To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.geekOpen lugnet.off-topic.geek in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Geek / 2443
2442  |  2444
Subject: 
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date: 
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:26:44 GMT
Viewed: 
363 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Mike Stanley writes:

Dunno what all this means, mostly don't care, but whether it is an IE bug or
a Windows weirdness or the script being slow, it is real, and it is annoying
enough that I've completely altered the way I deal with links on LUGNET.  I
can still get a link copied and pasted and trimmed in less than 4 seconds,
and I get the benefit of not being ticked off waiting for some silly process
that doesn't obviously benefit me to finish.  :/

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 browser as before (IE 5.5) same hardware...

I get 2 secs direct and about 6-7 secs via jump.cgi (both the encoded and
nonencoded colon).

I am not going to argue that LUGNET should not do this thing, but I would
appreciate some help in understanding what I need to reconfigure at my end
so that when I am on a slow link I do not get timeouts when jump.cgi is used.

I am not exactly sure how to interpret these (I ain't a network guy) but
thought I'd post them:

C:\WINNT\system32>ping www.bricksmiths.com

Pinging bricksmiths.com [63.217.235.34] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 63.217.235.34: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=105
Reply from 63.217.235.34: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=105
Request timed out.
Reply from 63.217.235.34: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=105

Ping statistics for 63.217.235.34:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 100ms, Maximum =  120ms, Average =  80ms

(I did this one 5 times, always got at least one but never all 4 timed out,
times all in the 100-120ms range)

C:\WINNT\system32>ping www.lugnet.com

Pinging lugnet.com [209.68.63.236] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.68.63.236: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=236
Reply from 209.68.63.236: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=236
Reply from 209.68.63.236: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=236
Reply from 209.68.63.236: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 209.68.63.236:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 100ms, Maximum =  100ms, Average =  100ms


C:\WINNT\system32>tracert www.bricksmiths.com

Tracing route to bricksmiths.com [63.217.235.34]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    10 ms   <10 ms   <10 ms  172.17.0.2
  2   <10 ms   <10 ms    10 ms  170.10.10.10
  3    10 ms    10 ms   <10 ms  intrtr1.tca.co.uk [193.133.105.80]
  4    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  193.128.72.238
  5    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  gw14.lnd8.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.191.14]
  6    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  ge5-0.cr1.lnd8.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.188.1]
  7    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  pos0-0.cr1.lnd4.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.238]
  8    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  ge2-0.cr2.lnd4.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.138]
  9    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  pos0-2.cr2.lnd5.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.50]
10    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  so-7-0-0.XR2.LND2.alter.net [158.43.233.246]
11    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  SO-1-0-0.TR1.LND2.Alter.Net [146.188.7.230]
12    80 ms    90 ms    90 ms  SO-6-0-0.IR1.DCA4.Alter.Net [146.188.8.169]
13    90 ms    90 ms    80 ms  SO-0-0-0.IR1.DCA6.Alter.Net [146.188.13.33]
14    91 ms    90 ms    80 ms  118.at-4-1-0.TR1.DCA6.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.122]

15    80 ms    90 ms    91 ms  287.at-5-0-0.XR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET [152.63.34.21]
16    90 ms    90 ms    90 ms  193.ATM11-0-0.BR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET [146.188.160.73
]
17    90 ms    90 ms    90 ms  mae-east.cais.com [192.41.177.85]
18   100 ms     *       90 ms  ser4-1.core2.mcl.cais.net [209.8.159.26]
19    90 ms    90 ms    90 ms  pos1-1.core1.mcl.cais.net [63.216.0.17]
20    91 ms    90 ms    90 ms  fe9-0-0.edge1.mcl.cais.net [209.8.159.81]
21   110 ms   100 ms   111 ms  fe0-0.dsl2.mcl.cais.net [205.252.5.192]
22     *        *        *     Request timed out.
23   130 ms   110 ms   141 ms  63.217.235.34

Trace complete.

(I did this one a few times, got very similar times in each position, always
got a time out on hop 22)

C:\WINNT\system32>tracert www.lugnet.com

Tracing route to lugnet.com [209.68.63.236]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1   <10 ms   <10 ms   <10 ms  172.17.0.2
  2   <10 ms    10 ms   <10 ms  170.10.10.10
  3   <10 ms    10 ms   <10 ms  intrtr1.tca.co.uk [193.133.105.80]
  4    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  193.128.72.238
  5    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  gw14.lnd8.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.191.14]
  6    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  ge5-0.cr1.lnd8.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.188.1]
  7    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  pos0-2.cr1.lnd4.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.246]
  8    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  ge2-0.cr2.lnd4.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.138]
  9    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  pos1-0.cr2.lnd5.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.249]
10    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  so-7-0-0.XR2.LND2.alter.net [158.43.233.246]
11   <10 ms   <10 ms   <10 ms  SO-1-0-0.TR1.LND2.Alter.Net [146.188.7.230]
12    90 ms    91 ms    80 ms  SO-6-0-0.IR1.DCA4.Alter.Net [146.188.8.169]
13    90 ms    90 ms    80 ms  SO-0-0-0.IR1.DCA6.Alter.Net [146.188.13.33]
14    90 ms    90 ms    90 ms  118.at-4-1-0.TR1.DCA6.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.122]

15    91 ms    90 ms    90 ms  287.at-5-0-0.XR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET [152.63.34.21]
16    90 ms   100 ms    91 ms  193.ATM6-0.GW3.PIT1.ALTER.NET [152.63.37.1]
17   100 ms    90 ms   100 ms  pair-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.48.162]
18   100 ms    90 ms   100 ms  192.168.1.4
19   100 ms    90 ms   100 ms  lugnet.com [209.68.63.236]

Trace complete.

++Lar



Message has 2 Replies:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

36 Messages in This Thread:














Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR