 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It seems that slow DNS is the culprit if Todd is right. Why does cutting and pasting make it go faster? If Todd is right, you would have to pay the same DNS price either way. Or is it just a perceived speedup? Well, I've set FUT o-t.geek to (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Well, not quite...I'm not ready to posit a cause-effect chain. I was merely trying to say that I couldn't fathom how the script itself could add anything more than a small fraction of a second. Slow DNS is one possible answer, but if it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) both times. :) Dan (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Fujita does it again! (was: Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ?)
|
|
(...) featuring Mr Fujita's LEGO Star Wars!! Their review: "The product of over 2,500 hours of monomaniacal determination, the Lego Star Wars Trilogy recreates 180 key scenes from the original series. Relive all of those magical moments through (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) exact URL and hadn't flushed any caches. Don't forget, though, that this may not be the best test destination, since www.yahoo.com isn't a single DNS location, it's many, due to that technology whose name I can't remember... Akatomi? Doing a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Ah. Let's try a different URL, then. You name it. And let's put in a raw IP address as well, so we can rule out DNS. --Todd (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Sounds good in theory, but I confess I don't know one offhand that would be a good test. Large ones are likely to use caching weirdness and small ones may have thin pipes that might throw us off. Or so I surmise. Hmm... how about my firm? as (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) OK, I put in links to that nine different ways -- each of (3 URLs) each of those with %3A substituted for : in the jump.cgi parameter, and without jump.cgi. Note: On the numeric raw-IP versions of the URLs, the webserver reports "No web site (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Use (URL) or (URL). These are both on a fat pipe and don't use caching. (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) I'm a little confused about the caching issue. Are we talking about DNS caching, or some sort of in-between proxy cache? Or is it the browser cache? Initially I thought that we were talking about DNS lookups taking the most time... If the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It's these guys: (URL). They've secretly taken over most of the internet. (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
Is it possible there's any firewall issues? I know at work I regularly see situations where it takes ages for a page to come up, during which time, I can't do anything else in Netscape because the whole thing is locked up (it won't even re-paint (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) at a solid 1.2mb over my ADSL connection, with most websites popping up near instantly, the way they used to at the office before Napster killed our DS-3. Win98 SE IE 5.5 Colon about 4 seconds to get to the bricksmiths page encoded colon about (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) I, at this client in the UK at a time when no one else is in the office and the connection SHOULD be lightly loaded (it's all new hardware here but we go somewhere else before it goes public) don't get quite the same results Mike does... same (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
PS, can you spot the transatlantic jump? it's pretty easy to see... In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek writes: for bricksmiths: (...) for lugnet: (...) ++Lar (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Right, well, I am a network guy, so perhaps I can help to enlighten a bit... (...) Well. 100-120ms seems like a lot to me, but then, we have no idea what kind of connection you're sitting behind, and I've become accustomed to rather larger (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
Just as a follow up: I noticed that in Lar's traceroutes, the suck on cais.net happened after a Mae-East router. So, in the spirit of enlightened experimentation.... Here's a traceroute to lugnet.com from the Mae-East Looking Glass: Type escape (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Am I misreading the big jump in time between 11 and 12 as transatlantic traffic? LND2 does sort of evoke "London" the same way that DCA evokes "Washington DC" (Tyson's Corners??) (...) Yes and yes. (...) I have no idea what it proves about (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) No, that is the transatlantic jump from London to DC. Tyson's Corners is further down, the naming convention is [port].[routertype].....Alter.Net TCO=Tyson's Corners, Va. (...) Ooof, well, out of sheer curiousity, I did the following 6 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Hate to follow myself up continually, but I thought I'd show you what I meant with a snapshot from your original trace to bricksmiths.com from your client location: 10 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms so-7-0-0.XR2.LND2.alter.net [158.43.233.246] 11 10 ms 10 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) why do you need traces from lugnet to wherever? the jump.cgi doesn't get the data for you, it just redirects you to your desination... so the connection speed between lugnet and your target is immaterial. btw, if you want to try another host, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Here's something else I noticed: Bricksmiths.com doesn't reverse resolve. I fed the Looking Glass the IP address for both sites, and it automagickally knew that 209.68.63.236 was lugnet.com, but it didn't know that 63.217.235.34 was (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) I was under the (incorrect?) assumption that the lugnet server performed the lookup for the new domain as part of the jump.cgi process. If it is, in fact, your machine doing the lookup, then no, Lugnet traces wouldn't be needed, natch. eric (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) D'oh, what the heck am I talking about. No, you're right, Lugnet searches aren't necessary at all, either way. It's been a long time since I've done any DNS stuff, just ignore me on that point. eric (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) OK, well I am confused now. I thought that since tracert can't really ask all the routers on the routing to report interroutter times, that what it displays is the time from where the trace is run to that particular router, one router after (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) No, you're right. I don't understand how you're confused. If it was my original assertion that it might have been the UUNet network that was causing the suck, well... You got how traceroute works completely right. But something to keep in mind (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It doesn't, no. --Todd (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
