Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Many sites extremely slow/unusable (past week on eFibre)

123468

Comments

  • #252
    gramo
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭gramo


    I haven't paid my last two bills and am practically begging them to ring me to discuss cancelling my account without penalties. There ccm@eircom.ie reply's say they don't know when the issue is resolved and to contact technical support..

    Has anyone else held off on paying there bill??


  • #253
    eircom: Alan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭eircom: Alan


    tallpaul wrote: »
    Credit where credit is due, internet speeds were splendid last night. Even downloading apps from developer websites which is usually a no-no worked without a hitch.

    All I need now is consistency of service...
    That's good to hear tallpaul

    Works remain ongoing but as soon as I have a further official update I'll let you know.

    Thanks
    Al


  • #254
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    That's good to hear tallpaul

    Works remain ongoing but as soon as I have a further official update I'll let you know.

    Thanks
    Al

    Alan,

    I'll ask again, as you're ignoring it,

    Any comment on the prioritisation of certain INEX peers?


  • #255
    eircom: Alan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭eircom: Alan


    dalta5billion wrote: »
    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    That's good to hear tallpaul

    Works remain ongoing but as soon as I have a further official update I'll let you know.

    Thanks
    Al

    Alan,

    I'll ask again, as you're ignoring it,

    Any comment on the prioritisation of certain INEX peers?
    Hi dalta5billion



    Eircom does not carry out any traffic prioritisation of the type you are referring to. The INEX infrastructure has two separate LANs, and we connect to both. At peak times, the performance of a given flow may vary depending on which LAN our peer network sends the traffic down to us.

    As part of the upgrade programme referenced elsewhere on this forum, we are currently in the process of adding network capacity which will ensure all traffic, regardless of route, has the same performance. I will of course update this thread when this is done.

    Thanks
    AL


  • #256
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    Hi dalta5billion



    Eircom does not carry out any traffic prioritisation of the type you are referring to. The INEX infrastructure has two separate LANs, and we connect to both. At peak times, the performance of a given flow may vary depending on which LAN our peer network sends the traffic down to us.

    As part of the upgrade programme referenced elsewhere on this forum, we are currently in the process of adding network capacity which will ensure all traffic, regardless of route, has the same performance. I will of course update this thread when this is done.

    Thanks
    AL
    Al,

    Thanks for replying, just to translate, you're saying that at least one of Eircom's ports at INEX (connected to either LAN #1 or #2) is congested at peak times? And how long have Eircom been ignoring that for? It's disgraceful.

    Christ, a bit of transparency would go a long way. At least TELL US when Eircom's links are congested, and where. Users shouldn't be the ones to have to hold Eircom to account. It doesn't take weeks to "investigate" when Eircom clearly already know links are saturated.


  • #257
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    dalta5billion wrote: »
    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    Hi dalta5billion



    Eircom does not carry out any traffic prioritisation of the type you are referring to. The INEX infrastructure has two separate LANs, and we connect to both. At peak times, the performance of a given flow may vary depending on which LAN our peer network sends the traffic down to us.

    As part of the upgrade programme referenced elsewhere on this forum, we are currently in the process of adding network capacity which will ensure all traffic, regardless of route, has the same performance. I will of course update this thread when this is done.

    Thanks
    AL
    Al,

    Thanks for replying, just to translate, you're saying that at least one of Eircom's ports at INEX (connected to either LAN #1 or #2) is congested at peak times? And how long have Eircom been ignoring that for? It's disgraceful.

    Christ, a bit of transparency would go a long way. At least TELL US when Eircom's links are congested, and where. Users shouldn't be the ones to have to hold Eircom to account. It doesn't take weeks to "investigate" when Eircom clearly already know links are saturated.
    Hi daltabillion

    we have not ignored the issue and have made numerous posts and replies here on Boards.ie and on our own online community around this issue and work being done to improve service. As Al advised above and we have posted earlier, "we are currently in the process of adding network capacity which will ensure all traffic, regardless of route, has the same performance".

