Mission Board Loading Slow

[Creeping_Lion]

Assuming that my ISP connection is good. No issues with router, etc.

Has anyone else experienced the Mission Board opening a lot slower? So much so that I am discarding ship cargo from turning in missions because it takes almost 15-20 seconds to open the Mission Board every time.

This has been the case in multiple systems - in multiple instances to make sure it wasn't a Solo or private group issue. I receive no errors and this does seem to be the only issue I am experiencing so far.

 

[stormyuk]

Yup. Since 1.10 patch. See bug reports.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...l-List-Shown?p=6054457&viewfull=1#post6054457

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

Assuming that my ISP connection is good. No issues with router, etc.

Has anyone else experienced the Mission Board opening a lot slower? So much so that I am discarding ship cargo from turning in missions because it takes almost 15-20 seconds to open the Mission Board every time.

This has been the case in multiple systems - in multiple instances to make sure it wasn't a Solo or private group issue. I receive no errors and this does seem to be the only issue I am experiencing so far.

Your not alone, 1.09 slowed it down, 1.10 slowed even more.

 

[Old Duck]

Mine works okay (8-10 seconds max), but everything else is broken, LOL. Seriously, it's kinda weird!

 

[stormyuk]

Mine works okay (8-10 seconds max), but everything else is broken, LOL. Seriously, it's kinda weird!

I think for me it might be something to do with this:

Spoiler

So, basically, I thought I would have a dig at tracing to the machine that was quoted in the network issue thread at the top of the forum.

Tracing route to ec2-34-248-60-213.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com [34.248.60.213]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.75.1.3 [My ISP in the UK]
3 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.75.5.7 [My ISP in the UK]
4 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.55.201.194 [My ISP in the UK]
5 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
6 29 ms 21 ms 20 ms 52.95.61.20 Amazon Technologies Ireland
7 27 ms 27 ms 23 ms 52.95.61.29 Amazon Technologies Ireland
8 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
9 21 ms 20 ms 20 ms 54.239.42.177 Amazon Technologies US - Seattle <--- err what the?
10 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
11 22 ms 25 ms 22 ms 52.93.6.134 Amazon Technologies US - Seattle
12 23 ms 20 ms 21 ms 52.93.7.7 Amazon Technologies US - Seattle
13 40 ms 23 ms 22 ms 52.93.7.10 Amazon Technologies US - Seattle
14 20 ms 21 ms 21 ms 52.93.7.155 Amazon Technologies US - Seattle
15 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
16 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
17 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
18 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
19 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
20 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
21 * * * Request timed out. [No idea whats happening here] (blocking ping?)
22 21 ms 21 ms 20 ms ec2-34-248-60-213.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com [34.248.60.213] Amazon Technologies Ireland

This doesn't look like efficient routing to me. Is this the cause of my awful Mission Board performance?

Here is a comparison trace to www.google.co.uk:

Tracing route to www.google.co.uk [172.217.23.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 1 ms <1 ms 1 ms 10.75.1.3
3 5 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.75.5.7
4 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.55.201.194
5 11 ms 9 ms 10 ms 195.66.236.125
6 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 108.170.246.193
7 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 108.170.233.197
8 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms lhr35s01-in-f3.1e100.net [172.217.23.3]

or the BBC:

Tracing route to newswww.bbc.net.uk [212.58.244.57]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.75.1.3
3 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.75.5.7
4 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.55.201.194
5 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms bbc-linx.pr01.rbsov.bbc.co.uk [195.66.236.103]
6 * * * Request timed out. (blocked pings again)
7 * * * Request timed out. (blocked pings again)
8 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae0.er02.telhc.bbc.co.uk [132.185.254.105]
9 14 ms 12 ms 12 ms 132.185.255.148
10 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bbc-vip102.telhc.bbc.co.uk [212.58.244.57]

(looks good - something tells me its NOT my ISP)

or it may be a total coincidence, I am not having other network problems in game at the moment, so its just bizarre. Played in Open exclusively since 1.09 constantly and no problems (apart from one matchmaking error today). I think my odd SC transition problem is when I am in busy areas and my connection doesn't like someone else's. Seen lots of odd commanders today and its been fine, apart from Mission Board speed.

