I have a nexus 6 and a galaxy s3 here which have variable ping times. Tried with several routers and ping times are quite high, at times they are so high that some games are unplayable or the phone drops packets once in a while. Below is the information I posted to google product forums and well, I got a canned response unfortunately. Also it was suggested that the problem may be hardware related, but I saw this problem also in 2 samsung phones and my nexus 6, at least 3 different wifi routers and I am not sure if I am ready to call it a hardware failure. I ran the tests just after flashing MMB29Q firmware so the phone was mostly stock at that point. (I setup few google apps and store only). I would be happy to know if somebody knows the reason for this.
I am trying to figure out why my nexus 6 (MMB29Q firmware) is behaving so badly on network. When I play games which require realtime data, sometimes games freeze for a second or two.
I have 2 phones next to each other Nexus6 and chinese Otium S5. From inside my wireless router (OpenWRT) I ping both of them, here is how it looks like (sometimes nexus 6 loses packets also)
Otium
PING 192.168.1.217 (192.168.1.217): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=0 ttl=64 time=4.287 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=1 ttl=64 time=4.133 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=2 ttl=64 time=4.450 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=3 ttl=64 time=6.304 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=4 ttl=64 time=5.444 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=5 ttl=64 time=4.030 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=6 ttl=64 time=4.138 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=7 ttl=64 time=4.140 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.961 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=9 ttl=64 time=3.610 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.217: seq=10 ttl=64 time=4.052 ms
Nexus 6
PING 192.168.1.151 (192.168.1.151): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=0 ttl=64 time=77.458 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=1 ttl=64 time=99.358 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=2 ttl=64 time=123.873 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=3 ttl=64 time=147.916 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=4 ttl=64 time=69.522 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=5 ttl=64 time=91.282 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=6 ttl=64 time=116.320 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=7 ttl=64 time=4.159 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=8 ttl=64 time=164.020 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=9 ttl=64 time=185.923 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.151: seq=10 ttl=64 time=211.102 ms
I tried
* factory reset and reset network settings in nexus 6 and it does not help.
* I found in some forums the location settings may caused problems in previous rom so I tried to enable things like keep wifi always on, use wifi etc. for location and some other combinations but it does not help.
* I tried another access point. (tp-link with tp-link firmware) and it does the same problem.
* I tried to go next to the access point, (1-2 meters away line of sight) and still it did not help.
* I tried disabling WMM mode in the access point and it made the Otium pings go down to 1.5ms to 2.5ms (about 2ms faster than before. I tried this twice because I couldn't believe that it made a difference)
* On tp-link, I tried 802.11b, bg, bgn, n only etc. Also on OpenWRT the legacy mode which I believe uses 802.11 bg.
Interestingly if I ping from nexus 6 to the router it works rather fine while still slower than the chinese phone.
Nexus 6:
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=0 ttl=64 time=8.071 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=1 ttl=64 time=8.471 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=2 ttl=64 time=8.324 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=3 ttl=64 time=8.210 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=4 ttl=64 time=6.300 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=5 ttl=64 time=7.840 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=6 ttl=64 time=7.837 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=7 ttl=64 time=7.878 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=8 ttl=64 time=7.689 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=9 ttl=64 time=7.922 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=10 ttl=64 time=7.764 ms
Otium:
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=0 ttl=64 time=4.132 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.326 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.470 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=3 ttl=64 time=3.314 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=4 ttl=64 time=3.165 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=5 ttl=64 time=4.037 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.568 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=7 ttl=64 time=3.235 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=8 ttl=64 time=3.422 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.040 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.399 ms
RIght now when I ran the tests, in chinese phone the wifi strength is -69 to -73 DBM and in nexus 6 it changes between -67 to -72 DBM
In the router I see varying numbers between -65 to -75 DBM on both phones.
I am not sure what other information I can provide right now. If you think you would need more, please let me know how to obtain it and I will obtain and provide it.
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Related
Hi
I bought a 128mb Secure Digital Card from Expansys but when I put it
into my device the Memory on Storage Card says 118.75mb so
where's 9.25mb gone!!!!!
TIA
Charles
The file allocation table (FAT) eats up the rest.
John
And something about..
Secure Digital - This requires space for the "secureness"
So a Multimedia Card may have given you a few megs back..
Its the old saying.
You just don't get what you pay for anymore!
MmF
Missing 10mb
Thanks for the responses.
9.25mb for the FAT, Jeeeez!
Why don't they build them 138mb, and give me what I've paid for!
Rgds
Charles
Actually the FAT does not eat up that much space, not even close. Here's the other part of the reason: A megabyte and a million bytes are NOT equal!
A kilobyte is 1024 bytes. A megabyte is 1000 of those.
The card and hard drive makers say that THEY measure a megabyte as being 1 million characters even. So your 256MB card can hold 256 million characters or bytes.
The computer and PPC however, measures in real megabytes and take that number, dividing it by 1024, to come up with its reported size. Therefore, your card has 256 million bytes, but not 256 megabytes.
