Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:19:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
676 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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]
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??)
> And this, on the other hand, shows that you have no touble getting to Lugnet.
> Since this trace also goes through UUNet's Tyson's Corners routers, and then
> out to Pair's UUNet customer router in Pittsburgh, I would diagnose the above
> dropped packets as meaning that cais.net is the sucky network. I assume,
> though you don't mention it, that you had not trouble getting to Lugnet on
> several tries, and this was around the same time (and I mean within minutes)
> of the trouble reaching Bricksmiths.
Yes and yes.
> Of course, I have no idea what you think this proves about jump.cgi. Unless
> you're on Lugnet's servers, you can't pin down how long it takes Lugnet to
> reach bricksmiths.com... but from the above, I wouldn't be surprised if the
> slowdown was being caused by cais.net.
I have no idea what it proves about jump.cgi either, I wasn't asserting that
it proved anything in particular, I just wanted to give some data behind my
empirical in the post before it. (that a direct url deref took me 2 secs,
and a jumped deref, more like 6 or 7 seconds)
I will say this, I agree with your assessment about bricksmiths potentially
being behind a potentially bad connection and I will raise the point with
the Powers That Be. :-) Since we're getting it free, though, moving may not
be feasible. (and we're grateful, believe me).
I will say one more thing, and i think this is more important actually, than
diagnosing why bricksmiths is slow, I think we need to seek a different site
as the jump target for testing jump.cgi. Some site small enough that it's
not "secretly" multiple hosted like Yahoo is, but with a better connection??
I dunno.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