Whats even more bizarre is people in the US getting better network performance than me when we are geographically closer to Ireland.

 

[foobaron76]

Whats even more bizarre is people in the US getting better network performance than me when we are geographically closer to Ireland.

They will be routed to an AWS instance somewhere in the US, only us Europeans get routed to one running on the Amazon cloud servers in Ireland, I think. The 21ms you're getting seems pretty good, on my internet connection it's 37 ms for 20 hops; as with your trace most of that time is accrued before hitting Amazon's infrastructure.

 

[Old Duck]

I think for me it might be something to do with this:

A default ping / traceroute won't always reveal a problem. I can get great ping until the network saturates, and then either buffer bloat or packet loss will kick in (the latter is actually preferred). Try your ping test while downloading a file from a relatively fast site - it will show how well your network is working under load.

That said, I don't think this bug has anything to do with networking, because mission board data should cache when it's first accessed. If I close the mission board and immediately reopen it, it should pop up instantaneously the second time, assuming the 10 minute refresh counter hasn't hit zero. However, that's not happening.

And then there's my original question - why would a patch designed to prevent "minecraft" textures (a graphics problem) affect anything related to networking?

 

[Lngjohnsilver1]

Assuming that my ISP connection is good. No issues with router, etc.

Has anyone else experienced the Mission Board opening a lot slower? So much so that I am discarding ship cargo from turning in missions because it takes almost 15-20 seconds to open the Mission Board every time.

This has been the case in multiple systems - in multiple instances to make sure it wasn't a Solo or private group issue. I receive no errors and this does seem to be the only issue I am experiencing so far.

Which is especially odd because it was one of the notable Improvements obsidian ant pointed out during beta...

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I've just had about ten missions randomly fail for no apparent reason; ~4 pirate assassination and the rest passenger transport.

 

[Lngjohnsilver1]

pirate assassination missions have tight time limits easily failed - don't believe the 24 hour time limit!!!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Understood, I had just picked those up.

Passengers were unwanted and I was already inside the hangar too.
They failed while I was waiting for the starport services menu.

 

[stormyuk]

They will be routed to an AWS instance somewhere in the US, only us Europeans get routed to one running on the Amazon cloud servers in Ireland, I think. The 21ms you're getting seems pretty good, on my internet connection it's 37 ms for 20 hops; as with your trace most of that time is accrued before hitting Amazon's infrastructure.

Not quite sure I agree 100%. I think 21ms seconds is poor on fibre compared I can get 10ms to Google. My internal ISP routing is 4ms. The routing inside Amazon's network looks torturous. As I say it may be only coincidence but I've never had 'great' network performance with Elite.

And then there's my original question - why would a patch designed to prevent "minecraft" textures (a graphics problem) affect anything related to networking?

No idea but oddly you said your mission board performance is good. Mines definitely the worst it's been since 1.10 and frustratingly FDev are not really acknowledging it if are blaming ISPs. (I have not seen a quote of that just a guy on the bug forum saying so).

This causes me much more frustration than the odd graphical glitch.

 

[Myrm]

...No idea but oddly you said your mission board performance is good. Mines definitely the worst it's been since 1.10 and frustratingly FDev are not really acknowledging it if are blaming ISPs. (I have not seen a quote of that just a guy on the bug forum saying so).

This causes me much more frustration than the odd graphical glitch.

I absolutely do not believe the fault of the slow loading and partial loading of the missions board is an ISP error. Unless we all are using the same ISP (those of us experiencing this proplem that is), and that the ISPs suddenly developed this fault when FD launched 1.10. If FD are claiming its not a fault their end but with the ISP, then they are truly burying their heads in the sand. I assume the so called Minecraft textures (which I didn’t experience) are due to the colour of the chair you’re sitting in whilst playing the game.

