Forgot your password?

Average latency to

Displaying poll results.
< 1ms (pinging localhost)
  267 votes / 1%
= 1ms to < 5ms (servers are across the street)
152 votes / 0%
= 5ms to < 20ms (same US state)
  1001 votes / 4%
= 20ms to < 40ms (fellow US citizen)
  3920 votes / 18%
= 40ms to < 80ms (same continent)
  5544 votes / 25%
= 80ms to < 150ms (a pond divides us)
  6692 votes / 30%
= 150ms to < 200ms (many hops later...)
  1728 votes / 7%
Over >=200ms (still stuck on dialup, or in space)
  2450 votes / 11%
21754 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Average latency to

Comments Filter:
  • Odd (Score:5, Funny)

    by RightwingNutjob (1302813) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:03PM (#43531411)
    First-ish vote/post and I'm at 40 msec. Shouldn't the first vote have come from the 1 msec crowd?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:11PM (#43531501)

    Or using a typical US ISP.

    You can't see it, but my middle finger is raised in the general direction of Comcast Headquarters.

    • by rrhal (88665)

      Comcasted out to 60 ms here. my route took me down to CA then back up to Seattle and finally over to Chicago (Elk Grove)

      Tracing route to []
      over a maximum of 30 hops:

      1 22 ms 7 ms 12 ms
      2 7 ms 7 ms 8 ms []
      3 10 ms 15 ms 9 ms []
      4 12 ms 11 ms 8 ms ae-1-0-a

      • 13 hops, 60ms, straight from comcast seattle to savvis. Second time also 13 hops, but via CA just like yours

      • by Nutria (679911)

        What's that anomalous hop #5 (Seattle -> San Jose -> Seattle)? Looks like a routing bug.

        • The clue is in the second router name: "". It's a backbone ("ibone") router. Most likely as part of their aggregation scheme, the San Jose router is allowed to feed into it but the lower-level Seattle routers are not. I actually see something similar in my routing pattern: I live in Ashburn Viriginia, but the packets route out to Charlotte NC and then back to Ashburn ibone routers.

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      Or using a typical US ISP.

      You can't see it, but my middle finger is raised in the general direction of Comcast Headquarters.

      Pretty sad, I'm in Canada on a fairly average connection and I get 35ms.

  • Minimum = 71ms, Maximum = 82ms, Average = 74ms

    Pinging from Buffalo on Time Warner.

  • Despite the ranges specified in the survey, I'm getting 87ms ping in North America. I'm thinking this one is on Telus, though... or savvis, who I don't much trust anyway. Why the heck are they routing my packets to /.?

    • 92ms, Cox Communications 25 Mb, So-Cal
    • I'm connected through my $DAYJOB VPN, so traceroute takes about 30ms to get out the door and over to *** Traceroutes and pings from /. itself are running 80ms or so. Neither traceroute nor ping are necessarily accurate, because systems, especially routers, don't always prioritize them, and routers especially tend to use the underpowered CPU to respond to pings, but simple routed packets get handled by ASICs or at least line cards, so ping/traceroute times should be interpreted as an upper

  • In the States, 95ms (Score:4, Informative)

    by dave562 (969951) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:22PM (#43531593) Journal

    Time Warner. That pretty much says it all.

    • by antdude (79039)

      Here's mine:

      $ /usr/sbin/traceroute
      traceroute to (, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
      1 ( 0.984 ms 1.263 ms 1.525 ms
      2 (....1) 26.049 ms 26.186 ms 26.451 ms
      3 (...) 18.361 ms 18.883 ms 19.020 ms
      4 (...) 24.877 ms 25.501 ms 25.670 ms
      5 (...) 25.757 ms 26.236 ms 26.493 ms
      6 ... (...) 28.782 ms 14.848 ms 17.855 ms
      7 107.14.1

    • by gravis777 (123605)

      My ping time with Time Warner is great,its my speed that sucks. Have to keep calling them up saying "I am paying for the 20 meg service, not the 1.5 meg service", and they will be like "sorry, let us reset something on our end". The whole issue could probably be resolved if they just added an additional node to my neighborhood. I shouldn't be getting buffering issues on a 3.5 Mbps Hulu stream when I have nothing else going on in my network.

      Worst part about Time Warner is that their tech support seems to be

    • TWC is pathetic, but my other "choice" is AT&T.

    • Time Warner. That pretty much says it all.

      It says you got through, which isn't always guaranteed on TW. After a few months on TW, I switched to using Google's DNS, since the only thing worse than 80+ ms is "timed out". And that was happening way too frequently.

      Funny thing, though: Chrome always found the URLs it was looking for. Made me wonder if it was just using its own DNS anyway. Not curious enough to investigate further, though.

  • by bakes (87194) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:22PM (#43531595) Journal

    Not sure the estimates in brackets are quite right. I get 280ms from Australia. And I'm on the ground.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      And I thought I was slow with my 261 ms.

      On a 20/20 Mbit fibre connection in Hong Kong.

      It's obviously the distance: pinging gives me 4.5 ms round trip time.

