=46.1 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=8 ttl=128 time=73.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=9 ttl=128 time=93.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=10 ttl=128 time=18.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=11 ttl=128 time=32.8 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=12 ttl=128 time=56.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=13 ttl=128 time=78.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_req=14 ttl=128 time=101 ms

As you can see it seems to go in a cycle of low to high latency. I've noticed this on all wireless networks I've tested with. I would like to determine if this is a problem either with my own Torch, the OS, or the Torch in general.

Thanks in advance and appreciate any and all input.

[shansmi]

no, the first 2 are for Torch devices and the 3rd is a 9700...


Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.187

Pinging 192.168.0.187 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=1718ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.187:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 1718ms, Average = 547ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.187

Pinging 192.168.0.187 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.187:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 68ms, Maximum = 131ms, Average = 98ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.187

Pinging 192.168.0.187 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.187: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.187:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 238ms, Average = 145ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.184

Pinging 192.168.0.184 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.183: Destination host unreachable.
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.184:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 74ms, Maximum = 459ms, Average = 209ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.184

Pinging 192.168.0.184 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=212ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.184:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 55ms, Maximum = 234ms, Average = 143ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.184

Pinging 192.168.0.184 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.184: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.184:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 55ms, Maximum = 338ms, Average = 143ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.182

Pinging 192.168.0.182 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.183: Destination host unreachable.
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=1668ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=405ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.182:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 226ms, Maximum = 1668ms, Average = 766ms

C:\Users\me>ping 192.168.0.182

Pinging 192.168.0.182 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=438ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.182: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.18z:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 438ms, Average = 191ms

C:\Users\me>

[NoAhB0Dy]

That's crazy bad considering you can generally get <1 ms response from pretty much all other devices on a private wireless network...

If the device is responding to pings, which it is, and there is no other high usage going on (which in my test scenarios there are not) then the response should be much lower and consistenly <10 ms (and really 1 ms or less is normal)

[homer1475]

here are my ping stats running .337(BDHP V5) and a linksys WRT610N router, Connected on N band at 20mhz.



Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\homer>ping -n 10 192.168.1.105

Pinging 192.168.1.105 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=997ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.105:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 997ms, Average = 155ms


For comparison here is a netbook on the same band.

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\homer>ping -n 10 192.168.1.106

Pinging 192.168.1.106 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.106: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.106:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 12ms

[5picker]

Here's mine on .246... TrendNet router

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>ping -n 10 192.168.0.105

Pinging 192.168.0.105 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=517ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.105: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.105:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 517ms, Average = 151ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner>

[NoAhB0Dy]

So does anyone have any insight into why there is such latency on these devices? This is my first Berry with WiFi so never experienced the issue before but after having played around with my Torch, I have often wondered why it isn't a little more "snappy" when connected to wireless.

[shansmi]

Your concerns should not be Torch specific as the data above shows.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[NoAhB0Dy]

Your concerns should not be Torch specific as the data above shows.

Correct...hence why I said "these devices" after the others had posted.

I see it on the wifey's iPod touch as well. I am wondering if maybe it has to do with the size of the device and a smaller antenna maybe?

[shansmi]

Another thing to consider... Unless you have switched to wpa and aes, you are only getting a "g" connection vs "n". I swithed over to "n" and it screams even with latency in ping tests. Its as fast as my kids iTouch 4G loading up iTunes...

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[NoAhB0Dy]

Yah...I've done wpa2/aes on my n routers since day 1. (otherwise you don't get n speeds on anything)

I won't say that the speeds are poor, I just find that on the 2 iPods that I have tried that things are much more responsive. The Torch, on the other hand, seems less responsive. This is what prompted me to look at latency. (granted the latency on the iPods is high as well)

Guess I'll hafta just chalk it up to small antennae

[ramsee]

i did the ping test here whoisxy.com my results are
Reply from 74.125.214.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.214.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.214.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Reply from 74.125.214.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 74.125.214.115:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 18ms