Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 17

Thread: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

  1. #1
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    275 times in 169 posts

    Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Hyperoptic advertise that their connection is good for gaming: https://www.hyperoptic.com/broadband/gaming/
    Obviously it's impossible to play games if you get up to 60% packet loss:
    ./pings/ping20230921162101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 77 received, 61.5% packet loss, time 101471ms

    It's been almost a month of ridiculous back and forth with support. What can I do from here? Do I just have to accept that I have to use a VPN, or switch back to VDSL?

    Me - 28 Aug 2023
    I am experiencing packet loss while gaming. I have been monitoring pings by running the following ping command every 10 minutes.
    ping -n -c 200 -i 0.5 155.133.248.40
    The packet loss seems to be much less or zero during midnight 00:00 and 08:00 AM.
    The IP address I have been testing is a Valve EU West IP: 155.133.248.40
    When using a VPN, I do not experience packet loss, which would suggest that this is a routing issue.
    Someone else has reported the same issue on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/hyperoptic/...o_packet_loss/

    Hyperoptic - 3 Sept 2023
    Thank you for contacting Hyperoptic. I am sorry to see that you have been experiencing issues with the connection.

    Could you advise how far away your devices are from the router on average? Where is the router located? Do you mainly experience these issues over Wi-Fi? Alternatively, do these issues manifest mainly on a wired connection?

    Me - 3 Sept 2023
    I have been monitoring packet loss on a device connected over wired ethernet located 1 metre from the router. I have also been getting the same packet loss in game from a PC connected over wired ethernet 5 metres from the router. Speed tests show the full 1Gb is working.

    Hyperoptic - 15 Sept 2023
    Regarding the packet loss that you report with Valve games. The servers that you use may cause this, as well as VPN.
    Would it be okay for me to change the DNS in the router and disable the IPv6? That would require a router restart as well, so if you are okay with it, please let me know the best time to do this in order to avoid interrupting your connection with bad timing.

    Me - 15 Sept 2023
    I'd like to understand why you're saying using a VPN can be the cause of packet loss - when I specifically said that using a VPN fixes the packet loss problem. As for disabling IPv6, I don't understand the logic there either, because I can replicate packet loss outside the game by pinging an IPv4 address. I also don't understand the logic of changing DNS, because I'm pinging an IPv4 address, not resolving an IP from a domain name.

    Hyperoptic - 20 Sept 2023
    I can assure you that there are no faults with the physical connection after running several in-depth diagnostic tests.

    In order to investigate this further could I please ask you to test the connection under the following conditions:

    1. Please connect your device directly to the socket on the wall eliminating the router from the connection, and then test the connection on Microsoft Edge, Safari, or Mozilla Firefox at http://speed.hyperoptic.com.

    2. During the speed test, monitor the CPU usage by using the Activity Monitor if you're on a MAC or the Task Manager if you're on a PC. If the CPU usage results appear high (above 80%) during the speed test, this could indicate that the device being used does not have enough power to process the full speeds available. Take a screenshot of the results during the speed test. Please see the attached guide on accessing Activity Monitor and Task Manager.

    3. Additionally, make sure that all other browsers are closed and tabs as well and that any background processes such as various applications, streaming services, or downloads are closed before performing the test.

    Generally speaking, in order to get the most out of our Hyperoptic connection and achieve the highest speeds, we would always recommend using a wired connection. To use a wired connection, simply connect your device (i.e. laptop or computer) to either your router or Hyperoptic socket using an ethernet cable.

    Please let me know of the results, both the speed test and the CPU usage so that we may interpret them further.

    Me - 20 Sept 2023
    I connected directly to the wall socket, as requested, bypassing the router. I have attached a screenshot showing that the speed and ping to your speed test is fine. The packet loss problem to the IP address 155.133.248.40 remains. The ping and packet loss problem is shown in the screenshot.

    If this doesn't prove that this isn't an issue on my side, I don't know what does. It should have been very obvious from the first email. Please can you ask NOC or the relevant department to investigate?

    Hyperoptic - 25 Sept 2023
    The results you sent show that we there is no issue with your connection in general and the tests we ran also show nothing to worry about.

