Best ISP from LATENCY point of view (Mumbai)

[Jeetu Porwal]

Hi,
I have an Airtel 4Mbps connection (Malad area, Mumbai). While the speed is more than enough for me (I get > 1.5 Mbps on average), the latency is a BIG issue.
I connect to my workplace (server in the US), and the latency is horrible. Even typing text is a BIG pain.

PingTest.net result to USA server(LA, California):

PacketLoss: 0%
Ping: 299ms (too large for interactive keyboard typing I guess)
Jitter: 5ms.
Grade: D (rightly so!)

Sometimes, the results are worse (to my office PC and google.com, many times the RTT is 400-500 ms).


So friends, I am looking for a good broadband provider in Mumbai, who has better lines (say ping time to USA around 100ms). I wish broadband providers would have this as specification, but unfortunately they don't. Can anyone here who thinks their latency is low enough post the results of pingtest.net (to a USA server)?

Any other suggestions would be appreciated as well!

thanks!
JP

--------------------

 

[merc782]

ping times of 100ms to USA servers from india is not feasible by laws of physics

 

[iChaitanya]

Till date, I have not seen ping time of less than 250ms-300ms to US. 😕

 

[Jeetu Porwal]

Till date, I have not seen ping time of less than 250ms-300ms to US. 😕

Hey friends,

This is good to know. I was planning to try some other operators, this will save some time.
---


https://www.speedtest.net

---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------

Btw guys, see this thread:


People claim slightly lower than 200ms to US servers (google.com, not google.co.in) using MTNL. (that was in 2008).

At the same time, I currently get 400-450ms to google.com on Airtel often - 300ms is a rarity for me. So definitely I think there might be some improvement possible over what I have.

cheers
JP

---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 AM ----------

Okay guys, to your earlier reply, here are my latest ping results to google.com from my own PC:


$ ping -t google.com

Pinging google.com [209.85.231.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 209.85.231.104:
Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 33ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 34ms
Control-C

--------------------

I checked that this IP is located in the United States.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------
Might be that this IP2location entry is wrong

 

[mgcarley]

$ ping -t google.com

Pinging google.com [209.85.231.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 209.85.231.104: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 209.85.231.104:
Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 33ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 34ms
Control-C

--------------------

I checked that this IP is located in the United States. Might be that this IP2location entry is wrong


While the IP location is registered to be in the US, the physical machine you are pinging is not - that's because Google will be allocating many servers around the world the same IP address by something we call "Multicasting": if I ping that same IP address from where I am at the moment, I'm hitting a machine which, from what I can ascertain, is in Australia.

As such you are probably hitting one of Google's servers located at Airtel's NOC, which from memory is only in Jogeshwari.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Even though there is basically nothing except a big long cable to the USA from here, I still only get 6 Mbit/s on a 16mbit/s line: https://www.speedtest.net

Hamilton to Auckland: https://www.speedtest.net

Hamilton to Sydney: https://www.speedtest.net

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------

Probably though what can illustrate something more disturbing is this:
Hamilton to Mumbai: https://www.speedtest.net
Hamilton to Chennai: (offline?)
Hamilton to New Delhi: https://www.speedtest.net

Something must be horribly wrong between Chennai and Mumbai for there to be this much difference in speed (over 1mbit/s difference between Mumbai and New Delhi results) and ping (100ms for the same).

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

And I get faster speeds to Lahore https://www.speedtest.net and Karachi https://www.speedtest.net (although pings are the same)

 

[auroraPWN]

100ms latency between america and india is just not possible... hell even light cant move that fast ...*lol* so the best thing you do is get a ISP which gives good latencies to the server .... also with no ISP are you gonna get latency lower than 200ms... :/

 

---

[mgcarley]

Technically speaking for the 28000km round-trip (14000km each way) between Mumbai and LA you could get as little as 93ms. It's just all the routers and other traffic in between that make actually achieving such a latency virtually impossible - even with a round trip of only 21000km (10500km each way), I still get some 170ms and unlike India-US, there is basically nothing between here and the US - just a little stopover in Hawai'i - the rest is ocean.From Eastern India, you can't really expect less than 200ms and that's probably on a good day.

 

[auroraPWN]

Yea but with the repeaters and the amount of line traffic on the undersea cables theres no way its reaching in

 

[mgcarley]

Yea but with the repeaters and the amount of line traffic on the undersea cables theres no way its reaching in

 

[auroraPWN]

But if that is the case... why don't they upgrade to better infrastructure for lower latencies? yea i know FTL does not exist because it gives rise to the theory about tachyons.... what i mean to say was that if they are able to develop FTL comm then it would be possible...also yes the higher the wavelength of light the lower the latency... but for pushing light at the higher frequency is not economically feasible i guess?

 

[mgcarley]

But if that is the case... why don't they upgrade to better infrastructure for lower latencies?

yea i know FTL does not exist because it gives rise to the theory about tachyons.... what i mean to say was that if they are able to develop FTL comm then it would be possible...

But the problem is that super-luminous particles cannot carry information. See quantum theory.

also yes the higher the wavelength of light the lower the latency... but for pushing light at the higher frequency is not economically feasible i guess?

If you change the frequency of light waves, you will change it in to another form of energy altogether. Increasing the wavelength would weaken the signal exponentially - if this were not true, you could control someone else's TV from across town. The problem is much less economics than that you'd end up melting the transmission medium and/or equipment at the other end.

Most Fiber Optic equipment transmits on wavelengths of either 1310nm and 1490-1625nm (usually 1550nm) for single-mode; or 850nm and 1300nm for multi-mode, no matter the transmission rate (10Gbit/s equipment works on the same wavelengths as 40 and 100Gbit/s equipment - the main thing is how much multiplexing can be achieved will ultimately depend on what kind of transmission rate you'll get).

But no matter what equipment you end up using, you're only going to get as good as the weakest link in the chain - which for me is outside my ISP at their wholesale supplier VOCUS, where the pings jump from

 

[auroraPWN]

you are really knowledgeable..thanks for the info anyways... btw i was curious... whats the reason that your ping spikes at VOCUS's end ?

 

[mgcarley]

you are really knowledgeable..thanks for the info anyways...

btw i was curious... whats the reason that your ping spikes at VOCUS's end ?

It seems that in jumping from one of their routers in Auckland to one of their other routers in Auckland, there's an unexplained jump to which only VOCUS could give an accurate answer to.

From memory they (Vocus) are Australia-based and their primary business is to sell capacity on the Southern-Cross cable.

C:\Users\Mathew Carley>tracert www.hns.net.inTracing route to www.hns.net.in [123.108.224.36]over a maximum of 30 hops:  1