They've redefined the word.
Ahh I see now. Thanks Carlos
Rgds
Charles
So we all know the Thunderbolt was advertised in having 8gig Internal and 32 External (microSD)
So many posts have I seen with so many misleading and different responses to of which HTC is confused themselves. Some say it was a misprint and there is only 4GB Internal others say there is 8gb.
Id like to post this output via a df command.
/dev: 305764K total, 0K used, 305764K available (block size 4096)
/system: 868792K total, 310400K used, 558392K available (block size 4096)
/data: 2705192K total, 271044K used, 2434148K available (block size 4096)
/cache: 433321K total, 16680K used, 416641K available (block size 1024)
/devlog: 21100K total, 4132K used, 16968K available (block size 4096)
/mnt/asec: 305764K total, 0K used, 305764K available (block size 4096)
/app-cache: 8192K total, 328K used, 7864K available (block size 4096)
/mnt/sdcard: 31154688K total, 1949184K used, 29205504K available (block size 32768)
/mnt/secure/asec: 31154688K total, 1949184K used, 29205504K available (block size 32768)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So A little Math Shows 4648125k = Approx 4.6Gb
Also a little more Proof If your still Hung up on there is 8GB of Flash.
cat /proc/partitions
major minor #blocks name
179 0 4382720 mmcblk0
179 1 500 mmcblk0p1
179 2 64 mmcblk0p2
179 3 4500 mmcblk0p3
179 4 1 mmcblk0p4
179 5 30000 mmcblk0p5
179 6 12500 mmcblk0p6
179 7 2048 mmcblk0p7
179 8 3072 mmcblk0p8
179 9 2048 mmcblk0p9
179 10 1024 mmcblk0p10
179 11 1024 mmcblk0p11
179 12 8751 mmcblk0p12
179 13 3072 mmcblk0p13
179 14 3072 mmcblk0p14
179 15 1024 mmcblk0p15
179 16 8957 mmcblk0p16
179 17 256 mmcblk0p17
179 18 1024 mmcblk0p18
179 19 1024 mmcblk0p19
179 20 1280 mmcblk0p20
179 21 8701 mmcblk0p21
179 22 4096 mmcblk0p22
179 23 256 mmcblk0p23
179 24 2047 mmcblk0p24
179 25 882687 mmcblk0p25
179 26 2748416 mmcblk0p26
179 27 447487 mmcblk0p27
179 28 2047 mmcblk0p28
179 29 21247 mmcblk0p29
179 30 256 mmcblk0p30
179 32 31166976 mmcblk1
179 33 31162880 mmcblk1p1
#
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4382720 mmcblk0 = 4.38GB
So Im not sure how Flash Memory works if its like regular hard disk there "Could" be some available space not added to the Partition. But im not very knowledgeable in that area..
I work with AIX servers all day and just knew a couple of places to look for diskspace. And im siding on the fact that we indeed do not have 8GB eMMC We have a 4GB Internal eMMC.
Anyone else got something I Missed? Or hopefully a Correction to what ive found?
Scotty2 said it is indeed 8GB but it is formatted down to 4 so it is less likely to fail. He said something on his twitter @scotty2walker
mob87 said:
Scotty2 said it is indeed 8GB but it is formatted down to 4 so it is less likely to fail. He said something on his twitter @scotty2walker
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That very well maybe? Not gonna deny that.. however.
http://community.htc.com/na/htc-forums/android/f/107/p/10194/44586.aspx
Those folks there have some good points. Verizon for the longest time advertised it having 8GB internal and 32GB MicroSD
Makes a person to think they got 40gig of space.
Now granted Verizon worded everything "very" carefully and never said any of it was available to the end user lol.
Im just curious if for just my own sanity. if there is anyway I can prove for myself the size of the eMMC. Im a guy who has to see it for myself to believe it.
Yea same here, setting up and tonight. New to Droid but am quite comfortable in *nix land.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
This is exactly like what happened with the G2. The actual chip is an 8GB chip. The part number from a tear down or from the command you can give a rooted device to tell you the part numbers, will likely return a part that is 8GB.
The formatting is done in such a way that the NAND is only left with 4GB of usable space, but it is much more robust and will last a lot longer.
It is a good thing I think, not a bad thing.
They can advertise it as having 8GB internal memory because the part number is an 8GB part. It could also be a miscommunication between Verizon and HTC.
When it happened with the G2 T-Mobile seemed clueless......
Gr8gorilla said:
This is exactly like what happened with the G2. The actual chip is an 8GB chip. The part number from a tear down or from the command you can give a rooted device to tell you the part numbers, will likely return a part that is 8GB.
The formatting is done in such a way that the NAND is only left with 4GB of usable space, but it is much more robust and will last a lot longer.
It is a good thing I think, not a bad thing.
They can advertise it as having 8GB internal memory because the part number is an 8GB part. It could also be a miscommunication between Verizon and HTC.