    There is no loss on our end, and the issue might be with the servers you go to for gaming.

    We can add a free Static IP trial for a week to see if that helps with your gaming.

    Let me know if you want to test it out.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Jonj1611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,743
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked
    1,016 times in 778 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Not going to lie, can't you get Virgin? I have never had any major issues with them and can't remember the last time it went down.

    After reading above I would be looking for somewhere else
    Jon

  3. #3
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    275 times in 169 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    No Virgin here. Choices are VDSL or Hyperoptic. Openreach have no plans for fibre.

  4. #4
    Senior Member AGTDenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bracknell
    Posts
    2,732
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked
    849 times in 555 posts
    • AGTDenton's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI MEG X570S ACE MAX
      • CPU:
      • AMD 5950x
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair something or the other
      • Storage:
      • 1x 512GB nvme, 1x 2TB nvme, 2x 8TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS 3080 Ti TuF
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM850x
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Torrent White
      • Operating System:
      • 11 Pro x64
      • Internet:
      • Fibre

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Does seem like throttling.

    Has it happened since day one or in more recent times?

    I have just had my black box replaced (possibly white in your case) due to it recently dropping my connection randomly, becoming unstable and eventually the whole thing died.
    This happened over a short two week period.

    Because they're claiming no packet loss I'm wondering if that should be replaced.

  5. #5
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    275 times in 169 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    To me, it looks like they've got a route that's congested most of the time. Sorry for the wall of logs:

