Author Topic: SAVVIS et al! (Read 659 times)

Patches1 · « **on:** June 27, 2005, 12:02:20 AM »

HiTech and crew...

What is the status of improvement regarding the packet losses we are experiencing with SAVVIS?

I, for one, am tired of the 70% plus packet losses. I have MONTHS of pingplot data....do you want it? It seems that you have data logged in the Technical Support board, but only 240 replies to your request since January. Are only a few of us having difficulties? If so, then please disregard this post; if not, then please read on:

6% loss at SAVVIS Seattle (daily)...and that is 11 hops before getting to Seattle from Lynnwood, just a few miles north of Seattle.

40-70% packet loss at the 2ND Chigcago hub, not the 1st, and an additional 40% packet loss from the 2nd to the 3rd Chicago hub,

and an additional 30% packet loss in the 2 following St.Louis hubs
before getting to you in Texas.

Last night my route went from Seattle (11 hops for a 12 mile route from my computer 12 miles north of Seattle) to Chicago, to Denver, to Chicago, to Chicago (route changes every second), to St.Louis, St.Louis...and finally...to you...in 63 miliseconds with packet losses exceeding 70-80%.

So...should I now subscribe to a different provider (?) ...mine is ComCast...or go back to DSL, or even dial-up modem mode?

I pay $60.00 a month for ComCast and an additional $15.00 a month to HTC for the privelege of playing Aces High...only $75.00 a month...times 12...equals...ummm...$900.00 annually for entertainment on the net...and I am only one customer. It seems to me that for this kind of money, worldwide, the internet providers would concern themselves with Quality Control.

I build commercial jet aircraft for a living. Just how many people do you think would be willing to fly on the aircraft I help to build using the Quality Control Standards of SAVVIS, COMCAST, and HTC, if I could only state that their chances of survival on an aircraft I helped to build was commensurate with the packet losses I am experiencing while playing Aces High (..i/e...the higher the packet loss, the less likely the survival rate on the aircraft I help to build)? Does anyone want to venture a guess.....?

BigR · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:26:40 AM »

While your analogy is horrible, I understand what you’re saying...Now here’s the reality.... Most of the internet going public doesn’t even notice the packet loss. Only people who play a lot of games will notice it. Even then, the majority of game players don’t notice it. It would only be in their interest if there was a large amount of people complaining. I bet hardly anyone complains.

Now of course it’s in HTC's interest, but what would you have them do?

Patches1 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:47:07 AM »

So, it's ok for providers to disregad their customers on the net?

Sure, my anaolgy is horrible...but it got your attention, didn't it?

damnname · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2005, 01:46:23 AM »

A squad mate of mine and I are also from the Northwest (Puyallup & Auburn to be specific) and while I understand NOTHING about packet losses, I do know how frustrating it is to be flying along, have my framerate drop to 1, making me crash and burn, and have NO spikes on the meter while showing my system running smoothly!
My friend and I both have computers that surpass HTC's requirements for the game and we're both using Comcast cable internet. As a matter of fact, I had my computer personally built for me to play this game! I even printed out all of HTC's requirements and had the "builder" exceed all of them so I'd be able to play for years without worry!!

Some questions we have are:

Why is it that the computer I'm playing on suddenly can't keep up with the game when it's only a few months old? Is this a Northwest problem only? How can we solve the problem of this lag? Is this lag because of packet losses? Will we have to move out of the northwest to ever be able to play Aces smoothly??

The main reason for my post at all was because I've asked MANY people why my friend and I are having framerate losses, but the answers I received made it seem like I was insane and the problem lay just with us. Glad to see this isn't the case! Any help at all would be greatly appreciated!!

