JiF's Gaming Community

The server went down for quite some time today... 2wice since then the server has had 64 players mostly bots.
IT SUX..
or should I say it dose for me
I feel like doctor who warping here and there with conection problem detected showing up in text.
HELP!!
maybe its me I just started using the free AVG version 8 and cant shut it down when playing like I used to do with most background running stuff in task manager.

A new server is being set up today. That's why it has been changing so much.
Trying different things to test it. I turn it on for a minute to test it and 10 players join then I don't have the heart to kill it right away.

Some PC may not be able to handle 64 players either.

Server crashes about every 15 to 25 minutes. Saw it 5 times in a row today, or almost every map. Sad.

Whatever someone did to the server please change it back.
Ping in Germoney is about 1300 to 1600 since today. Definitely unplayable even if i wasnt kicked due to high ping.

Can you give us a trace route? It's doubtful we can do anything to help, but a trace route to the server is a good place to start.

Hi Mike,

Will try to help but my networking knowledge is a little rusty now

I have tried pinging and tracing the route to the Jiff server, results are below.

It appears that the bfv server/interface ( 203 ) is set to respond to ping but not the 1942 instance (204).
This is not necessarily a problem - just a difference and it also means I cannot get any statistics other than in game. Are they the same physical server?
Sometimes response to pings are disabled (as on my router) to prevent Denial of service attacks (forcing the interface to reply to many pings and crash).

Over here we seem to get pings in game of 300 - 400 ms (Monday & Saturday)
(typically it used to be around 100)

The last router before the server appears to be 63.149.66.2. Next time I get high pings in game I will see what my reponse is to this router and from the bfv interface (this will only be relevant if it is the same physical server).

Tracing route to bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 10 ms 7 ms 8 ms 10.159.64.1
3 9 ms 9 ms 8 ms osr01hali.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.113
]
4 12 ms 11 ms 10 ms osr01barn-tenge72.network.virginmedia.net [62.30
.252.65]
5 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms osr01brad.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.53]

6 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms man-bb-a-ge-110-0.network.virginmedia.net [195.1
82.178.121]
7 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms 212.187.136.125
8 36 ms 21 ms 18 ms ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.133.102]
9 32 ms 19 ms 18 ms ae-1-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.132.118]

10 90 ms 89 ms 90 ms ae-42.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.137.70]
11 91 ms 93 ms 90 ms ae-2.ebr1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.69.132.98]
12 90 ms 90 ms 90 ms ae-12-53.car2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.70]
13 89 ms 88 ms 90 ms 4.68.110.62
14 90 ms 94 ms 91 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 97 ms 98 ms 98 ms 63.149.66.2
17 99 ms 98 ms 99 ms bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]

Trace complete.

But not to 1942.jiff.net


Tracing route to 1942.jiff.net [192.12.119.204]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 20 ms 7 ms 17 ms 10.159.64.1
3 154 ms 15 ms 219 ms gsr01-ha.blueyonder.co.uk [62.30.240.193]
4 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms osr01barn-tenge72.network.virginmedia.net [62.30
.252.65]
5 23 ms 11 ms 14 ms osr01brad.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.53]

6 10 ms 10 ms 9 ms man-bb-a-ge-110-0.network.virginmedia.net [195.1
82.178.121]
7 10 ms 9 ms 10 ms 212.187.136.125
8 22 ms 17 ms 18 ms ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.133.102]
9 18 ms 29 ms 21 ms ae-1-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.132.118]

10 96 ms 90 ms 89 ms ae-42.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.137.70]
11 89 ms 88 ms 89 ms ae-2.ebr1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.69.132.98]
12 88 ms 105 ms 86 ms ae-12-55.car2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.134]
13 88 ms 87 ms 99 ms 4.68.110.62
14 99 ms 87 ms 87 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 97 ms 98 ms 95 ms 63.149.66.2
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.

Pinging 192.12.119.203 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=111


Pinging 192.12.119.204 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 192.12.119.204:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

hUTCHIE

The bf42 server and the bfv server are different pc's, but are located in the same place, so this might help tell us something. I'll have some other people check this thread out and see what they think and let ya know.

Thanks Mike,

The trace in the previous post was when the server was ok, now below I have some results when it was not to contrast against.

This afternoon ( 15:00 GMT ) the server started having problems with high pings reported so I repeated the same process.

From your information (2 separate servers - same physical location) it is highly likely that a router 'near' that location is the source of the problems (marked in bold). I guess comparitively not many people use the Bfv server but it appears to suffer from the same lag. I only use it as tracert and ping reply from the bfv server whereas the 1942 server does not.

The issue appears to be between 205.171.17.153 and 63.149.66.2. It is ok between 63.149.66.2 and the server and over the atlantic to the USA seems about normal.

Tracing route to bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 7 ms 8 ms 17 ms 10.159.64.1
3 11 ms 8 ms 8 ms osr01hali.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.113]
4 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms osr01barn-tenge72.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.65]
5 12 ms 11 ms 9 ms osr01brad.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.53]
6 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms man-bb-a-ge-110-0.network.virginmedia.net [195.182.178.121]
7 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms 212.187.136.125
8 25 ms 18 ms 18 ms ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.133.102]
9 25 ms 18 ms 19 ms ae-1-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.132.118]
10 97 ms 91 ms 90 ms ae-42.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.137.70]
11 95 ms 91 ms 91 ms ae-2.ebr1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.69.132.98]
12 91 ms 89 ms 90 ms ae-12-53.car2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.70]
13 88 ms 91 ms 89 ms 4.68.110.62
14 95 ms 99 ms 90 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 312 ms 302 ms 283 ms 63.149.66.2
17 280 ms 278 ms 281 ms bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]


Pinging 205.171.17.153 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 205.171.17.153:
Packets: Sent = 11, Received = 11, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 88ms, Maximum = 99ms, Average = 90ms




Pinging 63.149.66.2 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=49

Ping statistics for 63.149.66.2:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 223ms, Maximum = 316ms, Average = 279ms


Pinging bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=111

Ping statistics for 192.12.119.203:
Packets: Sent = 1535, Received = 1535, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 152ms, Maximum = 349ms, Average = 287ms


Hope this helps and if there is any more data I can give you from this end please let me know.

