app.bmw888.asia Ping

Carrier
DNS

Nationwide Ping Latency Map

Nationwide Ping Latency Map
  • Timeout
  • >250ms
  • 201ms-250ms
  • 101ms-200ms
  • 51ms-100ms
  • <=50ms
100%
RegionFastestSlowestAverage
All Nodes山西晋中联通 30ms上海数据中心联通 超时188ms
China Telecom------
China Unicom山西晋中联通 30ms上海数据中心联通 超时188ms
China Mobile------
East China安徽马鞍山联通 167ms上海数据中心联通 超时189ms
South China广东湛江联通 160ms广东揭阳联通 199ms176ms
Central China河南洛阳联通 181ms河南商丘联通 超时189ms
North China山西晋中联通 30ms河北邢台联通 221ms183ms
Southwest贵州黔南联通 51ms四川广安联通 198ms145ms
Northwest陕西西安联通 192ms甘肃平凉1联通 213ms203ms
Northeast辽宁鞍山联通 203ms黑龙江鸡西联通 216ms210ms
HK/MO/TW------

DNS Resolution Stats

2

Showing: 78/78

NodeResponse IPIP LocationResponse Time网络质量
联通北京联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare177ms一般
联通天津联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare188ms一般
联通上海联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare187ms一般
联通上海数据中心--Timeout超时
联通重庆联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare187ms一般
联通河北邯郸联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare194ms一般
联通河北邢台联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare221ms较慢
联通河北唐山联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare202ms较慢
联通河南开封联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare184ms一般
联通河南洛阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare181ms一般
联通河南平顶山联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare192ms一般
联通河南漯河联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare183ms一般
联通河南商丘联通美国/ Inc.//CloudflareTimeout超时
联通河南驻马店联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare192ms一般
联通河南郑州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare194ms一般
联通河南郑州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare203ms较慢
联通河南信阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare199ms一般
联通云南曲靖联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare187ms一般
联通云南昆明联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare61ms良好
联通辽宁铁岭联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare214ms较慢
联通辽宁沈阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare205ms较慢
联通辽宁抚顺联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare209ms较慢
联通辽宁鞍山联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare203ms较慢
联通黑龙江鸡西联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare216ms较慢
联通湖南岳阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare184ms一般
联通湖南永州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare186ms一般
联通湖南邵阳1联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare192ms一般
联通湖南衡阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare181ms一般
联通湖南邵阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare190ms一般
联通安徽芜湖联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare184ms一般
联通安徽滁州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare196ms一般
联通安徽马鞍山联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare167ms一般
联通山东龙口联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare201ms较慢
联通山东济宁联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare194ms一般
联通山东枣庄联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare209ms较慢
联通山东青岛联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare205ms较慢
联通山东菏泽联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare196ms一般
联通江苏苏州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare182ms一般
联通江苏盐城联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare193ms一般
联通江苏徐州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare193ms一般
联通江苏南京联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare189ms一般
联通浙江宁波联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare189ms一般
联通浙江杭州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare184ms一般
联通浙江温州1联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare183ms一般
联通浙江温州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare197ms一般
联通浙江杭州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare180ms一般
联通江西南昌联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare177ms一般
联通湖北恩施联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare183ms一般
联通广西贵港联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare176ms一般
联通甘肃兰州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare201ms较慢
联通甘肃庆阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare211ms较慢
联通甘肃平凉1联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare213ms较慢
联通甘肃平凉联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare204ms较慢
联通甘肃联通美国/Cloudflare, Inc.193ms一般
联通山西长治联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare193ms一般
联通山西晋中联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare30ms优秀
联通山西运城联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare203ms较慢
联通内蒙古包头联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare204ms较慢
联通内蒙古赤峰联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare219ms较慢
联通陕西西安联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare192ms一般
联通陕西渭南联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare205ms较慢
联通吉林辽源联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare208ms较慢
联通吉林梅河口联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare212ms较慢
联通吉林通化联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare214ms较慢
联通福建厦门联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare185ms一般
联通福建宁德联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare191ms一般
联通福建福州联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare184ms一般
联通贵州贵阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare183ms一般
联通贵州黔南联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare51ms良好
联通广东清远联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare172ms一般
联通广东佛山联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare169ms一般
联通广东韶关联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare177ms一般
联通广东揭阳联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare199ms一般
联通广东湛江联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare160ms一般
联通青海西宁联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare204ms较慢
联通四川广安联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare198ms一般
联通宁夏银川1联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare209ms较慢
联通宁夏银川联通美国/ Inc.//Cloudflare198ms一般

Ping Test Findings for app.bmw888.asia

Tested
Sep 25, 2026, 10:33 AM
Completed probes
78/78
Valid Ping response probes
76 (97.4%)
Average round-trip time
188 ms

This ICMP Ping test on 2026-09-25 targeted app.bmw888.asia. On the unicom carrier, 76 of 78 nodes returned a valid Ping response, giving a node-level response rate of 97.4%, with RTT median 193 ms, P90 210 ms and P95 214 ms. The response ra

app.bmw888.asia Ping performance by network

Valid Ping response rate counts probes that received an ICMP echo response. P50 is the round-trip time at or below which half of valid responses completed; it is not packet-level loss.

Valid Ping response rate

Valid Ping response rate (%)

97.4%Highest rate
Valid Ping response rateValid Ping response rate counts probes that received an ICMP echo response. P50 is the round-trip time at or below which half of valid responses completed; it is not packet-level loss.050100Unicom: 97.4%97.4%Unicom

P50 round-trip time

Round-trip time (ms)

193 msLowest P50
P50 round-trip timeValid Ping response rate counts probes that received an ICMP echo response. P50 is the round-trip time at or below which half of valid responses completed; it is not packet-level loss.0100200Unicom: 193 ms193 msUnicom
Valid Ping response rate counts probes that received an ICMP echo response. P50 is the round-trip time at or below which half of valid responses completed; it is not packet-level loss.

Key findings

  • On unicom, 76 of 78 nodes returned a valid Ping response; 2 were unanswered nodes, giving a node-level response rate of 97.4%, below the 98% threshold.
  • Unicom RTT percentiles were 193 ms at P50, 210 ms at P90 and 214 ms at P95, with an average of 188 ms, indicating a fairly tight distribution.
  • Telecom, mobile and overseas carriers reported 0 nodes, so no valid Ping responses were obtained and no comparison with unicom is supported.
  • The observation included 2 unique response IPs and 0 node errors.

Improvement recommendations

  • The Ping response rate is 97.4%, below the 98% review threshold. Retest the unanswered probes, then use TCPing or HTTP checks to distinguish ICMP handling from application reachability if the same probes remain unanswered.

These results describe this distributed test only and do not establish long-term availability, security, or a root cause.