 

[stormyuk]

I absolutely do not believe the fault of the slow loading and partial loading of the missions board is an ISP error. Unless we all are using the same ISP (those of us experiencing this proplem that is), and that the ISPs suddenly developed this fault when FD launched 1.10. If FD are claiming its not a fault their end but with the ISP, then they are truly burying their heads in the sand. I assume the so called Minecraft textures (which I didn’t experience) are due to the colour of the chair you’re sitting in whilst playing the game.

See here ive just done the same and submitted a ticket. Will see if my ISP gets blamed also.

 

[foobaron76]

Not quite sure I agree 100%. I think 21ms seconds is poor on fibre compared I can get 10ms to Google. My internal ISP routing is 4ms. The routing inside Amazon's network looks torturous.

I agree it looks convoluted to say the least. However, as far as I understand it, traceroute plays with the TTL of its packets to its job, and that could interfere with routing, for example if Amazon's tries hard to give you a route that fits with the TTL. So I'm not entirely sure traceroute can be trusted on some of today's more complex network setups, and I assume AWS gets pretty fancy in that department.

My guess would be either code changes in the mission generator in 1.10, or changes to the AWS load balacing so more people get served by the same instance.

 

[stormyuk]

I agree it looks convoluted to say the least. However, as far as I understand it, traceroute plays with the TTL of its packets to its job, and that could interfere with routing, for example if Amazon's tries hard to give you a route that fits with the TTL. So I'm not entirely sure traceroute can be trusted on some of today's more complex network setups, and I assume AWS gets pretty fancy in that department.

My guess would be either code changes in the mission generator in 1.10, or changes to the AWS load balacing so more people get served by the same instance.

Yeh, makes sense. All I know is that something changed for me at 1.10 and its slower, I don't understand (how some people are not affected) if its a server side thing, but then FDev would not be blaming ISPs if it was a server side thing..... Confused. I have tried some MTU tweaks again today just as a test.

 

[Old Duck]

No idea but oddly you said your mission board performance is good. Mines definitely the worst it's been since 1.10 and frustratingly FDev are not really acknowledging it if are blaming ISPs. (I have not seen a quote of that just a guy on the bug forum saying so).

This causes me much more frustration than the odd graphical glitch.

It's not "good" (6-10 seconds), but it's nowhere near as bad as you and others are reporting. That said, my graphics are much worse than an "odd graphical glitch", definitely worse than what you see on your Pro.

But since you had my back during texturegate, I'll be nice to you as you go through your own missionboardgate, as long as you stop with this playground "My bug is bigger than your bug!" taunting

 

[stormyuk]

It's not "good" (6-10 seconds), but it's nowhere near as bad as you and others are reporting. That said, my graphics are much worse than an "odd graphical glitch", definitely worse than what you see on your Pro.

But since you had my back during texturegate, I'll be nice to you as you go through your own missionboardgate, as long as you stop with this playground "My bug is bigger than your bug!" taunting

MTU does nothing: 22s today. Absolutely atrocious.

[video=youtube;Z0tL476zUJw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tL476zUJw[/video]

 

[foobaron76]

Just as another data point, I'm seeing 10-20 seconds. It used to be about 2-5 seconds.

 

[Old Duck]

MTU does nothing: 22s today. Absolutely atrocious.

I'll give it a try here in an hour or two, and I'll test it both as Duck and as Jenny, in case there's a CMDR account aspect to this bug.

-- UPDATE --

Okay, this morning the mission board is taking 13-17 seconds for me to load. It does load, however, and gives me a full list of missions (see below). Ironically, I don't see this delay as a big deal - annoying yes, but not a game-breaker for me personally. You say "atrocious" and I say "meh." But when it comes to graphics post 2.4, I say "atrocious" and many of you say "meh."

Hopefully we can all (I'm not trying to pick on Stormy here) be more understanding and supportive of other players who are enduring what they feel are game-breaking bugs, even if we ourselves may have a different view.