    ./pings/ping20230924060101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99735ms
    ./pings/ping20230924061101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99742ms
    ./pings/ping20230924062102.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99736ms
    ./pings/ping20230924063101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 199 received, 0.5% packet loss, time 99756ms
    ./pings/ping20230924064101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99736ms
    ./pings/ping20230924065101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99738ms
    ./pings/ping20230924070101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99737ms
    ./pings/ping20230924071101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99729ms
    ./pings/ping20230924072101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99733ms
    ./pings/ping20230924073101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99725ms
    ./pings/ping20230924074101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99733ms
    ./pings/ping20230924075101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99726ms
    ./pings/ping20230924080101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 199 received, 0.5% packet loss, time 99756ms
    ./pings/ping20230924081101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99724ms
    ./pings/ping20230924082101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 197 received, 1.5% packet loss, time 99772ms
    ./pings/ping20230924083101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 190 received, 5% packet loss, time 99856ms
    ./pings/ping20230924084101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 188 received, 6% packet loss, time 99877ms
    ./pings/ping20230924085101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99727ms
    ./pings/ping20230924090101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99727ms
    ./pings/ping20230924091101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99733ms
    ./pings/ping20230924092101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 196 received, 2% packet loss, time 99793ms
    ./pings/ping20230924093101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 173 received, 13.5% packet loss, time 100169ms
    ./pings/ping20230924094101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 161 received, 19.5% packet loss, time 100244ms
    ./pings/ping20230924095101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 178 received, 11% packet loss, time 100021ms
    ./pings/ping20230924100101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 178 received, 11% packet loss, time 99935ms
    ./pings/ping20230924101101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 147 received, 26.5% packet loss, time 100354ms
    ./pings/ping20230924102101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 148 received, 26% packet loss, time 100396ms
    ./pings/ping20230924103101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 160 received, 20% packet loss, time 100255ms
    ./pings/ping20230924104102.txt:200 packets transmitted, 181 received, 9.5% packet loss, time 100034ms
    ./pings/ping20230924105101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 167 received, 16.5% packet loss, time 100169ms
    ./pings/ping20230924110101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 188 received, 6% packet loss, time 99831ms
    ./pings/ping20230924111101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 170 received, 15% packet loss, time 100159ms
    ./pings/ping20230924112101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 186 received, 7% packet loss, time 99856ms
    ./pings/ping20230924113101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 163 received, 18.5% packet loss, time 100190ms
    ./pings/ping20230924114101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 187 received, 6.5% packet loss, time 99814ms
    ./pings/ping20230924115101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 175 received, 12.5% packet loss, time 100145ms
    ./pings/ping20230924120101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 164 received, 18% packet loss, time 100105ms
    ./pings/ping20230924121101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 189 received, 5.5% packet loss, time 99882ms
    ./pings/ping20230924122101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 175 received, 12.5% packet loss, time 100075ms
    ./pings/ping20230924123101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 174 received, 13% packet loss, time 100070ms
    ./pings/ping20230924124101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 160 received, 20% packet loss, time 100235ms
    ./pings/ping20230924125101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 168 received, 16% packet loss, time 100152ms
    ./pings/ping20230924130101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 167 received, 16.5% packet loss, time 100171ms
    ./pings/ping20230924131101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 140 received, 30% packet loss, time 100467ms
    ./pings/ping20230924132101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 175 received, 12.5% packet loss, time 100090ms
    ./pings/ping20230924133102.txt:200 packets transmitted, 182 received, 9% packet loss, time 99973ms
    ./pings/ping20230924134101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 183 received, 8.5% packet loss, time 99958ms
    ./pings/ping20230924135101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 154 received, 23% packet loss, time 100333ms
    ./pings/ping20230924140101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 182 received, 9% packet loss, time 99985ms
    ./pings/ping20230924141101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 166 received, 17% packet loss, time 100038ms
    ./pings/ping20230924142101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 172 received, 14% packet loss, time 100029ms
    ./pings/ping20230924143101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 124 received, 38% packet loss, time 100643ms
    ./pings/ping20230924144101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 158 received, 21% packet loss, time 100278ms
    ./pings/ping20230924145101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 160 received, 20% packet loss, time 100159ms
    ./pings/ping20230924150101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 142 received, 29% packet loss, time 100425ms
    ./pings/ping20230924151101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 163 received, 18.5% packet loss, time 100220ms
    ./pings/ping20230924152101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 169 received, 15.5% packet loss, time 100033ms
    ./pings/ping20230924153101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 125 received, 37.5% packet loss, time 100688ms
    ./pings/ping20230924154101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 138 received, 31% packet loss, time 100540ms
    ./pings/ping20230924155101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 148 received, 26% packet loss, time 100339ms
    ./pings/ping20230924160101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 111 received, 44.5% packet loss, time 100997ms
    ./pings/ping20230924161101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 133 received, 33.5% packet loss, time 100587ms
    ./pings/ping20230924162101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 181 received, 9.5% packet loss, time 99997ms
    ./pings/ping20230924163101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 154 received, 23% packet loss, time 100311ms
    ./pings/ping20230924164101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 155 received, 22.5% packet loss, time 100206ms
    ./pings/ping20230924165101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 148 received, 26% packet loss, time 100322ms
    ./pings/ping20230924170101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 148 received, 26% packet loss, time 100333ms
    ./pings/ping20230924171101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 159 received, 20.5% packet loss, time 100177ms
    ./pings/ping20230924172101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 136 received, 32% packet loss, time 100432ms
