Quote Originally Posted by worldofneil View Post
Sorry, but you're misreading the data. A high ping there isn't necessarily a problem, especially as the node after it is just fine.

All we really care about is the latency that you get with the destination (195.82.50.9) which is 10-13 ms in your example. The main job of that 195.82.50.230 router is to forward the packets to the next node as quickly as possibly and it's doing that, because you only have that 10-13 ms.

However when you do a traceroute it sends a ping to each node along the way. Some nodes won't even respond to pings (but they still forward packets as they're supposed to) and others such as 195.82.50.230 don't prioritise ping replies so although you do get a reply, it's just delayed because it's focusing on forwarding the packets.

A traceroute is good for showing the path and seeing where the latency increases, but a single high node should be ignored, if subsequent nodes are still low because it means that node isn't causing any delays, only that it is slow to reply to pings.

I hope this helps to make sense?
I'm not saying thats wrong (i'm not a technician or something like that) yet i liked at ohter servers in the other datacenters (NA, JP, OCE and again EU) but there wasnt a single node that had such a latency connected to it.
And this is suspicious to me when i only see such a node with numbers on the EU side but nowhere else.

This is now the tracert to shiva :
1 <1 ms 1 ms 1 ms fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
2 * * * Zeitüberschreitung der Anforderung.
3 9 ms 7 ms 8 ms de-wup01a-rd02-ae10-2020.wup.unity-media.net [81.210.133.190]
4 13 ms 15 ms 14 ms de-fra04d-rc1-re0-aorta-net-ae-41-0.aorta.net [84.116.197.22]
5 17 ms 15 ms 14 ms 84.116.190.94
6 14 ms 12 ms 11 ms ae6-100-xcr2.fri.cw.net [195.89.100.33]
7 14 ms 17 ms 15 ms ae4-pcr1.fnt.cw.net [195.2.16.33]
8 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms telia-gw.fnt.cw.net [195.2.22.238]
9 13 ms 17 ms 12 ms ffm-bb2-link.ip.twelve99.net [62.115.124.118]
10 13 ms 11 ms 12 ms ffm-b10-link.ip.twelve99.net [62.115.137.211]
11 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms kddi-ic301630-ffm-b10.ip.twelve99-cust.net [62.115.32.110]
12 13 ms 19 ms 15 ms 195.82.60.29
13 15 ms 13 ms 13 ms 195.82.61.14
14 14 ms 13 ms 10 ms 195.82.50.230
15 12 ms 12 ms 10 ms 195.82.50.57

If the high number would be normal (because of the focusing on packets) then why is the number now (at 4:36 am).

This the NA server Balmung:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
2 * * * Zeitüberschreitung der Anforderung.
3 45 ms 8 ms 7 ms de-wup01a-rd02-ae10-2020.wup.unity-media.net [81.210.133.190]
4 12 ms 13 ms 12 ms de-fra04d-rc1-re0-aorta-net-ae-41-0.aorta.net [84.116.197.22]
5 11 ms 13 ms 11 ms 84.116.190.94
6 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae32-100-pcr1.fnt.cw.net [195.2.18.217]
7 89 ms 88 ms 95 ms ae17-tcr1.pat.cw.net [195.2.9.126]
8 88 ms 90 ms 88 ms et-7-1-0-xcr1.nyh.cw.net [195.2.24.241]
9 93 ms 88 ms 89 ms ae30-xcr2.nyk.cw.net [195.2.16.134]
10 88 ms 88 ms 88 ms ae-36.a01.nycmny17.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [128.241.2.153]
11 96 ms 89 ms 89 ms ae-5.r21.nwrknj03.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.4.174]
12 108 ms 106 ms 106 ms ae-3.r22.chcgil09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.166]
13 109 ms 109 ms 106 ms ae-1.r23.chcgil09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.27]
14 158 ms 158 ms 159 ms ae-1.r24.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.5.17]
15 161 ms 160 ms 161 ms ae-4.r00.scrmca02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.7.57]
16 160 ms 166 ms 161 ms xe-0-1-0-1-1.r00.scrmca02.us.ce.gin.ntt.net [192.80.16.2]
17 160 ms * * 204.2.229.230
18 160 ms 160 ms 160 ms 204.2.229.106

But no extreme high node there even still being in primetime (19:47 sacramento where the servers should be i guess)...
I still believe there is a problem in the EU datacenter be hardware or bandwith issues... it just makes no sense why the EU node in the datancenter of KDDI be the only node with extremly high latency.
The ohter datacenter (NA, JP, OSCE) should also have a node in their datacenter hat is focusing on forwarding the packets but still dosent have a high lantency.

Sorry for my bad (probaly VERY bad) english but it's just dosent make sense to me why our EU datacenter shows a different behavior in the tracert routing.