Consolidated latency tracking and reporting

Technical Support
Prev 1 14 15 16 33 Next
1) ISP: Spin
2) Location (State/Province): Australia - Adelaide
3) Modem make and model: Billion Bipac 5200G RC
4) Router make and model: Billion Bipac 5200G RC
5) Approximate date issue was first noted: 8/02/2011
6) Approximate time of day latency occurs: Most of the time
7) Any special factors for consideration:
8) Detailed description of issue: The latency rises extremely high in raids and battlegrounds.
9) Results of pathping to your realm server:


Tracing route to 12.129.254.208 over a maximum of 30 hops

0 User-PC [192.168.1.100]
1 192.168.1.254
2 lback9.comcen.com.au [203.23.236.9]
3 core-syd-lns2.comcen.com.au [203.23.236.45]
4 vlan551.22rrc76f000.optus.net.au [59.154.10.17]
5 203.208.148.89
6 te-4-2.car2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.79.42.229]
7 ae-3-89.edge2.SanJose3.Level3.net [4.68.18.145]
8
02/11/2011 10:32 AMPosted by BrianI
With 4.0.6 we made a couple changes to our instance servers in an attempt to lower latency. Unfortunately, with those changes came increased bandwidth requirements. Due to the nature of the feedback we received, we have temporarily reverted those changes, as of around ~6pm PST last night. Are you still experiencing issues?


Could you go into a little more detail on this? You said the change done with 4.0.6 caused a bandwidth problem but was said problem on my end, your end, or somewhere in between? If this change did cause a problem on my end how can I prepare for when it has been reimplemented?
So just read through this entire thread, hurrah.

And all the way from Australia - most of my guildies - and a load of people on Khaz'goroth (people complaining in Trade) have just started experiencing this same issue.

Home latency is fine, world latency idles at around 3-4k ms. Personally been through all of the troubleshooting guides available, have contacted my ISP and gone through all of their troubleshooting processes and am convinced it's something wrong on Blizz's end. Have been playing a myriad of other online games (Battlefield, WC3, Counterstrike and Modern Warfare) without any issues what so ever.

This lag is exclusive to WoW.

So blizz - what can we do? As currently WoW is now unplayable..
I too am experiencing the proplems that it would seem so many others are., specificaly in game lag and DC's.

I started playing WOW again about 6 weeks ago and all was fine untill about 2 weeks ago. I log in and in anywhere from 2 minutes - 20 minutes the latency jumps and the game is unplayable.

Just now my latency jump to 3700+. At this time I ran the following pathping and tracert:



Tracing route to 199.107.25.29 over a maximum of 30 hops



0 sal [192.168.1.18]

1 192.168.1.1

2 68.83.12.1

3 te-8-4-ur01.vineland.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.76.213]

4 te-3-8-ar01.absecon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.35.146]

5 te-0-2-0-6-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.35.9]

6 xe-6-0-3-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.190]

7 pos-3-8-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.95.153]

8 pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.26]

9 192.205.37.41

10 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.84.82]

11 cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.3.37]

12 cr84.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.115.94]

13 gar20.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.2.141]

14 12-122-254-114.attens.net [12.122.254.114]

15 mdf001c7613r0003-gig-10-1.nyc3.attens.net [63.240.65.10]

16 * * *

Computing statistics for 400 seconds...

Source to Here This Node/Link

Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address

0 sal [192.168.1.18]

1/ 100 = 1% |

1 5ms 3/ 100 = 3% 2/ 100 = 2% 192.168.1.1

0/ 100 = 0% |

2 32ms 3/ 100 = 3% 2/ 100 = 2% 68.83.12.1

0/ 100 = 0% |

3 29ms 2/ 100 = 2% 1/ 100 = 1% te-8-4-ur01.vineland.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.76.213]

0/ 100 = 0% |

4 20ms 2/ 100 = 2% 1/ 100 = 1% te-3-8-ar01.absecon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.35.146]

0/ 100 = 0% |

5 14ms 1/ 100 = 1% 0/ 100 = 0% te-0-2-0-6-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.35.9]

0/ 100 = 0% |

6 33ms 4/ 100 = 4% 3/ 100 = 3% xe-6-0-3-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.190]

0/ 100 = 0% |

7 34ms 6/ 100 = 6% 5/ 100 = 5% pos-3-8-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.95.153]