    Tony


  • #258
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    Hi daltabillion

    we have not ignored the issue and have made numerous posts and replies here on Boards.ie and on our own online community around this issue and work being done to improve service. As Al advised above and we have posted earlier, "we are currently in the process of adding network capacity which will ensure all traffic, regardless of route, has the same performance".

    Tony

    Tony,

    Look back at the history of this thread Tony. We've been reporting this for 2 months. Eircom reps claimed that there had to be an "investigation". You're really telling me it takes weeks to bring up a graph for a port?


  • #259
    dave_t
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭dave_t


    Hi Eircom reps,

    What is the expected/planned/ball park date for completion of the upgrade works?


  • #260
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Latency is still unstable to Holland France Germany etc nightly

    1zv8hzo.png

    inetnum: 86.46.0.0 - 86.47.63.255
    netname: EIRCOM
    descr: Eircom
    descr: IP network infrastructure (ADSL Pool Addresses)
    descr: Ireland
    descr: ** Send spam/hack/virus complaints to abuse@eircom.net
    descr: ** Complaints sent to the contacts listed below will not be
    descr: ** acted on!
    country: IE
    admin-c: EN369-RIPE
    tech-c: EN369-RIPE
    status: ASSIGNED PA
    mnt-by: TE-MNT
    source: RIPE # Filtered

    role: Eircom Networks
    address: Eircom
    address: Bianconi Avenue
    address: Citywest, Dublin 24
    address: Ireland


  • #261
    nickhilliard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭nickhilliard


    dalta5billion wrote: »
    Thanks for replying, just to translate, you're saying that at least one of Eircom's ports at INEX (connected to either LAN #1 or #2) is congested at peak times? And how long have Eircom been ignoring that for? It's disgraceful.

    Christ, a bit of transparency would go a long way. At least TELL US when Eircom's links are congested, and where. Users shouldn't be the ones to have to hold Eircom to account. It doesn't take weeks to "investigate" when Eircom clearly already know links are saturated.
    There's no need to bite Alan. He's being helpful.

    The reason it takes time to handle capacity issues is that you can't just look at a port graph on a whim, decide there's a problem, wave a mouse around on Elara's web site, pick up the delivery from office reception the next morning, jam it into a rack and have the problem disappear within 24 hours. Typical lead times on high end networking kit normally runs into months. Same for metro and medium-haul transmission kit. Same for dwdm transceivers in anything other than tiny quantities. All of these components are made to order.

    Design work to decide what to buy will add on a good chunk of time before that; same with procurement. Installation work to build out and configure this kit takes time after delivery - sometimes many months if it's significantly different to older / existing kit. In case there's any confusion, the term "copious free time" did not ever apply to network service provider engineering departments.

    Did I mention this kit is expensive? Budgetary planning for this needs to take place the year before so that you can request and be assigned budget for growth estimates. Realistically, planning for upgrades that might have been needed in October 2014 would need to have taken place in early autumn 2013, assuming a financial year aligned with the calendar year.

    Let's say that your new whizzbang service does better than expected and you get X% more upgrades, each of which has Y% more traffic over each of those new links, and this puts your throughput requirements far beyond your traffic projections from 15 months before, and this blows through the extra overhead capacity that you had in place as contingency. Check out the lead times above for how to resolve this.

    Capacity planning is not trivial.

    -nick


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    nickhilliard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭nickhilliard


    nuxxx wrote: »
    Latency is still unstable to Holland France Germany etc nightly
    1zv8hzo.png
    0% packet loss and < 2% jitter to the end host is "unstable"?

    -nick


  • #263
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    nickhilliard wrote: »
    nuxxx wrote: »
    Latency is still unstable to Holland France Germany etc nightly
    1zv8hzo.png
    0% packet loss and < 2% jitter to the end host is "unstable"?

    -nick
    Its 25ms during the day and unreliable, so yes its unstable. The ping fluctuates rapidly. After I posted it was 80ms for an hour. Also on your previous post this has been going on since September of last year, do you think that's acceptable?

