Jio Fiber Shows Significant Improvement

[raj17]

It is a local ISP, only serves my city. Don't wanna disclose my city name.

yup its ok btw how much speed your isp gave you?

 

[Zuke]

yup its ok btw how much speed your isp gave you?

Rs. 999 for 300 Mbps. Does not give full speed all the time though. And mainly only with servers having peering. So, not the best in download speed. Great for ping but again, packet loss.

If it didn't have packet loss, I would have kept it as primary connection and Jio as backup. xD

 

[anubhav]

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=0 ttl=50 time=158.696 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=1 ttl=50 time=160.222 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=2 ttl=50 time=150.842 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=3 ttl=50 time=151.557 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 20% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 150.842/155.329/160.222 ms

On jiofiber

 

[Zuke]

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=0 ttl=50 time=158.696 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=1 ttl=50 time=160.222 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=2 ttl=50 time=150.842 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=3 ttl=50 time=151.557 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 20% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 150.842/155.329/160.222 ms

On jiofiber

Yeah, still not fixed.

 

[raj17]

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=0 ttl=50 time=158.696 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=1 ttl=50 time=160.222 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=2 ttl=50 time=150.842 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=3 ttl=50 time=151.557 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 20% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 150.842/155.329/160.222 ms

On jiofiber

Heres mine

C:\Users\RAJ>ping 1.1.1.1

Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=53
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=53
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=53
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 1.1.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 6ms, Average = 4ms

C:\Users\RAJ>ping 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=52
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=52
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=52
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 38ms

 

[Zuke]

Heres mine

Nice. Considering you are getting 2-3ms to 1.1.1.1, I suppose you are not being routed through Mumbai server. The current issue is happening in Cloudflare's Mumbai server which is causing too much issues for many people.

 

[raj17]

Nice. Considering you are getting 2-3ms to 1.1.1.1, I suppose you are not being routed through Mumbai server. The current issue is happening in Cloudflare's Mumbai server which is causing too much issues for many people.

You know zuke , it's totally different when I run the DNS Benchmark on my PC, and I get these results. Since I visit new sites daily, uncached names are more important to me than cached ones, so it definitely shows better on the terminal. However, in terms of actual performance, Google DNS is much better for uncached queries.

Google DNS (8.8.8.8):

Cached Name: 0.076 ms average
Uncached Name: 0.162 ms average
DotCom Lookup: 0.146 ms average

Cloudflare DNS (1.1.1.1):

Cached Name: 0.099 ms average
Uncached Name: 0.195 ms average
DotCom Lookup: 0.101 ms average

 

[Zuke]

You know zuke , it's totally different when I run the DNS Benchmark on my PC, and I get these results. Since I visit new sites daily, uncached names are more important to me than cached ones, so it definitely shows better on the terminal. However, in terms of actual performance, Google DNS is much better for uncached queries.

Nice, for me OpenDNS and ControlD works best.

 

[anubhav]

Pings have improved for me today.

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=0 ttl=50 time=43.189 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=1 ttl=50 time=43.257 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=2 ttl=50 time=43.526 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=3 ttl=50 time=44.899 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=4 ttl=50 time=45.573 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 43.189/44.088/45.573 ms

 

[Zuke]

Pings have improved for me today.

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=0 ttl=50 time=43.189 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=1 ttl=50 time=43.257 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=2 ttl=50 time=43.526 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=3 ttl=50 time=44.899 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: seq=4 ttl=50 time=45.573 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 43.189/44.088/45.573 ms

It improves randomly everyday for some time. Let see if this stays long.