    • by HJED (1304957)
      304ms, Sydney, Australia (TPG)
  • My average ping time is just over 93ms and I live in Southern California and use ADSL. Traceroute takes 13 hops to get there, going through Chicago and Elk Grove. (In that order.) I'm not sure just what that means,
  • Here on business.

    Some web sites work reasonably fast, some terribly slowly, others not at all. In particular, local city newspaper web sites appear to be blocked by the Great Firewall, while national news sites appear to work.

  • Lord knows how.
  • by manu0601 (2221348) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @09:27PM (#43532159)
    Ping latency does not matter. What is interesting is how long to fetch the home page.
  • by tmh - The Mad Hacker (962953) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @09:41PM (#43532265)

          High latency = slow
          Dialup = slow
    I wouldn't have thought of "dialup" to describe a high-latency connection. (Gee, by eliminating your local router, it drops a hop, and should be faster, right?)

    Years ago, the latency from my DSL provider to some locations was so bad (>500ms ping times) that I actually dialed another ISP on when I was using an especially "chatty" protocol, and enjoyed better overall performance, even though the max theoretical throughput was only 1/20th what the DSL connection offered..

    • by jandrese (485) <> on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @01:06PM (#43538225) Homepage Journal
      The problem is that Modems have so damn many buffers in them (Compression, UART, Error Correction, Serial Driver) that they typically see high ping times just because the packet spend so much time waiting around for other packets instead of getting clocked out on the phone line. A long time ago I had a precursor technology to "Winmodems", a modem that had most of the hardware except for the error correction and compression parts. Those were handled by a separate (Windows 3.1) driver. After installing FreeBSD and Windows 95 on my box, I lost access to that driver, but discovered that the modem actually performed better for online games (Doom 2, C&C, Warcraft) than it did before. It wasn't able to recover from someone picking up the phone in the middle of a call, but generally the connection was stable. I undoubtedly had good phone lines though.
  • I live hidden in Slashdot's server room so my latency is awesome. Also, it's hot in here.
    • >CDE open sourced

      uh, great? I guess. Excuse me if I don't jump for joy at the open sourcing of a Corba-based DE (also, I actually use CDE (at work), so we can just add another strike against it)

  • 64 bytes from ( icmp_req=1 ttl=237 time=244 ms
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=2 ttl=237 time=244 ms
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=3 ttl=237 time=244 ms
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=4 ttl=237 time=245 ms

    traceroute to (, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1 ( 4.813 ms 4.948 ms 5.093 ms
    2 (

  • Porto Alegre/GVT ~= 174ms

  • 69ms latency and 13 hops from N.O. through Dallas to

    $ ping -c40
    PING ( 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=1 ttl=243 time=66.4 ms
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=2 ttl=243 time=68.2 ms
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=39 ttl=243 time=74.4 ms
    64 bytes from ( icmp_req=40 ttl=243 time=66.8 ms

    --- ping statistics ---
    40 packets tra

  • My traceroute [v0.82] ( Tue Apr 23 21:53:21 2013
    Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit
  • I didn't notice any speed increase in 2009 when I became a citizen - maybe I should move to Canada
    (I am in MN so I am used to the cold by now)

  • I really did get sub 5ms pings from an adjacent cage. That was back in the olden days....
  • 9 hops, 50 ms ping

  • doesn't allow ping!

    • Yep. Same here. And it's not even some intrusion control measure, as I can ping anything inside the firewall.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    DSL over 1950's copper wire on base.

  • 300+ (Score:4, Informative)

    by geekymachoman (1261484) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @12:22AM (#43533377)

    6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5005ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 313.723/320.220/329.918/4.815 ms

    Thailand to US. Sometimes it can be even 400 ms to some US/EU server, but to slashdot is 300. Working over ssh on that kind of latency ... is painful, but one gets used to it.

    Internet is good here, it's just that US/EU is so far away.. not as far as moon, but still..

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Working over ssh on that kind of latency ... is painful, but one gets used to it.

      You shouldn't have to get used to it. If you have any say in what software is installed on the far end, and you don't need X forwarding, then I suggest you try mosh [].

    • by gravis777 (123605)

      Sounds like you or your ISP is connected to the US through satelite if you are getting those kind of ping times. Its similar to the response times I see with friends who have satelite.

      • by _merlin (160982)

        No it isn't. It's normal latency from this part of the world. Here in Australia, which is a bit further away again, I get average ping time of 310ms. There's a lot of fibre and numerous repeaters along the way. That all drives up propagation time.

        • by gravis777 (123605)

          Oh, I actually misread. I saw time 5005ms and was thinking that was his results. Looking at it again, I see that its 320.220ms. My bad!

  • Yep, the Eastern Hemisphere is most certainly in space, or stuck on dialup. Oh what's that? Taiwan is on the ground and has an average internet speed far higher than America? Well golly gee.
  • by Kelerei (2619511) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @02:13AM (#43533839) Homepage
    Ping averages:

    Ping statistics for
    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 253ms, Maximum = 259ms, Average = 254ms

    Traceroute (route goes from Cape Town to London and thence across the "pond"):

    1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms
    2 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms []
    3 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms []
    4 10 ms 11 ms 11 ms
    5 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms []
    6 163 ms 163 ms 162 ms
    7 161 ms 162 ms 207 ms
    8 161 ms 161 ms 161 ms []
    9 192 ms 221 ms 203 ms []
    10 161 ms 162 ms 161 ms []
    11 167 ms 162 ms 162 ms []
    12 254 ms 254 ms 253 ms []
    13 254 ms 254 ms 253 ms []
    14 254 ms 254 ms 254 ms []
    15 257 ms 254 ms 266 ms
    16 254 ms 254 ms 254 ms []
  • request timed out.
  • Moscow. 169 ms.

  • 18.6 ms, Saginaw, MI Charter Communications
  • East Midlands Trains has wifi, but there is a little bit of inconsistency in their network :-)

    64 bytes from icmp_seq=0 ttl=237 time=186.522 ms
    64 bytes from icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=382.941 ms
    64 bytes from icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=218.723 ms
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 3
    64 bytes from icmp_seq=4 ttl=237 time=357.108 ms
    64 bytes from icmp_seq=3 ttl=237 time=1866.197 ms
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 6
    64 bytes from icmp
  • by magic maverick (2615475) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @02:57AM (#43533977) Homepage Journal

    My 'net connection is quite variable. Sometimes it's good, and I get around 200ms to hit, but sometimes it is so slow, and it takes ~1 second to hit At the moment, here's the results of my latest ping to /. (taken just moments ago).

    5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 5756ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 252.622/576.903/791.659/215.090 ms

    As you can see, it's quite high.

    And yet, I'm not in space, nor am I on dial-up. I'm just in yet another developing country. Me thinks the poll author (and the poll "editor") have first world problems.

  • My tracert sends me down to Dallas and back for some reason, despite being 2hrs or so from Elk Grove if that is indeed in Chicago area.

  • A steady 133 ms from Stockholm, Sweden.
    Ethernet from home to ISP. I wonder how faster it would have been if I had bypassed my slow router...

  • Weird I got an average 304ms, on a responsibly fast ADSL 2+ connection near Sydney Australia (median and mode both where closer to 270ms, but still very high).
    Is my connection really that slow, it certainly doesn't seem like it.
  • by PPH (736903) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @04:14AM (#43534263)

    .... the time spent loading a sh*tload of JavaScript every time I move my mouse?

  • All you need is internet over satellite.
  • I'm getting 31ms average ping from my wired computer. I'm on Videotron cable, in Canada. Wireless system is a bit slower.

    Just for fun, I tried with cell phone connection (Bell 3G), and got 121ms average.

  • ... from a government link. 146ms average
  • insensitive clod!

    6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 100% packet loss, time %$^£$^

  • not quite. More like 'friendly northern neighbour'
    (i.e: Canada for the geographically impaired)

  • I'm getting ping times as low as 17ms, and as high as 137ms. My average was 39.71, and my median was 24.

  • We're on a big 50 Mbps pipe from a major provider in Toledo, OH.
  • I'm not inside US borders.

  • But site loads. *shrugs*

  • by gameboyhippo (827141) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @10:15AM (#43536221) Journal

    Since I'm in KC (home to Google Fiber), my ping times are in the negatives. Google knows what I want to ping before I do!

  • The average of 5 pings is 93 msec, which you characterize as "a pond divides us". But your IP address is hosted in Iowa while I am in California, only half a continent away. I can download from Hayes, Iowa, at 15 Mbps.

  • Despite our efforts to secede, Vermont is still part of the U.S., but I'm only getting 50ms.

  • We live in a rural area outside Tacoma, WA (98580 if you really care) no cable or DSL service available. With a LG VL600 USB modem plugged into a Cradlepoint MBR95 router: High of 108ms, Low 91ms. Until about 2 months ago we were connected on 3G, most ping times were 150-250ms, thankfully Verizon upgraded our area to LTE and speed also went up about 10X from around 180k max downloads to 2MB / second max. We use to use directway satellite internet, that never got ping under 800ms, average was usually from
  • so I can not ping6 you :-/
  • From the firewall: 64 bytes from ( icmp_seq=2 ttl=244 time=40.7 ms 64 bytes from ( icmp_seq=3 ttl=244 time=39.9 ms 64 bytes from ( icmp_seq=4 ttl=244 time=40.1 ms 64 bytes from ( icmp_seq=5 ttl=244 time=40.2 ms My desktop is a bit higher, 45-50 range, but not too bad.
  • Just a hair over 20ms from Ohio.
  • by Zadaz (950521) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @06:17PM (#43541159)

    My ping time is 162ms with a maximum of 1431.

    But I'm in rural America. I'm lucky I can even ping anything, despite paying $70 a month for 0.5Mbps. (Yes, the decimal point and units are correct. We pay for 0.5, but get 0.35. Almost fast enough to stream music!)

It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one. -- Phil White


Forgot your password?