    It being constantly 52 instead of up and down would be more enjoyable.. It ruins online gameplay


  • #264
    nickhilliard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭nickhilliard


    nuxxx wrote: »
    Its 25ms during the day and unreliable, so yes its unstable. The ping fluctuates rapidly. After I posted it was 80ms for an hour.
    I just ran some tests from a server inside transitip.net which is connected to the same router as 77.72.146.181. The response time over 15 minutes of pings to the end-host showed rtt varying between 0.3ms and 38ms. Without prejudice to anything that's happening at the end of your dsl link, this suggests at least some congestion at the remote end.

    -nick


  • #265
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    nickhilliard wrote: »
    nuxxx wrote: »
    Its 25ms during the day and unreliable, so yes its unstable. The ping fluctuates rapidly. After I posted it was 80ms for an hour.
    I just ran some tests from a server inside transitip.net which is connected to the same router as 77.72.146.181. The response time over 15 minutes of pings to the end-host showed rtt varying between 0.3ms and 38ms. Without prejudice to anything that's happening at the end of your dsl link, this suggests at least some congestion at the remote end.

    -nick
    It's not congestion at the remote end, if you want clarification i`ll post more graphical traces


  • #266
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    nickhilliard wrote: »
    There's no need to bite Alan. He's being helpful.

    The reason it takes time to handle capacity issues is that you can't just look at a port graph on a whim, decide there's a problem, wave a mouse around on Elara's web site, pick up the delivery from office reception the next morning, jam it into a rack and have the problem disappear within 24 hours. Typical lead times on high end networking kit normally runs into months. Same for metro and medium-haul transmission kit. Same for dwdm transceivers in anything other than tiny quantities. All of these components are made to order.

    Design work to decide what to buy will add on a good chunk of time before that; same with procurement. Installation work to build out and configure this kit takes time after delivery - sometimes many months if it's significantly different to older / existing kit. In case there's any confusion, the term "copious free time" did not ever apply to network service provider engineering departments.

    Did I mention this kit is expensive? Budgetary planning for this needs to take place the year before so that you can request and be assigned budget for growth estimates. Realistically, planning for upgrades that might have been needed in October 2014 would need to have taken place in early autumn 2013, assuming a financial year aligned with the calendar year.

    Let's say that your new whizzbang service does better than expected and you get X% more upgrades, each of which has Y% more traffic over each of those new links, and this puts your throughput requirements far beyond your traffic projections from 15 months before, and this blows through the extra overhead capacity that you had in place as contingency. Check out the lead times above for how to resolve this.

    Capacity planning is not trivial.

    -nick

    Nick,

    My reference to "how long does it take to pull up a graph" refers to Eircom's transparency during this period. Eircom's reaction when we began complaining about 64 KB/s downloads over the Level3 link was "what congestion? plz send us traceroutes". That's disrespectful to customers when clearly they knew *exactly* what was happening. Also, for speeds to get as low as they did, I can only assume that it was maxed out for months prior to us noticing it.

    As for capacity planning, who exactly would be surprised at a 100% uptake in eFibre when you're giving out free upgrades of up to 20x improved download speed? Eh no thanks I love my 2 megabit ADSL, wouldn't leave it for the world.


  • #267
    nickhilliard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭nickhilliard


    dalta5billion wrote: »
    As for capacity planning, who exactly would be surprised at a 100% uptake in eFibre when you're giving out free upgrades of up to 20x improved download speed? Eh no thanks I love my 2 megabit ADSL, wouldn't leave it for the world.
    With hindsight, anyone can talk authoritatively. Take a look at some of the network maps on the Eircom Wholesale web site. It's not just a matter of ordering another X gigs of capacity off a single transit provider in Dublin. That's easy and can be delivered quickly. The thing that takes time is building out additional national infrastructure to deliver that bandwidth to peoples' homes around the country.

    It's the same issue as adding more lanes on the M50. Unless you also upgrade all the intersections and the access roads quite some distance away, you'll only end up making a larger car park.

    -nick


  • #268
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    nickhilliard wrote: »
    dalta5billion wrote: »
    As for capacity planning, who exactly would be surprised at a 100% uptake in eFibre when you're giving out free upgrades of up to 20x improved download speed? Eh no thanks I love my 2 megabit ADSL, wouldn't leave it for the world.
    With hindsight, anyone can talk authoritatively. Take a look at some of the network maps on the Eircom Wholesale web site. It's not just a matter of ordering another X gigs of capacity off a single transit provider in Dublin. That's easy and can be delivered quickly. The thing that takes time is building out additional national infrastructure to deliver that bandwidth to peoples' homes around the country.