4ACES · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2005, 02:51:49 AM »

The 11 hops to seattle is a local (ComCast) issue,, high packet loss between the Long Haul fiber (this would be the Seattle to Chicago to St Louis and then to HT) is interesting. My guess is that your best bet would be to go with DSL (Guessing Quest) and hope that they are using there own LH equipment (backbone) instead of renting from Savis as well. The question here is did you play AH while you were on DSL, how was the connection then,, If not get a friend that has DSL to sign up and retest the connection. You should be able to complain to ComCast yourself. There is no excuse for the high packet loss and they should reroute thier local traffic or have Savis fix the PM's they are obviously having.

PS: Just to be thourgh ping plot to sites (East Coast- Texas) other than HT's that way when you complain to Comcast they can't blame it on the receiving site (HT).

Roscoroo · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2005, 04:09:25 AM »

11 hops just getting to Seattle darn .....
heres mine also from Lynnwood (im on verizon )

Target Name: N/A
IP: 216.91.187.39
Date/Time: 6/27/2005 2:06:02 AM

1 27 ms 17 ms [71.112.225.1]
2 14 ms 17 ms P2-2.LCR-02.STTLWA.verizon-gni.net [130.81.34.106]
3 68 ms 49 ms so-7-1-0-0.BB-RTR2.LAX01.verizon-gni.net [130.81.17.147]
4 49 ms 48 ms bux-edge-01.inet.qwest.net [63.145.160.61]
5 48 ms 49 ms bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.13.173]
6 50 ms 48 ms bur-core-03.inet.qwest.net [205.171.13.6]
7 50 ms 49 ms lap-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.213.106]
8 52 ms 55 ms bpr1-so-6-0-0.LosAngelesEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.196.13]
9 52 ms 51 ms dcr1-so-4-2-0.LosAngeles.savvis.net [208.172.44.105]
10 128 ms 124 ms acr1-so-3-0-0.Denver.savvis.net [204.70.193.77]
11 143 ms 140 ms scr1-at-2-2-0-950.stls1.savvis.net [208.172.163.134]
12 141 ms 141 ms [216.91.187.39]

12 hops total (and its running slow again thru the savvis junk ) im ussually at a 89- 91 ping time.

CHECKERS · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2005, 03:06:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigR
While your analogy is horrible, I understand what you’re saying...Now here’s the reality.... Most of the internet going public doesn’t even notice the packet loss. Only people who play a lot of games will notice it. Even then, the majority of game players don’t notice it. It would only be in their interest if there was a large amount of people complaining. I bet hardly anyone complains.

Now of course it’s in HTC's interest, but what would you have them do?

BIG R , This savvis issue has been going on way longer that you are aware of and savvis flat sucks ! HTC is trying to get savvis to live up to their contract agreements as a backbone host and provider, or look at other options . and get rid savvis for "lack of Performance under Contract , simple as that ....

My ISP had the same crappy service experences with savvis, fired them and cancled their contract with savvis for the same reasons . The contract is in the hands of attorneys that represent my ISP here in California. My ISP hired Broadwing to replace the dorky savvis host and pipe. My ISP's customers were canceling and looking elsewhere for ISP because of the day in / day out packet losses and crap conetivity problems with savvis .....
Savvis is main reason my AceHigh online account inactive ....

Regards
CHECKERS

Hornet · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2005, 05:30:29 PM »

The savvis trouble has really opened my eyes when looking at online gaming in general. Because its been in the mass market for over a decade, technology has matured to the point that everyone's focus is on price point, gameplay, physics modeling and graphics etc, and it becomes easier to forget that connection really is the critical piece of the whole genre.

its scary to think about, but what BigR alluded may become a bigger problem. If 95% of the public doesn't notice any degradation in connection from the likes of savvis than the incentive just isnt really there to improve connects.

The turn based banner carrying MMOG's like EQ could survive on degraded connects and the FPS community still hold competitive matches in LAN format, but our little sliver of gaming is as connection sensitive like a FPS, but we can't maintain quality of play in a similar LAN format.