    ./pings/ping20230924173101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 127 received, 36.5% packet loss, time 100607ms
    ./pings/ping20230924174101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 105 received, 47.5% packet loss, time 100957ms
    ./pings/ping20230924175101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 125 received, 37.5% packet loss, time 100645ms
    ./pings/ping20230924180101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 178 received, 11% packet loss, time 100018ms
    ./pings/ping20230924181101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 121 received, 39.5% packet loss, time 100687ms
    ./pings/ping20230924182101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 182 received, 9% packet loss, time 99945ms
    ./pings/ping20230924183101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 154 received, 23% packet loss, time 100332ms
    ./pings/ping20230924184101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 139 received, 30.5% packet loss, time 100438ms
    ./pings/ping20230924185101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 193 received, 3.5% packet loss, time 99814ms
    ./pings/ping20230924190101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 175 received, 12.5% packet loss, time 100007ms
    ./pings/ping20230924191101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 150 received, 25% packet loss, time 100342ms
    ./pings/ping20230924192101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 162 received, 19% packet loss, time 100235ms
    ./pings/ping20230924193101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 178 received, 11% packet loss, time 100067ms
    ./pings/ping20230924194101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 156 received, 22% packet loss, time 100174ms
    ./pings/ping20230924195101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 174 received, 13% packet loss, time 100070ms
    ./pings/ping20230924200101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 178 received, 11% packet loss, time 100064ms
    ./pings/ping20230924201101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 159 received, 20.5% packet loss, time 100172ms
    ./pings/ping20230924202101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 180 received, 10% packet loss, time 100012ms
    ./pings/ping20230924203101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 171 received, 14.5% packet loss, time 100118ms
    ./pings/ping20230924204101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 160 received, 20% packet loss, time 100207ms
    ./pings/ping20230924205101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 192 received, 4% packet loss, time 99820ms
    ./pings/ping20230924210101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 149 received, 25.5% packet loss, time 100388ms
    ./pings/ping20230924211101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 181 received, 9.5% packet loss, time 99976ms
    ./pings/ping20230924212101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 189 received, 5.5% packet loss, time 99916ms
    ./pings/ping20230924213101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 180 received, 10% packet loss, time 99990ms
    ./pings/ping20230924214101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 174 received, 13% packet loss, time 100061ms
    ./pings/ping20230924215101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 177 received, 11.5% packet loss, time 99971ms
    ./pings/ping20230924220101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 183 received, 8.5% packet loss, time 99933ms
    ./pings/ping20230924221101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 193 received, 3.5% packet loss, time 99818ms
    ./pings/ping20230924222101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 182 received, 9% packet loss, time 99960ms
    ./pings/ping20230924223101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 181 received, 9.5% packet loss, time 99872ms
    ./pings/ping20230924224101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 180 received, 10% packet loss, time 99952ms
    ./pings/ping20230924225101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 198 received, 1% packet loss, time 99746ms
    ./pings/ping20230924230101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 198 received, 1% packet loss, time 99743ms
    ./pings/ping20230924231101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 198 received, 1% packet loss, time 99735ms
    ./pings/ping20230924232101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99721ms
    ./pings/ping20230924233101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99729ms
    ./pings/ping20230924234101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99725ms
    ./pings/ping20230924235101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 194 received, 3% packet loss, time 99820ms
    ./pings/ping20230925000101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99715ms
    ./pings/ping20230925001101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 199 received, 0.5% packet loss, time 99732ms
    ./pings/ping20230925002101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99733ms
    ./pings/ping20230925003101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99730ms
    ./pings/ping20230925004101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99723ms
    ./pings/ping20230925005101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99729ms
    ./pings/ping20230925010101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 199 received, 0.5% packet loss, time 99756ms
    ./pings/ping20230925011101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99728ms
    ./pings/ping20230925012101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99722ms
    ./pings/ping20230925013101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99730ms
    ./pings/ping20230925014101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99732ms
    ./pings/ping20230925015101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99734ms
    ./pings/ping20230925020101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99738ms
    ./pings/ping20230925021101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99731ms
    ./pings/ping20230925022101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99735ms
    ./pings/ping20230925023101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99736ms
    ./pings/ping20230925024101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99738ms
    ./pings/ping20230925025101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99733ms
    ./pings/ping20230925030101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99725ms
    ./pings/ping20230925031101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99728ms
    ./pings/ping20230925032101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99739ms
    ./pings/ping20230925033101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99725ms
    ./pings/ping20230925034101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99740ms
    ./pings/ping20230925035101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99744ms
    ./pings/ping20230925040101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99735ms
    ./pings/ping20230925041101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99739ms
    ./pings/ping20230925042101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99735ms
    ./pings/ping20230925043101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99732ms
    ./pings/ping20230925044101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99738ms
    ./pings/ping20230925045102.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99735ms
    ./pings/ping20230925050101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99739ms
    ./pings/ping20230925051101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99738ms
    ./pings/ping20230925052101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99728ms
    ./pings/ping20230925053101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99744ms
    ./pings/ping20230925054101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99739ms
    ./pings/ping20230925055101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 99723ms
    ./pings/ping20230925060101.txt:200 packets transmitted, 199 received, 0.5% packet loss, time 99746ms

