8 ms·

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=

by veidr 9y ago

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)]$

gizmodo59 9y ago
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?
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  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.
- r1ch 9y ago
  If you're using a cable or DSL modem, most of that latency is from the signal modulation between you and your ISP.
technion 9y ago
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
- systoll 9y ago
  I'm getting ~60 and ~50 from Canberra.
- zurkotalto 9y ago
  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
- NamTaf 9y ago
  I'm getting ~40-50ms on both on Internode from Brisbane.
  - halbritt 9y ago
    Australia, LOL. You guys are 100ms from anywhere cool.
  - lugg 9y ago
    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.

by veidr 9y ago

gizmodo59 9y ago

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?

zzzcpan 9y ago
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.
r1ch 9y ago
If you're using a cable or DSL modem, most of that latency is from the signal modulation between you and your ISP.

technion 9y ago

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

systoll 9y ago
I'm getting ~60 and ~50 from Canberra.
zurkotalto 9y ago
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
NamTaf 9y ago
I'm getting ~40-50ms on both on Internode from Brisbane.
- halbritt 9y ago
  Australia, LOL. You guys are 100ms from anywhere cool.
- lugg 9y ago
  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.