Regards

hUTCHIE.

OK, I have some info for ya. The bandwidth the servers sit on is being tested during the day (say 8AM-6PM EST) and you may see higher than normal pings during this time. This is only a temporary must necessary situation. Unfortunately this testing may go on for some time, but there is hope. The best time to test the connection would be after 6pm EST as the testing should be done for the day. If you continue to see high pings outside of this time, then there may be something else going on. Hope that makes sense.

Hello Mike,

Upon further investigation there appears to be a problem with the IP traffic between ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net and 63.149.66.2
(Another QWEST router). This could be explained by the bandwith test you suggest.

For comparative purposes a trace to 63.149.66.1 and everything is ok.

Tracing route to bst-edge-04.inet.qwest.net [63.149.66.1] over a maximum of 30 hops:

12 93 ms 91 ms 88 ms ae-12-51.car2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.6]
13 91 ms 87 ms 88 ms 4.68.110.62
14 94 ms 89 ms 90 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 97 ms 95 ms 98 ms bst-edge-04.inet.qwest.net [63.149.66.1]

Trace complete.

Next a trace to 63.149.66.2 and there appears to be an unusual delay between ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net and 63.149.66.2

Tracing route to 63.149.66.2 over a maximum of 30 hops
12 91 ms 89 ms 90 ms ae-12-53.car2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.70]
13 91 ms 88 ms 90 ms 4.68.110.62
14 92 ms 100 ms 91 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 273 ms 291 ms 280 ms 63.149.66.2

I know that 63.149.66.1 and 63.149.66.2 could be some miles apart but 190 ms is a lot. From Halifax, United Kingdom to the middle of the USA is only 98 ms to put this into perspective.

As both are Qwest routers and presumably part of their network does anyone have an account or any infuence with QWEST?

Meanwhile I will try at the time you suggest Mike and see what the figures are like.

Regards

hUTCHIE.

[JiF]Sgt. hUTCHIE wrote:

Tracing route to bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 7 ms 8 ms 17 ms 10.159.64.1
3 11 ms 8 ms 8 ms osr01hali.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.113]
4 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms osr01barn-tenge72.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.65]
5 12 ms 11 ms 9 ms osr01brad.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.252.53]
6 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms man-bb-a-ge-110-0.network.virginmedia.net [195.182.178.121]
7 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms 212.187.136.125
8 25 ms 18 ms 18 ms ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.133.102]
9 25 ms 18 ms 19 ms ae-1-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.132.118]
10 97 ms 91 ms 90 ms ae-42.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.137.70]
11 95 ms 91 ms 91 ms ae-2.ebr1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.69.132.98]
12 91 ms 89 ms 90 ms ae-12-53.car2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.70]
13 88 ms 91 ms 89 ms 4.68.110.62
14 95 ms 99 ms 90 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 312 ms 302 ms 283 ms 63.149.66.2
17 280 ms 278 ms 281 ms bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]


Pinging 205.171.17.153 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=50
Reply from 205.171.17.153: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 205.171.17.153:
Packets: Sent = 11, Received = 11, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 88ms, Maximum = 99ms, Average = 90ms




Pinging 63.149.66.2 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=49
Reply from 63.149.66.2: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=49

Ping statistics for 63.149.66.2:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 223ms, Maximum = 316ms, Average = 279ms


Pinging bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=111
Reply from 192.12.119.203: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=111

Ping statistics for 192.12.119.203:
Packets: Sent = 1535, Received = 1535, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 152ms, Maximum = 349ms, Average = 287ms


Hope this helps and if there is any more data I can give you from this end please let me know.

Regards

hUTCHIE.

oh yeah, of course
I knew that....


you tech guys, sheesh
speak english already

Try it now. We stopped the test for a minute or two.

Yes - that's great

14 104 ms 96 ms 91 ms ewr-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.17.153]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 111 ms 112 ms 102 ms 63.149.66.2
17 100 ms 99 ms 107 ms bfv.jiff.net [192.12.119.203]

Thanks Grimp

That's good news. The bad news is the testing is going back on. The kinda good news is it won't last for ever. We have two weeks to test this circuit and then we are moving our company to it. During the two weeks we could max out the bandwidth for testing for extended periods of time.
I dunno how long Jimbo is gonna continue his full bandwidth download test from hell. Bottom line is this could go on for as much as two weeks and we cannot put the server back to where it was as the IP range has been moved. After two weeks it SHOULD get back to normal. We are not doing any testing at night Eastern US time. I know that the day is bad for Europe but we gotta test it sometime

Thanks Grimp,

I think it is good news all round as we know what it is and that it's not permanent. I can let anyone who asks in game know the cause.

There have been all sorts of theories flying around - from the recent number of people increase, the microsoft operating system and the new server build.

hUTCHIE.