  6. #6
    Evil Monkey! MrJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks
    310
    Thanked
    476 times in 366 posts
    • MrJim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Tomahawk X570
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32gb Kingston 3600 DDR4
      • Storage:
      • Aorus 1Tb NVME SSD, Samsung 1Tb 970 Evo SSD, Crucial 2tb MX500 SSD, Seagate Ironwolf 4Tb SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 3080Ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum 1300W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Meshify 2
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 11 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic 27" XG2703-GS
      • Internet:
      • BT 900 mb/s FTTP

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonj1611 View Post
    Not going to lie, can't you get Virgin? I have never had any major issues with them and can't remember the last time it went down.

    After reading above I would be looking for somewhere else
    Getting out of a broadband contract might not be all that straight forward, unfortunately. You do have the usual 14 day 'cooling off period' if you change your mind, but otherwise you might have to 'buy your way out' of a contract. Of course Hyperoptic have a duty to provide a decent quality of service, which by the sound of it, they're not. Jontron would probably need to go through Hyperoptic's formal complaints process, & if they still can't resolve the issue, there's always the option to complain to Ofcom:

    https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-tele...andline-faults

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Jonj1611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,743
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked
    1,016 times in 778 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Bit academic as Virgin aren't in their area unfortunately so looks like options are limited anyway. Bit of shame, sometimes I am thankful for choice
    Jon

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where you are not
    Posts
    1,330
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked
    103 times in 90 posts
    • Iota's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus Hero XI
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i9 9900KF
      • Memory:
      • CMD32GX4M2C3200C16
      • Storage:
      • 1 x 1TB / 3 x 2TB Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia RTX 3090 Founders Edition
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX1200i
      • Case:
      • Corsair Obsidian 500D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung Odyssey G9
      • Internet:
      • 500Mbps BT FTTH

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonj1611 View Post
    After reading above I would be looking for somewhere else
    Sounds like a tone deaf response from their "support". To me it looks like a routing issue, which isn't a client side issue, and something only an ISP can resolve. They don't seem willing to look at that part from what I'm reading, which is pretty abysmal.

  9. #9
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,990
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,591 times in 1,346 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Have you tried a:

    traceroute 155.133.248.40

    to see if you can see the path your packets are taking within their network. Apparently I'm 10 hops away from that Valve server here at the office (no packet loss) where the last two hops are set to discard icmp requests but I can see the path through the BT network at least.

    Interestingly. looking at that final boundary:

    Code:
     6  166-49-209-132.gia.bt.net (166.49.209.132)  4.529 ms  4.151 ms  4.493 ms
     7  t2c3-et-7-1-0.nl-ams2.gia.bt.net (166.49.195.170)  14.261 ms t2c3-et-5-1-2.nl-ams2.gia.bt.net (166.49.208.217)  8.807 ms t2c3-et-7-1-0.nl-ams2.gia.bt.net (166.49.195.170)  8.280 ms
     8  * * *
     9  * * *
    10  155.133.248.40 (155.133.248.40)  10.620 ms  10.173 ms  10.105 ms
    That's three possible routes out of the BT network. If Hyperoptic have something similar and one of those is a packet black hole, then that would explain what you are seeing.

    Clearly your tech support person is only looking at the link at your end, which does seem fine else the VPN wouldn't work either.

  10. Received thanks from:

    Iota (26-09-2023)

  11. #10
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    275 times in 169 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    The only thing that came up in a traceroute was a zayo hop. Using Zayo Looking Glass from London:

    Router: London, England
    Command: traceroute 155.133.248.40
    traceroute to 155.133.248.40 (155.133.248.40), 30 hops max, 52 byte packets
    1 ae11.mpr2.lhr3.uk.zip.zayo.com (64.125.27.50) 1.028 ms 0.882 ms 0.795 ms
    2 * * *
    3 * * *
    4 ae13.mpr1.ams10.nl.zip.zayo.com (64.125.26.153) 6.248 ms 5.378 ms 5.474 ms
    5 valve.telecity5.nl-ix.net (193.239.117.226) 25.698 ms 49.315 ms 5.805 ms
    6 * * *
    7 155.133.248.40 (155.133.248.40) 5.570 ms 5.650 ms 5.519 ms

  12. #11
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    275 times in 169 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    I hope you are doing well. I am sorry to see that you are having issues with packet loss.

