Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: WLAN latency any good?  (Read 3114 times)

Weaver

  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 8064
  • Retd sw dev; A&A; 4 ◊ 7km ADSL2; IPv6; Firebrick
WLAN latency any good?
« on: September 12, 2016, 11:01:49 AM »

I did some measurements of the timings for pinging my router over a wireless LAN. Could you tell me how these compare with your WLAN ? I'm using WPA2-PSK and did IPv4 pings below

--- IPv4 ping statistics ---
64 bytes: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=4.794 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=43.95 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=27.174 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=29.226 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=3.45 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=43.282 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=55.626 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=35.226 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=33.965 ms
64 bytes: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=28.499 ms
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.45 / 30.519 / 55.626 / 15.554 ms


I'm using a ZyXel NWA-3560-N WAP. The results with IPv6 pings are a bit different. The minimum is about the same, but the average is quite a bit higher. I should perhaps try to do both types with longer packets so that the packet size could be made the same.

Why the enormous variation?

The shortest time Iíve ever seen is ~2.5 ms, the longest is ~90 ms !
Logged

d2d4j

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 938
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2016, 11:15:12 AM »

Hi weaver

I hope you don't mind, but I usually use fing from the App Store, which is very useful

Mine are 2ns min to 116ms max, where max is always at the very start

Fing also shows you graphically but I'm not sure if it's available for iPad, it is for iPhone

We usually use fing when we first look at a new network

Many thanks

John
Logged

Weaver

  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 8064
  • Retd sw dev; A&A; 4 ◊ 7km ADSL2; IPv6; Firebrick
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2016, 12:14:36 PM »

Will definitely take a look at Fing. Btw, tried two different iPad apps, just in case the results were a red herring.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 01:14:09 PM by Weaver »
Logged

Weaver

  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 8064
  • Retd sw dev; A&A; 4 ◊ 7km ADSL2; IPv6; Firebrick
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2016, 01:12:18 PM »

Fing app works nicely on an iPad. Big weakness, doesn't speak IPv6. Pretty much the same range of values obtained, so it's not a red herring to do with one particular app.
Logged

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2016, 03:41:12 PM »

Code: [Select]
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19025ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.020/2.679/4.720/0.637 ms

It's a nice simple 11g wireless router. The signal doesn't have far to go, only through a floor. I even reduce the tx power on my computer a little.
Logged

burakkucat

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 28239
  • Over the Rainbow Bridge
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2016, 04:54:40 PM »

Access statistics relating to the WLAN in TheCattery, IPv4, 802.11n, --

Code: [Select]
[Duo2 ~]$ ping -c 10 ap
PING AP (192.168.1.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=6.33 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.39 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=3.36 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=3.36 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=7.25 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.49 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=5.15 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=3.19 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=5.46 ms
64 bytes from AP (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.18 ms

--- AP ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9017ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.185/4.420/7.258/1.434 ms
[Duo2 ~]$
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

NEXUS2345

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2016, 05:00:17 PM »

IPv4, 802.11n

Code: [Select]
Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 120ms, Average = 16ms

IPv4, 802.11ac

Code: [Select]
Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 105ms, Average = 10ms

Using a TP-Link Archer C2600 with an Asus PCE-AC53. The variance is mainly caused by the fact that Wi-Fi is an inherently half-duplex system, it can only transmit to or receive from one device at a time, it cannot communicate both ways at the same time or with multiple devices unless those devices use MU-MIMO, which my router supports but I do not believe any of my existing devices support. You may also notice that my 802.11ac results are more consistent, which is because it is using 5Ghz, which has much less devices on and much less interference. The 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz transmitters and receivers work independently in routers.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 05:03:13 PM by NEXUS2345 »
Logged
Zen ADSL2+ | HG612 + TP-Link C2600 | Awaiting FTTC (build in progress)

Weaver

  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 8064
  • Retd sw dev; A&A; 4 ◊ 7km ADSL2; IPv6; Firebrick
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2016, 05:49:41 PM »

ejs and Burakkucat are far better than me. NEXUS2345 is far better almost all the time, but just occasionally even worse. There is a lot going on here that I don't understand at all.

Guys, are you all using WPA2-PSK ?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 05:57:33 PM by Weaver »
Logged

NEXUS2345

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2016, 06:00:43 PM »

Yup, WPA2-PSK. It is worth noting that my house isn't that big, so signal is pretty good throughout.
Logged
Zen ADSL2+ | HG612 + TP-Link C2600 | Awaiting FTTC (build in progress)

burakkucat

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 28239
  • Over the Rainbow Bridge
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2016, 06:10:14 PM »

Also confirming the use of just WPA2-PSK.
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

Weaver

  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 8064
  • Retd sw dev; A&A; 4 ◊ 7km ADSL2; IPv6; Firebrick
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2016, 06:14:22 PM »

And for comparison :

--- IPv6 ping statistics ---
16 bytes: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=3.149 ms
16 bytes: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=18.044 ms
16 bytes: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=24.907 ms
16 bytes: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=55.351 ms
16 bytes: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=19.179 ms
16 bytes: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=25.908 ms
16 bytes: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=37.786 ms
7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min / avg / max / stddev = 3.149 / 26.332 / 55.351 / 15.273 ms

Logged

burakkucat

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 28239
  • Over the Rainbow Bridge
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2016, 06:18:32 PM »

I am unable to assist with IPv6 investigations, as only IPv4 is used here.
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2016, 08:08:22 PM »

I'd start the investigation by finding out the received signal strength at each end of the wireless link.
Logged

Weaver

  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 8064
  • Retd sw dev; A&A; 4 ◊ 7km ADSL2; IPv6; Firebrick
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2016, 10:04:49 PM »

My iPad is reading 5 / 5, but only a miserable 65 Mbps on an 802.11n access point. The signal has to go through a couple of wood + plasterboard walls, but the access point is fairly close.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5995
Re: WLAN latency any good?
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2016, 06:49:44 AM »

pinging my laptop :)  5ghz AC bear in mind.

Code: [Select]
Pinging 192.168.1.125 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.125: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.125:
    Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms

occasionally the first ping will be higher.
Logged
AAISP - Billion 8800NL bridge & PFSense BOX running PFSense 2.4 - ECI Cab - LINE STATISTICS CLICK HERE
Pages: [1] 2
 

anything