    It's the same issue as adding more lanes on the M50. Unless you also upgrade all the intersections and the access roads quite some distance away, you'll only end up making a larger car park.

    -nick
    Nick,

    Eircom's core "NGN" doesn't appeared to be congested. It's Eircom's interconnects that are congested! Hence the upgrades from 10 Gbps to 20 at AMS-IX. (we're still waiting on more Tier 1 capacity). I somehow doubt Level3 has run out of capacity.

    Regardless, Eircom should be properly informing its customers of what the hell is going on. A simple "hey, X Y and Z interconnects are congested affecting popular sites a.com b.com, we're working on it" would suffice, instead of weeks of playing dumb.


  • #269
    nickhilliard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭nickhilliard


    nuxxx wrote: »
    It's not congestion at the remote end, if you want clarification i`ll post more graphical traces
    rather than looking at a set of individual disparate traceroutes, I collected several hours worth of RTT data this evening from several locations around amsterdam with direct core connectivity into ams-ix. The data was gathered by running continuous pings at 1 second intervals from some hosts in amsterdam to www.eircom.net and to 77.72.146.181. The data path in all situations was checked to ensure it was symmetric; i.e. the outbound path was the same as the reverse path, namely directly over ams-ix.

    A couple of observations:

    - Packet loss between end hosts in all cases was 0%.

    - rtt from luna.nl to eircom's core infrastructure between 20:30 and 23:30 was solid. The average latency was 16.5ms, with a standard deviation of 2.2ms. The minimum measured rtt was 16.4ms, which over the sample period, can be assumed to be the transmission latency, i.e. the optimum.

    - For transip.net, the measured minimum rtt was 16.4ms, which shows that this network has an almost identical optical network path length to Eircom as Luna above. The host 77.72.146.181 was connected to the same router as the server which was used for measurements.

    - for local connectivity within transip.net measured between 17:00 and 19:00, there was high jitter. E.g. the worst case jitter was measured between 18:35 and 18:50 showed a standard deviation of 9.71ms with an arithmetic mean latency of 1.73ms (that is seriously not good for local connectivity).

    - for off-net connectivity from transip.net to Eircom, there was similarly high jitter with significant variation in rtt, depending on the time. Overall, the mean rtt to eircom over two hours was 20.77ms with a stddev of 6.44. As before, the worst case rtt was measured between 18:35 and 18:50, which showed mean latency of 30.59ms with a stddev of 8.67ms.

    - the rtt jitter (i.e. stddev) on transip.net matched time-wise for pings to eircom and pings to 77.72.146.181.

    Interpreting this data for the sample period:

    - the luna.nl data shows clearly that there is no congestion between ams-ix connected hosts through to eircom's core infrastructure.

    - there is internal congestion in transip.net.

    - either transip.net is congested to ams-ix or else the router that 77.72.146.181 is connected to is buffering packets due to router overloading if their router is a software-forwarded unit. It looks like a combination of both to me, and the numbers do not paint a rosy picture.

    So yeah. There is enough congestion at the remote end to account for your numbers, but the path between ams-ix and eircom's core network is fine.

    -nick


  • #270
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    I'm downloading at full speed from a host which appears to go through a Eircom-Level3 peering tonight. Touch wood.

    Downloading from HEAnet and anything hosted by Blacknight is still a pain however.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    sfag31
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 204 ✭✭sfag31


    This is happening in my house too.
    [font=Arial, sans-serif, tinymce-small]I get buffering on iplayers, and using the xbox, even though I have 35mb download speeds?[/font]
    [font=Arial, sans-serif, tinymce-small]Xbox gameplay is affected when I simultaneously watch videos elsewhere in the house.[/font]
    [font=Arial, sans-serif, tinymce-small]Streaming HD video (on youtube) content also is prone to buffering.[/font]
    [font=Arial, sans-serif, tinymce-small]Surely the point of fibre optic broadband is to stop buffering. [/font]


  • #272
    dave_t
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭dave_t


    dave_t wrote: »
    Hi Eircom reps,

    What is the expected/planned/ball park date for completion of the upgrade works?
    ?


