 | | Re: Sluggish nntp performance —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) 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 —Christian Holtje
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | | | | | | 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 —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) "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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) "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 —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Sluggish nntp performance —Scott Smallbeck
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
