 | | 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)
|