  • #273
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Latency is still unstable everynight, its been what 5 weeks now since Eircom announced they'd be fixing stuff, and over 3 months of poor service. Really unfair lads but not surprising


  • #274
    major deegan
    Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭major deegan


    Can i ask one of the guys posting here as it is pointless asking the Eircom reps!!
    I tried downloading a movie from sky on demand earlier today (2pm) ... Now at 7pm it's only at 27%... Is that an issue with my fibre broadband or is it to do with sky?


  • #275
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    major deegan wrote: »
    Can i ask one of the guys posting here as it is pointless asking the Eircom reps!!
    I tried downloading a movie from sky on demand earlier today (2pm) ... Now at 7pm it's only at 27%... Is that an issue with my fibre broadband or is it to do with sky?

    Depends on which route it comes by. If Sky's streaming servers are routed via INEX, LINX or AMS-IX, you'll get decent speeds (Eircom's links to these exchanges are just about OK). If they are routed via the Level3 link (a.k.a the "rest of the internet" link, you'll get heavily reduced speeds at peak times, as this link remains heavily congested.


  • #276
    major deegan
    Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭major deegan


    dalta5billion wrote: »
    Depends on which route it comes by. If Sky's streaming servers are routed via INEX, LINX or AMS-IX, you'll get decent speeds (Eircom's links to these exchanges are just about OK). If they are routed via the Level3 link (a.k.a the "rest of the internet" link, you'll get heavily reduced speeds at peak times, as this link remains heavily congested.

    Thanks,I'll call them so!


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    _dof_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 449 ✭✭_dof_


    but 2pm shouldn't be a congested time so maybe there is a problem with Sky in this case.
    The poor performance normally only happens in the evening times


  • #278
    major deegan
    Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭major deegan


    _dof_ wrote: »
    but 2pm shouldn't be a congested time so maybe there is a problem with Sky in this case.
    The poor performance normally only happens in the evening times

    Yeah,thought it should be ok at that time of day(31% now). Even with congestion should it take that long?


  • #279
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    major deegan wrote: »
    Yeah,thought it should be ok at that time of day(31% now). Even with congestion should it take that long?

    Probably not, the Eircom-Level3 link might not be the only bottleneck, there could be a bottleneck somewhere else along the way, outside of Eircom's control).

    I'm able to stream video over the Eircom-Level3 link (barely), so it does seem odd alright.


  • #280
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    dave_t wrote: »
    Hi Eircom reps,

    What is the expected/planned/ball park date for completion of the upgrade works?

    Hi dave_t
     the proposed works we mentioned in earlier posts has now been completed with work to Frankfurt link finished this morning. Work to INEX in Dublin was completed earlier in week.
    I honestly cannot give a completion date as demand is constantly growing and will continue to grow, so work will probably be on-going to meet these demands.
    We will post what information we can here when it is available.
    Hope this answers at least most of your query.
    Tony


  • #281
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,518 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    dalta5billion wrote: »
    Depends on which route it comes by. If Sky's streaming servers are routed via INEX, LINX or AMS-IX, you'll get decent speeds (Eircom's links to these exchanges are just about OK). If they are routed via the Level3 link (a.k.a the "rest of the internet" link, you'll get heavily reduced speeds at peak times, as this link remains heavily congested.
    Sky's content is delivered by both Akamai and Level3. In the case of the Eircom to Level3 link, it's not congested.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    The latency to Germany has been fine for a few weeks now. Its ironic because before Germany had terrible routing and France NL etc were fine, now Germany is fine and the other countries have bad latency during peak hours

    Maybe Eircom will eventually provide stability to every route


  • #283
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,429 ✭✭✭testicle


    I'm not sure if nickhilliard has posted it before, because I've only read the last few days of posts, but he does work for INEX


  • #284
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    2n08w8j.png

    :(


  • #285
    rex-x
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,893 ✭✭✭rex-x


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    dave_t wrote: »
    Hi Eircom reps,

    What is the expected/planned/ball park date for completion of the upgrade works?