0/ 100 = 0% |

8 34ms 5/ 100 = 5% 4/ 100 = 4% pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.26]

0/ 100 = 0% |

9 27ms 5/ 100 = 5% 4/ 100 = 4% 192.205.37.41

0/ 100 = 0% |

10 --- 100/ 100 =100% 99/ 100 = 99% cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.84.82]

0/ 100 = 0% |

11 --- 100/ 100 =100% 99/ 100 = 99% cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.3.37]

0/ 100 = 0% |

12 --- 100/ 100 =100% 99/ 100 = 99% cr84.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.115.94]

0/ 100 = 0% |

13 --- 100/ 100 =100% 99/ 100 = 99% gar20.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.2.141]

0/ 100 = 0% |

14 --- 100/ 100 =100% 99/ 100 = 99% 12-122-254-114.attens.net [12.122.254.114]

0/ 100 = 0% |

15 40ms 1/ 100 = 1% 0/ 100 = 0% mdf001c7613r0003-gig-10-1.nyc3.attens.net [63.240.65.10]

99/ 100 = 99% |

16 --- 100/ 100 =100% 0/ 100 = 0% sal [0.0.0.0]



Trace complete.





Tracing route to 199.107.25.29 over a maximum of 30 hops



1 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1

2 25 ms 19 ms 14 ms 68.83.12.1

3 107 ms 12 ms 10 ms te-8-4-ur01.vineland.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.76.213]

4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms te-3-8-ar01.absecon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.35.146]

5 13 ms 25 ms 11 ms te-0-2-0-6-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.35.9]

6 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms xe-6-0-3-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.190]

7 19 ms 18 ms 19 ms pos-3-8-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.95.153]

8 18 ms 19 ms 21 ms pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.26]

9 18 ms 16 ms 16 ms 192.205.37.41

10 20 ms 18 ms 19 ms cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.84.82]

11 19 ms 25 ms 19 ms cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.3.37]

12 20 ms 20 ms * cr84.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.115.94]

13 19 ms 18 ms 21 ms gar20.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.2.141]

14 * 34 ms 26 ms 12-122-254-114.attens.net [12.122.254.114]

15 * * 22 ms mdf001c7613r0003-gig-10-1.nyc3.attens.net [63.240.65.10]

16 * * * Request timed out.

17 * * * Request timed out.

18 * * * Request timed out.

19 * * * Request timed out.

20 * * * Request timed out.

21 * * * Request timed out.

22 * * * Request timed out.

23 * * * Request timed out.

24 * * * Request timed out.

25 * * * Request timed out.

26 * * * Request timed out.

27 * * * Request timed out.

28 * * * Request timed out.

29 * * * Request timed out.

30 * * * Request timed out.



Trace complete.



Seems like everything is ok, but latency in game is extreme. About a minute or so later I was DC'd.
With 4.0.6 we made a couple changes to our instance servers in an attempt to lower latency. Unfortunately, with those changes came increased bandwidth requirements. Due to the nature of the feedback we received, we have temporarily reverted those changes, as of around ~6pm PST last night. Are you still experiencing issues?


Could you go into a little more detail on this? You said the change done with 4.0.6 caused a bandwidth problem but was said problem on my end, your end, or somewhere in between? If this change did cause a problem on my end how can I prepare for when it has been reimplemented?

In a nutshell? That's a bit hard to explain clearly, but I'll try. Some people have an ISP whose peering link to their tier 1 backbone provider is oversaturated. Some people have ISPs that are throttling their connection in some way. Some people are on wireless connections, or are using old routers that are causing issues. Some people simply have a misconfigured or malfunctioning LAN device. Some people just have lower bandwidth connections. I’ll explain further below.

Unequivocally, the bandwidth problems were not internal to our network. We never came close to capacity. The actual total peak transfer data rate was around 1/5th of our maximum capacity.

When we performed maintenance the day we released 4.0.6 we made a couple modifications to our instance (BG/arena/dungeon/raid) servers. One of these changes had the effect of lowering latency for a very high percentage of our users... around 99% or so. The numbers were pretty staggering, to be honest. My personal ‘instance server’ experience was a drop from 120-150ms average ping down to 12ms. No, really, 12 ms. From my home residential connection. It was amazing. Raiding was glorious. The vast majority of our users saw similar improvements.

Then again, I have a very stable high bandwidth cable connection with a well designed internal LAN, and I had no problems handling the requisite increases in bandwidth. You see, part of that reason the latency went down is that a lot more packets were being sent. In some cases, the bandwidth almost tripled. For those who don't (or can't) meet all of our minimum system requirements (e.g. broadband internet*) or who are having issues with their connection or are on a flaky wireless connection... things weren't so pretty. We ended up rolling back that change until a later date when we will be able to selectively turn on that performance enhancement on a ‘per client’ basis. Unfortunately, that will require another patch, so we’ll just have to wait a bit.

Yes, we really did roll back that change for something that negatively affected less than 1% of total users. We really do care about providing the best environment we can. We do things like this frequently.

We do understand that some people do not have the options available to them that others do. We know that people are playing on 6 to 8 year old computers (in some cases, even older) with a flaky 3G or satellite connection, even though this does not meet our minimum system requirements. Not everyone can afford newer or better and not all areas have a faster connection available, currently. We do see people connecting from all over the world from backbones that are throttling their connections due to the cost of transmitting data over transoceanic cables. We see all these things… and we feel some of the same frustrations these people do when trying to have a smooth gaming experience. It is actually difficult to be unable to help someone due to situations outside your control.

To be honest, World of Warcraft was not designed for these types of setups. That is why we are very clear with our ‘minimum system requirements’ and what, exactly, is supported. Will we still try to help you connect and do our best to help you out, anyway? Absolutely. We just can’t make any promises or guarantees, as much as we would like to. The actual bandwidth requirements are not that high. In ordinary play, WoW shouldn’t end up taking more than a few hundred megabytes a month. What is important, however, is the stability of the connection and width of the ‘pipe’, due to the bursts of data that need to be transmitted at times. While total bandwidth may not be high, there will be short periods where a ton of data is being sent simultaneously (like, you know, raid boss fights or even when first logging on to a server when your toon is in a capital city).

We may wish it were otherwise, but if we tried to send and receive less data we wouldn’t be able to provide the immersive, complex, top-notch gaming experience (most people) have come to know, love, and expect from Blizzard Entertainment. I wish there were some way to do both, but there really isn’t, at least with today’s technologies. Either we can provide an intense environment that over 98% of people who play WoW have no problems with, or we can lower our standards to unacceptable levels and try to get that extra ~2% in, as well.

Anyway, I apologize for the lengthy post, and I’m sure this will be lost in the thread, but I’ve been meaning to post some thoughts on this for awhile. I hope you’ve enjoyed the read… it was fun to type, at least. :)

*http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2065776684?page=1#1
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X
02/12/2011 8:31 AMPosted by BrianI
Then again, I have a very stable high bandwidth cable connection with a well designed internal LAN, and I had no problems handling the requisite increases in bandwidth. You see, part of that reason the latency went down is that a lot more packets were being sent. In some cases, the bandwidth almost tripled. For those who don't (or can't) meet all of our minimum system requirements (e.g. broadband internet*) or who are having issues with their connection or are on a flaky wireless connection... things weren't so pretty. We ended up rolling back that change until a later date when we will be able to selectively turn on that performance enhancement on a ‘per client’ basis. Unfortunately, that will require another patch, so we’ll just have to wait a bit.


i'm jealous. I haven't been able to log in for 5 days and I pay for the premium comcast cable connection. The problem started immediately after the patch loaded. I am not an IT expert, can you explain in detail a "well designed internal LAN"?
Then again, I have a very stable high bandwidth cable connection with a well designed internal LAN, and I had no problems handling the requisite increases in bandwidth. You see, part of that reason the latency went down is that a lot more packets were being sent. In some cases, the bandwidth almost tripled. For those who don't (or can't) meet all of our minimum system requirements (e.g. broadband internet*) or who are having issues with their connection or are on a flaky wireless connection... things weren't so pretty. We ended up rolling back that change until a later date when we will be able to selectively turn on that performance enhancement on a ‘per client’ basis. Unfortunately, that will require another patch, so we’ll just have to wait a bit.


i'm jealous. I haven't been able to log in for 5 days and I pay for the premium comcast cable connection. The problem started immediately after the patch loaded. I am not an IT expert, can you explain in detail a "well designed internal LAN"?

Although my 'official' position with Blizzard is more of a moderator and project manager, I have an extensive background in WAN/LAN design and integration, among other things, so it's kinda second nature to me. Unfortunately, I can't really do too much other than offer a bit of unofficial advice in my current capacity.

When looking at LAN design, you want to minimize bottlenecks and maximize throughput. Any additional device or cable run adds the possibility of added issues. Hence, try to minimize the number and type of devices on your network, if possible. A lot of people don't comprehend the potential of faulty network devices to cause packet reflections or how susceptible to floods and storms a low-end home router really is. I remember having what I considered to be a decent 802.11b 4-port router/switch that ended up killing my internet connection every time I refreshed the master server list in a very popular first person shooter game I played incessantly for years. I ended up having to do a registry hack that would limit the bandwidth that application had access to, since I was too broke at the time to replace the router.

Minimize devices and the length of cables. Make sure your UTP Cat-5/6 cables are isolated from other devices or cables that can cause crosstalk. Secure any wireless bridges or access points on your LAN. Isolate specific devices on different subnets if possible. There are a lot of things to consider and try.

If all else fails, bypass it completely and plug straight to your modem with a high quality Ethernet cable and see if it works. :)
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X
02/12/2011 9:08 AMPosted by BrianI
If all else fails, bypass it completely and plug straight to your modem with a high quality Ethernet cable and see if it works. :)


I will try the direct connection first to see if it works, then work backwards from there. thanks.
Thanks for the response. What exactly does Blizzard consider to be "broadband"? Would I be able to get some numbers for this such as min up/down? What would be the minimum for the change made on Tuesday?
02/12/2011 10:01 AMPosted by Toj
Thanks for the response. What exactly does Blizzard consider to be "broadband"? Would I be able to get some numbers for this such as min up/down? What would be the minimum for the change made on Tuesday?

For sake of clarity, we go off of the FCC's official definition: 4Mbps down, sustained, and 1Mbps up, sustained.
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X
The problem with the game is not the absence of "cool effects" that require more bandwidth. The problem is lack of content. But that's for another forum.

It is, which is why I deleted your post. Please stay on topic.
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X
02/12/2011 8:31 AMPosted by BrianI
Yes, we really did roll back that change for something that negatively affected less than 1% of total users. We really do care about providing the best environment we can. We do things like this frequently.


With a population of more than 12 million subscribers, I certainly hope this ~1% is important to you. This
~1% represents nearly 2 million monthly dollars to Blizzard.

I'm still baffled at how so many different users (apparently in the neighborhood of 120,000+) from different parts of the world using different ISPs, different machines with differing configurations, different modems and routers, etc. who have troubleshooted all these factors, replaced hardware, bought new hardware, reinstalled software, updated firmware, changed configurations, spent hours upon countless hours on the phone with ISP customer service, hardware manufacture support, software customer service, and Blizzard tech support have had no success addressing this issue at all. An issue that manifested itself at the same time for a lot of these people who were not having these issues previously. Something indeed did change. What was it?

All traffic to WoW converges on the Blizzard servers with its settings from different sources taking different routes. Are all these thousands of routes, nodes, switches, etc. suddenly changing their protocol? The common path everyone passes through is Blizzard's ISP and Blizzard's hardware/software. Those are the only universally common factors involved in this issue. Those are what need to be troubleshooted.

I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority of us; this, is extremely frustrating. I know you know it's frustrating, because I'm sure you're frustrated yourself and I'm sure you've been in the same position as the players here. Regardless, it needs to be fixed now.
With a population of more than 12 million subscribers, I certainly hope this ~1% is important to you. This ~1% represents nearly 2 million monthly dollars to Blizzard.

That is one viewpoint, and I can understand why you feel that way, but stating this is like saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the (vastly greater) majority. Is that the case? Maybe. We wouldn't have reverted if we felt the slightly degraded performance for the (again vastly greater) majority of people was worth assisting the very small number of people having issues. It is always a tough call, but sometimes difficult decisions need to be made.

The number of affected accounts was not in the hundreds of thousands. It probably wasn't even in the thousands. It is much closer to a few hundred, if that much. All percentages and numbers applied are referring to North America, only, not our global user base. That doesn't make it 'less important'; it just makes the impact footprint smaller.

We will continue to explore ways to provide our service to as many as possible while maintaining the high standards we adhere to for our gameplay.

Unfortunately, when I looked through your previous posts, I was unable to locate where, exactly, you posted the requested information. Here is the data requested (if you wish assistance) for future reference: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1965992365

Thank you for your time and understanding.

By the way...

Blizzard tech support have had no success addressing this issue at all.

This really isn't accurate at all. Our excellent technical support representatives have helped many people who have contacted them. Unfortunately, I was also unable to find any record of your calls to us, so I have no further data to refer to. We look forward to being able to assist you directly.
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X
02/12/2011 12:12 PMPosted by BrianI
The problem with the game is not the absence of "cool effects" that require more bandwidth. The problem is lack of content. But that's for another forum.

It is, which is why I deleted your post. Please stay on topic.
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X


My apologies.

I cannot stay connected for more than a few minutes at a time this morning. So maybe 10-15 disconnects over the past few hours, I don't really keep track anymore. This occurs both with and without tunneling. My download/upload is fine. Checking with both Speakeasy and TWC's local site I am currently getting close to 30 Mb down and 2 Mb up. Pings are good with no loss. Modem was checked last night by TWC and seemed fine. TWC is coming out for the second time this afternoon to check my lines again. If there is anything you can suggest that I ask them, I'd appreciate your input.

Tracing route to 206.16.118.152 over a maximum of 30 hops

0 user.socal.rr.com [76.173.32.142]
1 cpe-76-173-32-1.socal.res.rr.com [76.173.32.1]
2 76.167.18.145
3 ae5.lamdca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [66.75.151.30]
4 BE14-lsanca4-rt1.socal.rr.com [66.75.151.3]
5 ae-5-0.cr0.lax00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.102]
6 ae-0-0.pr0.lax00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.135]
7 xe-4-1-0.edge1.LosAngeles6.Level3.net [4.26.0.73]
8 ae-1-60.edge2.LosAngeles9.Level3.net [4.69.144.15]
9 192.205.37.145
10 cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.84.202]
11 cr2.phmaz.ip.att.net [12.122.31.190]
12 gar4.phmaz.ip.att.net [12.123.206.209]
13 12.122.255.106
14 mdf002c7613r0001-gig-10-1.phx1.attens.net [63.241.130.198]
15 * * *
Computing statistics for 350 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 user.socal.rr.com [76.173.32.142]
0/ 100 = 0% |
1 11ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% cpe-76-173-32-1.socal.res.rr.com [76.173.32.1]
0/ 100 = 0% |
2 12ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 76.167.18.145
0/ 100 = 0% |
3 16ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% ae5.lamdca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [66.75.151.30]
0/ 100 = 0% |
4 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% BE14-lsanca4-rt1.socal.rr.com [66.75.151.3]
0/ 100 = 0% |
5 21ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% ae-5-0.cr0.lax00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.102]
0/ 100 = 0% |
6 20ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% ae-0-0.pr0.lax00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.135]
0/ 100 = 0% |
7 23ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% xe-4-1-0.edge1.LosAngeles6.Level3.net [4.26.0.73]
0/ 100 = 0% |
8 23ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% ae-1-60.edge2.LosAngeles9.Level3.net [4.69.144.15]
0/ 100 = 0% |
9 22ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 192.205.37.145
0/ 100 = 0% |
10 --- 100/ 100 =100% 100/ 100 =100% cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.84.202]
0/ 100 = 0% |
11 --- 100/ 100 =100% 100/ 100 =100% cr2.phmaz.ip.att.net [12.122.31.190]
0/ 100 = 0% |
12 --- 100/ 100 =100% 100/ 100 =100% gar4.phmaz.ip.att.net [12.123.206.209]
0/ 100 = 0% |
13 --- 100/ 100 =100% 100/ 100 =100% 12.122.255.106
0/ 100 = 0% |
14 36ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% mdf002c7613r0001-gig-10-1.phx1.attens.net [63.241.130.198]

Trace complete.



Being that I run on a very very good computer and an excellent ISP where I get at least 15 download, 2.5 upload at all times....It is just very hard to believe that it could be on our end in most of these cases for the simple fact that it only started occurring for me after Cata was launched (Like many other people). Now, in some cases I could see people having issues because they are not running with the minimal requirements and if you did update these requirements, then there lies a semi-clear cut solution. I am not one of those people.

Some people just do not notice that their MS has actually gone up because WoW does not record it properly. I have a friend who does arena religiously, and even he didn't notice the lag in arena. He did not notice it because the WoW latency icon did not reflect what is latency actually was. So he just went on believing he was actually getting a steady 50 MS. After further testing inside arena, he was spiking up to more than 600 MS! And he lives half way across the United States from me. I just hope you revert whatever it is you did, because it's causing more harm then good at this point. Thanks.
Malvagita,

Being that I run on a very very good computer and an excellent ISP where I get at least 15 download, 2.5 upload at all times....It is just very hard to believe that it could be on our end in most of these cases for the simple fact that it only started occurring for me after Cata was launched (Like many other people). Now, in some cases I could see people having issues because they are not running with the minimal requirements and if you did update these requirements, then there lies a semi-clear cut solution. I am not one of those people.

Some people just do not notice that their MS has actually gone up because WoW does not record it properly. I have a friend who does arena religiously, and even he didn't notice the lag in arena. He did not notice it because the WoW latency icon did not reflect what is latency actually was. So he just went on believing he was actually getting a steady 50 MS. After further testing inside arena, he was spiking up to more than 600 MS! And he lives half way across the United States from me. I just hope you revert whatever it is you did, because it's causing more harm then good at this point. Thanks.


Looking at your post (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1965992365?page=7#139) it's a little hard to look at the trace, since you ran a traceroute to LA, but you play on a server located in New York, so what I'm about to point out may be completely invalidated. However, looking at the trace, it is VERY rare to find 3 last mile residential ISP hops de-prioritizing or blocking ICMP, but look at this:

1 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms 10.240.186.25
2 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms 167.206.32.66
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 12 ms 8 ms 7 ms rtr4-tg10-2.wan.hcvlny.cv.net [64.15.4.29]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 58 ms 31 ms 31 ms ae-4-99.edge3.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.68.16.209]

That could definitely indicate an issue that needs to be addressed, but I don't know enough about your ISP to say for sure. However, here's an older post going through one of your listed BGP routers (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1127125058#1):

1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 98 ms 102 ms 91 ms 10.240.160.125
3 68 ms 27 ms 14 ms dstswr1-vlan2.rh.stjmny.cv.net [167.206.39.161]
4 20 ms 126 ms 108 ms rtr4-ge1-10.mhe.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.39.137]
5 44 ms 54 ms 104 ms rtr3-tg11-3.wan.hcvlny.cv.net [64.15.4.13]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 130 ms 76 ms 87 ms ae-3-89.edge3.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.68.16.145]
9 46 ms 21 ms 15 ms 192.205.37.69
10 124 ms 119 ms 176 ms cr1.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.131.10]
11 314 ms 222 ms 91 ms cr2.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.1.2]
12 207 ms 233 ms 239 ms cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.2.53]
13 187 ms 232 ms 118 ms cr2.dvmco.ip.att.net [12.122.31.85]
14 148 ms 95 ms 235 ms cr1.slkut.ip.att.net [12.122.30.25]
15 80 ms 81 ms 83 ms cr2.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.30.30]
16 168 ms 108 ms 148 ms cr84.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.30.249]
17 181 ms 158 ms 239 ms gar5.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.129.25]
18 120 ms 275 ms 259 ms 12.122.255.74
19 231 ms 194 ms 104 ms 12.129.193.246
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 12.129.211.38 reports: Destination net unreachable.


Kinda inconclusive (pretty ugly trace, to be honest), but interesting to note, nonetheless.

Either way, internal tests have shown the 4.0.6 latency meters to be more accurate than 3rd party mods, but it is an average ping (the average of the last 10-15 seconds or so), not realtime. The mod you referred to takes a snapshot at the split second you began your cast. Neither is 100% accurate, due to both having inherent limitations.

Anyway, the jitter in your traceroute is very low, which is good, but ICMP packets != WoW data packets, for many reasons.

Besides, we already reverted the changes to the arena (instance) servers 2 days ago. There's nothing further for us to 'change back'. The world servers = the instance servers, now. Your data is all the same, all going over port 3724. Same server setup, same data.
________________________________________________
Account and Technical Services || Tues - Sat 645 - 1545 PST
Not seeing a resolution on the forums? Contact a Support Rep directly! - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
Let me know how I'm doing! :) - http://www.surveymk.com/s/RMW9Y6X
Before you reverted the changes were there ports that perhaps should have been opened that were closed on personal routers and LANs ? I'm definitely going to look into setting up our LAN like yours Brianl if you could post what equipment you use or find another way to let me know it would be awesome. Thanks !

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum