 | | Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Has anyone seen slow performance from LUGNET's nntp server? The http server is very fast and nimble, etc. but whenever I connect via nntp, it's always slow and sometimes dropping the connection, whether I use port 119, 8000, or 8080. Cheers, - (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Yes, I have noticed this for a few days. It takes 7-8 seconds from the time my reader (Outlook Express) says CONNECTED until it downloads new messages and shows the total read/unread. -- Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (URL) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Sproaticus (<37FE5CFB.54DC1EC8@io.com>) wrote at 21:07:07 (...) It's always been a bit slow for me - but I am on the other side of the Atlantic. One thing which happens regularly, but not consistently, is I don't get the last 2 (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Something really net.weird is going on today, but I don't see special notices at Pair yet: (URL) I'm seeing when I look inward from the outside is lots and lots of packet drops and broken connections. Yesterday was bad too, but today is really (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Alternet is/was having problems (No?!?! It's a first!!). LUGNET is on the otherside of (on average) 5-7 ALTERNET routers, I get flakey connections to 'em. Fortunately, HTTP is fairly robust, and email (my usualy method) is great. Ciao! BTW: (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) If you have mtr, run it to some systems out there (like yahoo.com or gerf.org) Here is what it looks like from gerf.org: HOST LOSS RCVD SENT BEST AVG WORST grf-e0.bitwisesystems.com 0% 15 15 0 0 1 ethernet1-0.a1.pia.il.verio.net 0% 15 15 1 3 (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Looks fine to me from work, kinda gross from home (looks like some kinda weirdness with uunet and at&t. not quite sure why it's even going through them...) jadzia:~$ mtr -r -c 20 lugnet.com HOST LOSS RCVD SENT BEST AVG WORST ITNET-GW.BU.EDU (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Yeah, I've noticed this, especially the last several days. I've also noticed slowness in general on the net, especially in sites that I go through Sprint or BBNPlanet to get to. But at times when everything else has seemed slow, nntp (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) I rarely notice any trouble, except sometimes posting takes several seconds... (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
I get: Tracing route to lugnet.com [209.68.63.236] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms zaphod [192.168.0.42] 2 1221 ms 1293 ms 1041 ms autodial-gw1.uk0.vbc.net [194.207.0.56] 3 1292 ms 1299 ms 274 ms lg1.uk0.vbc.net [194.207.0.40] 4 157 ms (...) (25 years ago, 10-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) traceroute was taken during ho-hum performance; I'll take another one during really flaky performance. <PING> c:\pub>ping lugnet.com Pinging lugnet.com [209.68.63.236] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 209.68.63.236: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) "mtr" == "mean time to reply" or some such? Sounds useful -- I'll track one down. (...) Heh -- More fiber == less congestion. f-up this line to off-topic.pun please. :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 10-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) "mtr" meaning "Matt's traceroute", I believe. (Not me; Matt Kimball) It's basically a fancier traceroute/ping program. (25 years ago, 10-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) traceroute taken during bad performance showed about the same times. <TRACEROUTE> c:\pub>tracert lugnet.com Tracing route to lugnet.com [209.68.63.236] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms ###...###.###.novell.com [137.65.###.###] (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Time to connect is now up to 38 seconds. Doesn't seem to ever be better or worse, consistently 30+ seconds. Tracert looks pretty good, 6 alter.net routers to pairnetworks and they pass through very quick. Losing about 10% of the packets pinging (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
My subjective observation is that performance is definitely deteriorating.... Here are a couple of tracerts... I have blanked out the first two network addresses, my client is confidential. But with times under 10 ms they may or may not matter much. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote: [snip] (...) [snip] (...) In both of these cases, you're having trouble before you even get out of psinet. That makes the rest of the data irrelevant.... (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Pair Networks is in Philadelphia. --Todd (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Todd Lehman wrote: (...) Hey, I ain't a networking kind of guy so if what I posted wasn't too much help, so be it I guess... Seemed like a good idea at the time. (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) *grin* hey, 'nuthin wrong with posting. (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
I can TRY more tracerts... I get around so get a chance to try from a lot of different places. if someone tells me what to look for specifically (pretend you're talking to a manager :-) ) I'll post ones that help determine what the problem is, and (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) If I were talking to a manager, I'd say: don't worry, we'll take care of it. *grin* But: IP packets have a property called Time-To-Live. It's a counter, and each time a packet goes through a gateway, it's decremented. (By default, most packets (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Tonight everything is running fast again! It has been a week since I have had normal LUGNET NNTP performance but now it seems to be fine. -- Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (URL) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Oh, I've been a manager... but I stopped. Didn't like it and neither did any of the people I was managing. *no idea* why, really. LOL... <snipped excellent explanation> (...) Lemme see if I got it then, in this example the problem lies either (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Yeah, exactly. Most likely one of the routers is overloaded -- if one checks the dns for the gateways at 8 & 9, one finds the phrases "155M" and "622M", which seems like a lot of bandwidth to me. (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) What tool do you use for that? whois comes up with a blank, and host (1) just says "pos3-1-155M.cr1.JFK...nter.net". Anyway, my packets don't even see that network -- they get stuck somewhere between: 6 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Sorry, bad choice of words in that last post. I knew that the problem wasn't at your end. -- Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (URL) Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3804b7b9.795349...net.com... (...) now (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) It's not LUGNET's NNTP performance that you're having touble with. It's some net clog problem somewhere. Maybe multiple problems. --Todd (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) nslookup. It's prettier than 'host', but tells you basically the same thing. I got the 155M out of the hostname. It's nice when people name their routers meaningfully. :) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Oof. I shoulda seen that one! :-, What does the 115M mean? 155 megabits per second? Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Yeah. It's probably an OC3, which is about 155.52 megabits/second. (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Which GNU package do I get ping and traceroute and host, etc. from? They're not in inetutils; they doesn't seem to be anywhere... Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Erm... binutils, perhaps? And try the Cygnus distro whilst you're at it.... Cheers, Roger (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Checked that, and checked that also. Binutils seems to be primarily compiler tools. Fileutils is basic file management, copying, moving, linking, etc. Textutils is basic text manipulation tools. Inetutils is a decent suite of servers and (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Well. I've no quick answers today either. <grump> Haven't got Linux moiunted on a box local to me, so I can't check that way either. I'll have a look at the Caldera distro running on my development box at home tonight. You know... the back of (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
go look at www.bitwizard.nl/mtr/ They claim to have a ping/tracroute package that runs with/via autoconf. This is source, but they have binary for Red Hat and freeBSD. I'll grab a copy tonight, and with luck and time out from building things <grin> (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) I don't think they're GNU. My ping program came from the base linux netkit, and traceroute (originally) from <URL:ftp://ftp.ee.lb...te.tar.Z>. (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) If you're looking for Windows progs I think I got a bunch of this stuff from the "Virtually Unix" site once upon a time. I don't have the URL, but you could search for it. I think my version of traceroute is called hopcount.exe though. Not (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) That worked, thanks! :-, I wonder why these utils were never GNU'd... Oh, well, thanks again. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Yeah, I dunno. Looks to be all BSD license, which is fine with me... (Oooh, let's fan the flames: yet another good reason it's not "GNU/Linux") (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Followup: Performance today is stellar. Here's a traceroute: <TRACEROUTE> c:\pub>tracert lugnet.com Tracing route to lugnet.com [209.68.63.236] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms ###...###.###.novell.com [137.65.###.###] 2 <10 (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