    Hi dave_t
     the proposed works we mentioned in earlier posts has now been completed with work to Frankfurt link finished this morning. Work to INEX in Dublin was completed earlier in week.
    I honestly cannot give a completion date as demand is constantly growing and will continue to grow, so work will probably be on-going to meet these demands.
    We will post what information we can here when it is available.
    Hope this answers at least most of your query.
    Tony
    This worries me as you are saying the planned works are completed but the problem is certainly not fixed! It almost seems like eircom are trying to get away with the minimum possible capacity possible and tag on small amounts as people notice but never really beef up the connections :/


  • #286
    doctorg
    Registered Users Posts: 555 ✭✭✭doctorg


    The problem seems to be not just the capacity but also the cabinets themselves. 

    Eircom have sold eFiber to people those whom are just under 1km from the cabinet, what this means is that during peak hours all the peers closer to the cabinet will use up the bandwidth.

    The fix for this is that eircom needs to update their cabinets so they can push speeds beyond the current end limit of 1km. eFiber loses about 10mb every 100 meters. I was told all of this by an eircom engineeer. 


  • #287
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    doctorg wrote: »
    The problem seems to be not just the capacity but also the cabinets themselves. 

    Eircom have sold eFiber to people those whom are just under 1km from the cabinet, what this means is that during peak hours all the peers closer to the cabinet will use up the bandwidth.

    The fix for this is that eircom needs to update their cabinets so they can push speeds beyond the current end limit of 1km. eFiber loses about 10mb every 100 meters. I was told all of this by an eircom engineeer. 
    Was this an engineer or an access network technician? The limit has been 2km (for most cabs) for quite a while. eircom have been rolling out vectoring sinch March
    http://www.eircomwholesale.ie/news/eircom_commences_Vectoring_roll_out,_boosts_fibre_broadband_speeds_to_100Mbs/


  • #288
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    Sky Go and even Netflix have been completely unusable over the last few hours. The speedtest says 26mb yet cannot even stream Netflix videos at low quality.


  • #289
    eircom: Alan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭eircom: Alan


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    Sky Go and even Netflix have been completely unusable over the last few hours. The speedtest says 26mb yet cannot even stream Netflix videos at low quality.

    [font=Times New Roman","serif]Very sorry to hear this Richard Hillman

    If this issues persists please contact eircoms technical support team on 1890260260 or via webchat here [/font]     www.eircom.ie/chatnow

    Thanks
    Al


  • #290
    rex-x
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,893 ✭✭✭rex-x


    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    [font=Times New Roman","serif]Very sorry to hear this Richard Hillman

    If this issues persists please contact eircoms technical support team on 1890260260 or via webchat here [/font]     www.eircom.ie/chatnow

    Thanks
    Al
    Any comment on the fact the long awaited works completion seems to have done almost nothing to improve the connection?


  • #291
    gramo
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭gramo


    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    [font=Times New Roman","serif]Very sorry to hear this Richard Hillman

    If this issues persists please contact eircoms technical support team on 1890260260 or via webchat here [/font]     www.eircom.ie/chatnow

    Thanks
    Al

    You know as well as we do Alan that your tech team can not do anything regarding this problem! Why is contact our support team the only answer you's have?

    I personally have now got comreg involved in my particular case because eircom will not release me from contract.
    Comreg are now investigating my issue.

    It's a shambles the level of service and customer care eircom are offering there customers.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    eircom: Alan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭eircom: Alan


    gramo wrote: »
    eircom: Alan wrote: »
    Very sorry to hear this Richard Hillman

    If this issues persists please contact eircoms technical support team on 1890260260 or via webchat here      www.eircom.ie/chatnow

    Thanks
    Al

    You know as well as we do Alan that your tech team can not do anything regarding this problem! Why is contact our support team the only answer you's have?

    I personally have now got comreg involved in my particular case because eircom will not release me from contract.
    Comreg are now investigating my issue.

    It's a shambles the level of service and customer care eircom are offering there customers.
    Hi gramo

    There has been a lot of feedback advising that the issues have improved, obviously this will not be the case for everyone but improvements have been made and works to continue improvements to the network are set to continue.