Hope they get it fixed.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #8 on:** June 28, 2005, 12:52:47 PM »

OK guys, lets clear some of this up. I know some of the guys here know this but I'm going to say it again.

Beating up on HTC over this issue is just pointless. HiTech has developed some outstanding software to deal with just this kind of problems on the net but it isn't foolproof. Hornet has it right, 95% of the internet populous does not even notice packet loss because most internet application, i.e. web browsing, is developed to deal with it. It's just not an issue for them. The fact is there is very little motivation for companies to fix these situations because the problems do not cost them money. Backbone companies like Savvis, MCI , etc. are not going to spend large sums of cash to upgrade/update/fix their equipment and software when their major customers, who are not us or the other folks sitting at home, are not complaining. They also do not spend money on technical staff. The smart guys all go get jobs elsewhere where they are appreciated and compensated. The carriers hire hacks and wannabees who are intructed on how to make excuses not fix problems. The problem doesn't just exist with the big carriers either. It exists in local cable/phone companies too. In Jacksonville FL, ComCast has no motivation to fix the cable on my street because the only one who even notices the problem is me. Their tech came right out and said it. The infrastucture sucks but they are not going to fix it becasue no one else even notices it. that's why I switched to DSL.

We saw this same situation in the telephone industry. One reason DSL was unavaiilable in many areas early on was that the phone companies had all these hi-pass filters in place. Why? because the phone equipment of the early days needed them to keep the lines quiet. They haven't been needed for many years but there was nothing pushing the phone companies to replace them. Then when cable started offering Internet service they realised they were behind the curve and better get with it.

And Patches, Yes, they can get away with disregarding their customers. As a matter of fact most of their contracts are written so that just these kinds of issues are not grounds for terminating the contract. They state that they are giving you X speed of connectivity but that they NEVER guarantee that you will have this all the time at 100% realiability. These contract are filled with mutiple catch 22s that get them off the hook.

Until the general public and most notibly the corporate community starts pushing bandwith requirements further and their application require more stable packet integrity this isn't going to change. When these companies are pushed to fix this you know who will foot the bill for this, right?

HTC is well aware of the problem and Skuzzy has posted regarding this and has stated that they have addressed it with Savvis. For now we have to deal with it. It is part of gaming on the net. Especially in our high usage, packet sensative envronment. Yeah, it sucks, but unless your service bill is in the 6 figures anually they really aren't going to pay you much heed.

Pyro · « **Reply #9 on:** June 28, 2005, 02:36:37 PM »

We've just signed a contract with AT&T and will soon begin to start moving servers to them and see how they look. However, we neither own nor operate the path between you and our servers. While we haven't been happy with Savvis, there are no guarantees that AT&T will be better. And even if it is better for the vast majority of people, that's not to say that it may be better for you in particular or that it will stay that way indefinitely.

navajoboy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 28, 2005, 02:43:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
We've just signed a contract with AT&T and will soon begin to start moving servers to them and see how they look. However, we neither own nor operate the path between you and our servers. While we haven't been happy with Savvis, there are no guarantees that AT&T will be better. And even if it is better for the vast majority of people, that's not to say that it may be better for you in particular or that it will stay that way indefinitely.

what is the time table for the move??

navajo24

Patches1 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 29, 2005, 04:24:07 AM »

Pyro,

Thanks for taking the time to reply; I appreciate it. And please forgive my frustration. I know you folks at HTC work hard to keep us happy.

~~Sir, and to all of the folks at HTC!~~

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** June 29, 2005, 06:37:57 AM »

The time table is not exact. Our goal in relocating the servers is to minimize downtime. This requires a pretty methodical approach with variables not in our absolute control (i.e. shipping the servers back to Texas and getting them installed in AT&T's colocation, for example).

Patches1 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2005, 06:59:56 AM »

Again, my thanks to HTC, Pyro and Skuzzy, for their posts.

I am but a humble subscriber to the best worldwide WWII aviation simulation available on the net.