 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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: Which telnet emulator for Win32?
|
|
Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:37F93F6D.EA670D...@io.com... (...) my (...) surprising (...) currently (...) worse (...) anyone got one for windows ce P/PC while there at it? I really gotta be able to check my e-mail and read (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