    While symtoms may look very similar it is important to make sure there are no other contributing factors and technical support will be able to check this.


    Thanks
    Al


  • #293
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    You can sleep well at night knowing improvements to the network are SET TO CONTINUE. Thank god! Over a year of terrible service but at least we know things are set to continue. There has been literally 2 months over the entire year during the summer where your service has performed like a normal broadband connection, pure spoofers


  • #294
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Server list in quakelike, the one server that does have good ping has massive jitter and is unplayable in game

    2ns9kd2.jpg

    Same crap in every game I play

    Great job fixing stuff lads

    Of course the ping to Eircom.net is fine, so the connection must be grand


    Pinging eircom.net [86.43.38.8] with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 86.43.38.8: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=58
    Reply from 86.43.38.8: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=58
    Reply from 86.43.38.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=58
    Reply from 86.43.38.8: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=58

    Ping statistics for 86.43.38.8:
        Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
        Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms

    Lightning speeds off heanet aswell

    v3135k.png


  • #295
    nickhilliard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭nickhilliard


    nuxxx wrote: »
    Lightning speeds off heanet aswell

    v3135k.png
    179kbyte/sec is about 1.5mbit/s throughput, which looks terrible for a VDSL link and corroborates that you're seeing performance problems.

    You should log into your modem to see what downstream speed it's syncing at.  If it's syncing at around 1.5Mbps downstream speeds, the problem is with cabling on the line side;  if it's syncing at much higher rates, then you have a traffic congestion problem.

    If it's congestion, it's easy enough to test whether this is a problem at your end or at eircom's.  You can do this by testing your link when it's quiet.  To do this, you should:
    • completely disable wifi on your VDSL modem
    • connect your computer to your modem using a UTP cable
    • disconnect all other computers from the modem
    • boot up your computer into e.g. ubuntu rescue CD or some guaranteed virus-free clean installation operating system

    If this gives faster download results than your normal configuration, then it's a problem on your side.  If you're still seeing the same results, then you should contact eircom support.

    Note that if you leave anything else at all connected to your internet link while running these (or other) performance tests, or if you run your performance tests over wifi, your results will be skewed and your test results will be meaningless.  Booting your computer into a known clean operating system will avoid problems due to background processes chewing up bandwidth.

    Nick


  • #296
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    Just to update, overall the situation has hugely improved, can't fault it. *knocks on wood*


  • #297
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Pings to the netherlands, france are 60/70ms whereas before they were 25ms. Not happy from a gaming point of view


  • #298
    dalta5billion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭dalta5billion


    nuxxx wrote: »
    Pings to the netherlands, france are 60/70ms whereas before they were 25ms. Not happy from a gaming point of view
    ping ams-ix.net
PING ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=22.3 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=22.0 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=21.8 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=21.9 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=22.1 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=21.8 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=23.3 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=21.9 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=22.5 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=10 ttl=57 time=21.8 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=11 ttl=57 time=22.1 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=12 ttl=57 time=25.6 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=13 ttl=57 time=22.4 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=14 ttl=57 time=22.0 ms
64 bytes from ha.ams-ix.net (91.200.16.50): icmp_seq=15 ttl=57 time=22.0 ms
^C
--- ams-ix.net ping statistics ---
15 packets transmitted, 15 received, 0% packet loss, time 14021ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 21.845/22.421/25.667/0.945 ms


  • #299
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Mine are alot higher

    Pinging ams-ix.net [91.200.16.50] with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 91.200.16.50: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=58
    Reply from 91.200.16.50: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=58
    Reply from 91.200.16.50: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=58
    Reply from 91.200.16.50: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=58

    I wonder why?

    34du1.png


  • #300
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    nuxxx wrote: »
    Pings to the netherlands, france are 60/70ms whereas before they were 25ms. Not happy from a gaming point of view
    Thanks nuxxx
    I have sent this on, we should be seeing better speeds there.
    Tony


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Nets been dropping all night, I'm so pissed off right now. Everytime in game it drops after a few mins and routing is still messed up everywhere. 


Advertisement