    When I tried to ping the IP from your router and check the communication between your router and the Valve IP address, the communication seemed to be extremely slow.

    The first troubleshooting step would be to change the DNS. This will cause your router to reboot so please let us know when we can do this. This might not solve the issue, but it would be a good step to take.


    It's just trolling at this point.

  13. Received thanks from:

    Jonj1611 (26-09-2023),Millennium (07-10-2023)

  14. #12
    Administrator MLyons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    473
    Thanks
    310
    Thanked
    156 times in 92 posts
    • MLyons's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS PRIME X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2700x
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4 Corsair RGB
      • Storage:
      • 500GB MX500 500GB HDD 2TB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA SC2 1080Ti
      • PSU:
      • Corsair tx650
      • Case:
      • Corsair Air 540
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 Asus 1080p

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Sounds like your CPU is bottle-necking you
    Half dev, Half doge. Some say DevDoge

    Feel free to message me if you find any bugs or have any suggestions.
    If you need me urgently, PM me
    If something is/was broke it was probably me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  15. #13
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Bit late to the thread but it's worth mentioning ICMP may be treated with a different priority to other types of packets - i.e. just because ICMP is being dropped doesn't mean other packets would be. If a link is congested along the way and is dropping ICMP, it could explain why the same isn't happening over a VPN. Although a VPN can also hide packet loss especially if TCP due to retransmission - not really what you want for gaming, but it can confuse diagnostics. Any idea whether your VPN is using UDP or TCP?

    That being said, setting up a BQM at thinkbroadband can give you some more information - it basically just pings you once per second and creates a nice graph over time indicating response time (min/avg/max) and loss.

    If a VPN appears to give you a better gaming experience (for the reasons mentioned above it might not, even if packet loss appears improved with ICMP), then perhaps something like Cloudflare's WARP would be an option - it's not a conventional VPN targeted at anonymity, but it may be a useful option in this case.

  16. #14
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    275 times in 169 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    Bit late to the thread but it's worth mentioning ICMP may be treated with a different priority to other types of packets - i.e. just because ICMP is being dropped doesn't mean other packets would be. If a link is congested along the way and is dropping ICMP, it could explain why the same isn't happening over a VPN. Although a VPN can also hide packet loss especially if TCP due to retransmission - not really what you want for gaming, but it can confuse diagnostics. Any idea whether your VPN is using UDP or TCP?

    That being said, setting up a BQM at thinkbroadband can give you some more information - it basically just pings you once per second and creates a nice graph over time indicating response time (min/avg/max) and loss.

    If a VPN appears to give you a better gaming experience (for the reasons mentioned above it might not, even if packet loss appears improved with ICMP), then perhaps something like Cloudflare's WARP would be an option - it's not a conventional VPN targeted at anonymity, but it may be a useful option in this case.
    My monitoring is showing that the packet loss issue was resolved at approximately 2023-10-02 22:10. Someone somewhere must have done something.

    In this case, the game uses UDP, and I can see loss using net_graph 1. When I got loss in game, I also got loss with pings.

    VPN's generally use UDP by default, which mine does. I tried VPN over both ipv6 and ipv4 and both fixed the packet loss.

    Anyway, doesn't matter - it seems fixed now.

  17. #15
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    Good to know. Sadly it's often the case that these things only get resolved either by chance or otherwise independently of complaints , perhaps a saturated link with ISP or transit provider got upgraded.

  18. #16
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,990
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,591 times in 1,346 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: Hyperoptic saying packet loss is fine, driving me insane

    So, did they ever change the DNS?

    I think the above shows the problem with their support. After changing the DNS they would then wait to see if the problem went away, and after a couple of weeks it would have. Because their actual fix is "to change the DNS address *and then wait a bit*" and waiting a bit for someone competent to sort it is their real fix.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •