good bye FFXIV, thanks to the lag, you lost another customer.

[Zantitrach]

Now, use http://whois.net/, and look up the IP address of the hop that has the big ms jump. That will tell you the company that owns it, and gives you sign as to who is responsible.

Use ping to that IP to tell you how much % packet loss you have (over 5% or so is really bad). For ms...basically 100 is starting to get kind of bad, so most of the time you're good. That jump is definitely bad.

Either way, you see how easy that was? And how it only took a few minutes? If everyone experiencing these issues did this, and reported this info to SE / their ISP, we might be able to get something going. Knowledge is power~~~~~~*

Just thought I'd share. It was literally painless to do and I kept playing FFXIV in the background. Lol. Also here's AT&T U-Verse if you're curious

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms homeportal [Don't think you need this one]
2 30 ms 29 ms 25 ms 108-221-164-2.lightspeed.brhmal.sbcglobal.net [1
08.221.164.2]
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 24 ms 28 ms 25 ms 12.83.101.149
5 29 ms 30 ms 26 ms 12.122.117.121
6 * 329 ms 549 ms ae15.edge5.atlanta2.level3.net [4.68.62.225]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 190 ms 54 ms 54 ms ae-5-5.car1.Montreal2.Level3.net [4.69.141.5]
14 54 ms 54 ms 54 ms ae-11-11.car2.Montreal2.Level3.net [4.69.141.1]

15 55 ms 55 ms 57 ms ORMUCO-COMM.car2.Montreal2.Level3.net [4.59.178.
74]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 63 ms 57 ms 59 ms 192.34.76.2
18 59 ms 59 ms 58 ms 199.91.189.234
19 61 ms 59 ms 59 ms 199.91.189.38

Trace complete.

I couldn't get the actual IP address to pull up on that site, but I did try the ae15.etc.etc and it its answer was

WHOIS information for ae15.edge5.atlanta2.level3.net.com:**

Connection Failure

Love it. Lol

[Yukiba]

yeah I never had any lag problems since launch. but this last patch has done something to increase my lagg several fold.. dunno feel like SE should check it out.

[Dilu_Bakari]

What is this "lag" that you speak of?

[Theplatter]

Honestly surprised that in 12 pages, this thread was never referenced.

[Clavaat]

-snip-

OK, that's pretty much what I thought.

Level3.net is a Content Delivery Network (CDN). AT&T's connection to it appears to be really bad. For me, on Verizon, the CDN is Alter.Net, which Verizon owns. Level3.net is independent as far as I know, but is notoriously terrible to work with. This is all before we hit SE's server node, and the connections between it and Ormuco (SE's ISP), is bad. So level3 in general is fucking up. This isn't necessarily on AT&T or SE's side, but I would recommend notifying both. There is a contact for Level3 whom you can bitch to, but they will most likely not listen because they suck. AT&T and SE would have to harp on them enough, and even then, they like to play the "it's not on our end, it's yours!" game.

The more information you can provide to both the better. This won't just be FFXIV, but anything that hits that hop.

Honestly surprised that in 12 pages, this thread was never referenced.

This is actually not really relevant to this thread. The post was made in November, and is still true, but the current state of lag is being caused by poor hops/nodes. Either way, it is important and good information, so I would recommend everyone read it, just not for this particular topic.

[Raist]

That's very nitpicky. It might be a misconception when applied to a true measure of speed, but the reality is that this is a common understanding when talking about the internet. Boy you must be fun at parties.

Actually, no it isn't being nitpicky. In the networking world there is a very clear distinction between them. Bandwidth is capacity. Increasing capacity of a container does not equate to increasing the speed at which it can travel across the same medium. It increases the payload... but the container still travels the same distance in the same amount of time (the typical definition of speed). Throughput is not the measure of performance when it comes to small packet communications like what is used in games and things like VOIP. Latency is the metric you use, because it is about response time, not how big a package you can deliver (provided you can encapsulate a large enough chunk, which has not been an issue since we crossed about the 384k bandwidth mark).

The difference is with one you may get up to 16MB delivered in 110ms with one, but get up to 75MB delivered with the other. The time for that transfer can STILL be 110ms in both cases. The difference is you packed stuff in a bigger box that was traveling at the same speed. When the package is able to be delivered in the same number of handshakes, it takes the same amount of time to complete the process because both lines are moving the same number of packages at the same speed. So a 2K package that gets broken down into 1460 byte chunks will transfer in the same amount of time because it will be just two transferable units on both lines, both of which are in reality transferring the data at the same speed. 75MB takes longer to deliver the complete package on the narrower line because it can't send it all in one complete cycle--it has to break it up into 5 passes.... but each 16MB pass takes the same amount of time as the one 75MB pass because that is the capacity of the line and not the speed.

So, if the encapsulation is moving 2KB of data, and that can be transferred in the same number of handshakes on both lines with 80ms latency--both lines will deliver that same 2k in the same amount of time... they transfer the individual bits across the same number of channels (again, there is no issue of over-saturation here) at the same speed as determined by the combination of the medium's transfer speed, distance, and additional factors that determine the latency of the line (like delays in route). That is, in laymen's terms, what latency is--Delay. It is basically the amount of time it takes for the communication's round trip cycle to take place. It just isn't represented in the normal nomenclature many are accustomed to like MPH or KPH. It's just a flat measure of time, because when it comes to response times in this situation, that is what we need to know--how long it took to complete.

Line speed is more or less constant... it's bound to the physical characteristic of the medium (electricity vs light). Latency is the delay and is a product of distance traveled at the line speed, which can be impacted by things like noise, reflection, flat out interruptions that require retransmission. To a certain extent, Latency has a bottom that you can not reduce it past because it is a product of speed and distance. Bandwidth however is easy to manipulate--more channels, more wires, etc. increases the bandwidth. Bandwidth combines with your line speed and latency to determine overall throughput for a given period of time. So no.. Bandwidth is not speed. It may be perceived as such because you are comparing between over/under saturation of the bandwidth on different lines, but that is not speed. That is throughput, not speed.

[SDaemon]

snip

Congratulations? Sorry, not sure what you expect. The issue rests with your internet provider. Faulting SE for this is childish.

[Spot]

Congratulations? Sorry, not sure what you expect. The issue rests with your internet provider. Faulting SE for this is childish.

Not really. SE decided to have their US/EU game servers in a country with one of the worst internet infrastructures in the developed world. A simple search will net you lots of studies done that prove it. The game being server-live makes the problems with Canada's internet show. Faulting SE on their poor choices is not childish. Sadly, there is little chance of these issues ever being addressed during the lifespan of this game. It's a little upsetting when even the lowest budget of F2P MMOs have less lag/netcode/connection issues than FFXIV which is pulling in around $25 Million USD a month in subscriptions.

[Synestr]

But wiat...Verizon has Fios...what's wrong with the fios...THE FIOS!!!!!

[ElHeggunte]

Not really. SE decided to have their US/EU game servers in a country with one of the worst internet infrastructures in the developed world. A simple search will net you lots of studies done that prove it. The game being server-live makes the problems with Canada's internet show. Faulting SE on their poor choices is not childish. Sadly, there is little chance of these issues ever being addressed during the lifespan of this game. It's a little upsetting when even the lowest budget of F2P MMOs have less lag/netcode/connection issues than FFXIV which is pulling in around $25 Million USD a month in subscriptions.

SE is a convenient scapegoat for people who don't know any better about how the internet actually works or don't really care to know any better and just want somebody to blame. SE isn't infallible and they still do have occasional server problems ("Recovery from XXX World Technical Difficulties" for example), but blaming them for every bit of lag or any other performance issue in this blind manner is typically shortsighted and misguided. Many posters in here, including myself, have already explained why one service working while another fails isn't automatic proof of server issues, but after 12 pages this same tired argument keeps popping up.

It's not difficult to use readily available tools (some of which were provided in this very thread) to pinpoint a problem before attempting to assign blame. Choosing to ignore the resources at your disposal and still blindly blaming SE anyway while simultaneously demanding they "fix" your problem or provide you with some form of compensation is indeed childish. If you want something fixed you need to do your research and use communication. Who knows, maybe it really is something that SE could help you with or at least get the ball rolling? But coming onto the forums and providing less-than-descriptive posts isn't going to get you anywhere.