When it happened with the G2 T-Mobile seemed clueless......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has Verizon released a press release or anything identifying this yet? I know there are many people upset over that. Im not.. I rather it be formated SLC.. But It is something a customer would take into account when Purchasing something when they says it has 8GB been nice to say that only 2GB was usable lol
This clears up some of the confusion I had about all this.
sammyboy405 said:
I work with AIX servers all day and just knew a couple of places to look for diskspace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I loves me some AIX! Awesome stuff.
Strife21 said:
This clears up some of the confusion I had about all this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^This, thanks OP and others. I was wondering if we got screwed or if there was just 5G's of crap preloaded... Either way we got screwed, and yes promotional material in the stores on launch DID say 8GB internal so....
according to verizon the phone takes 5.5gigs for android alone.
I asked this in another forum. Got the same in response. No bueno HTC.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
Gr8gorilla said:
This is exactly like what happened with the G2. The actual chip is an 8GB chip. The part number from a tear down or from the command you can give a rooted device to tell you the part numbers, will likely return a part that is 8GB.
The formatting is done in such a way that the NAND is only left with 4GB of usable space, but it is much more robust and will last a lot longer.
It is a good thing I think, not a bad thing.
They can advertise it as having 8GB internal memory because the part number is an 8GB part. It could also be a miscommunication between Verizon and HTC.
When it happened with the G2 T-Mobile seemed clueless......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gr8Gorilla, your roms for MT4G were fantastic, are you planning on releasing any for the Thunderbolt? Either way, your input here is much appreciated.
Sent from my Thunderbolt using Tapatalk
Hi,
I am creating (*ehm, trying to) a networked game and I have just started to test it on my Samsung Galaxy SII. As it is a networked game, obviously, I needed one more handset (it's a HUAWEI U8510). The interesting thing is that the network latency greatly varies between the two handsets, albeit being on the same WIFI network. Both handsets have Android 2.3.3.
When I ping my Galaxy SII from my laptop, i get the following times:
Code:
PING 192.168.1.108 (192.168.1.108) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=63.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=85.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=6.18 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=29.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=51.5 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=81.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=96.2 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=17.5 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=40.4 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.108: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=62.7 ms
The HUAWEI, on the other hand gives much better values:
Code:
PING 192.168.1.105 (192.168.1.105) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.105: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=2.24 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.105: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=5.26 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.105: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=5.16 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.105: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=1.72 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.105: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=2.69 ms
Any ideas, what could cause the high latency on the Galaxy SII? The Phone was as much idle, as possible at the time of the ping. Is it some kind of WIFI sleep mode, or bad network driver?
Update: the previous measurements were done on KF1 (Frankenstein) firmware.f
IN there I managed to lower the latency significantly using the WIFI State Lock in android (using the "PERFORMANCE MODE"). If you do this, you receive:
DEBUG/WifiStateTracker(2707): high performance mode: true
Two days ago I updated to KF2. While you can still enable the high-performance mode (you see it in LogCat), the latency is not reflecting this change when you ping the station. KF2 delivers the majority of the pings under 5ms of latency, which is great. There are still some pings over 50ms though (and some over 100ms), but nos as much as before.
However, I am wondering - isn't such well-performing WIFI eat more battery?
Slightly separate however having migrated from the HD2 running android and internet speed seems slower on the SGS2.
The initial connect seems slow. 15 secs latency. The HD2 was almost instantaneous. Eg side by side with an iphone it was way quicker.
The SGSII is a lot slower than the iPhone 2
dusty_nz said:
Slightly separate however having migrated from the HD2 running android and internet speed seems slower on the SGS2.
The initial connect seems slow. 15 secs latency. The HD2 was almost instantaneous. Eg side by side with an iphone it was way quicker.
The SGSII is a lot slower than the iPhone 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1, same problem for me, and I sue ROM Thunderbolt 1. 2 and modem Kf2. same problem with modem ke7
jus got my sd card 64 gig scandisk.im a little confused tho it shows only having 59 gigs but i have not even used it were did those 4 gigs or so go?
l-go said:
jus got my sd card 64 gig scandisk.im a little confused tho it shows only having 59 gigs but i have not even used it were did those 4 gigs or so go?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Decimal vs. Binary:
For simplicity and consistency, hard drive manufacturers define a megabyte as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes. This is a decimal (base 10) measurement and is the industry standard. However, certain system BIOSs, FDISK and Windows define a megabyte as 1,048,576 bytes and a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes. Mac systems also use these values. These are binary (base 2) measurements.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda app-developers app
I have a Redmi 3S, I'm seeing strange PING latency from my PC to the phone under the same WiFi network.
When phone screen on:
d:\Work>ping 192.168.31.163
Pinging 192.168.31.163 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
You can see the latency is very low (~3ms).
When phone screen off:
d:\Work>ping 192.168.31.163
Pinging 192.168.31.163 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.31.163: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=64
You can see the latency is very high(~200ms).
Is there any setting in phone can eliminate such high latency?
Finally, I got it fixed:
http://en.miui.com/thread-1978513-1-1.html