check this out:

ping 64.191.7.3 -t

and then hold on for the results. There are a couple of "Request Timed out". Response time shows faster than most of sites, but not stable!

And try

ping www.webhostingtalk.com -t


Almost no Request Timed Out



What's happened with NOCSTER ? Any idea?






Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=237

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=237

Request timed out.

You get what you pay for :eek:

Originally posted by edude
You get what you pay for :eek:


So you assume everyone has the cheapest plan at nocster ? :eek:

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 64.191.7.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 278ms, Maximum = 296ms, Average = 283ms

Yes :P


Originally posted by phantasywork



So you assume everyone has the cheapest plan at nocster ? :eek:

Yikes! Forgot to do the webhostingtalk ping ya asked for . . . .

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 64.191.7.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 278ms, Maximum = 296ms, Average = 283ms

Don't forget the "-t" parameter

ping 64.191.7.3 -t


Too many Request Timed Out!



Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Yikes! Forgot to do the webhostingtalk ping ya asked for . . . .

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 64.191.7.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 278ms, Maximum = 296ms, Average = 283ms

It looks like your pinging from a lower speed connection, which is a really poor way test connectivity, if your visiting another site, your request will prolly time out.....

I'm doing a ping now on a T1 and it should give a good example of what the connection is like...



[root@grep root]# ping 64.191.7.3
PING 64.191.7.3 (64.191.7.3) from 127.0.0.1 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=238 time=30.545 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=238 time=30.796 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=238 time=30.764 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=238 time=30.785 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=238 time=30.776 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=238 time=30.743 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=238 time=30.760 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=238 time=30.756 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=238 time=30.721 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=238 time=30.741 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=10 ttl=238 time=30.736 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=11 ttl=238 time=30.692 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=12 ttl=238 time=30.718 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=13 ttl=238 time=30.713 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=14 ttl=238 time=30.680 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=15 ttl=238 time=30.702 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=16 ttl=238 time=30.695 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=17 ttl=238 time=40.657 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=18 ttl=238 time=30.679 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=19 ttl=238 time=30.672 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=20 ttl=238 time=30.632 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=21 ttl=238 time=30.657 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=22 ttl=238 time=30.651 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=23 ttl=238 time=40.614 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=24 ttl=238 time=30.636 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=25 ttl=238 time=30.627 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=26 ttl=238 time=30.592 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=27 ttl=238 time=30.614 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=28 ttl=238 time=30.606 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=29 ttl=238 time=30.571 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=30 ttl=238 time=40.592 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=31 ttl=238 time=30.582 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=32 ttl=238 time=30.550 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=33 ttl=238 time=30.571 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=34 ttl=238 time=30.566 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=35 ttl=238 time=30.525 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=36 ttl=238 time=30.552 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=37 ttl=238 time=30.517 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=38 ttl=238 time=30.502 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=39 ttl=238 time=30.525 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=40 ttl=238 time=30.521 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=43 ttl=238 time=30.494 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=44 ttl=238 time=30.463 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=45 ttl=238 time=30.483 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=46 ttl=238 time=40.478 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=47 ttl=238 time=30.440 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=48 ttl=238 time=30.458 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=49 ttl=238 time=40.456 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=50 ttl=238 time=30.414 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=51 ttl=238 time=40.439 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=52 ttl=238 time=30.434 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=53 ttl=238 time=30.391 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=54 ttl=238 time=40.415 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=55 ttl=238 time=40.411 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=56 ttl=238 time=30.371 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=57 ttl=238 time=30.398 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=58 ttl=238 time=30.367 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=59 ttl=238 time=30.375 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=60 ttl=238 time=40.379 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=61 ttl=238 time=40.343 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=62 ttl=238 time=40.357 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=63 ttl=238 time=30.352 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=64 ttl=238 time=40.322 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=65 ttl=238 time=30.332 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=66 ttl=238 time=30.335 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=67 ttl=238 time=40.301 msec
64 bytes from 64.191.7.3: icmp_seq=68 ttl=238 time=30.307 msec

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
69 packets transmitted, 67 packets received, 2% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 30.307/32.490/40.657/3.906 ms
[root@grep root]#

We use ADSL here. You can keep ping that IP address, and then you will see a lot of timeout. We try other site on rackshack, got no problem. The reason why we ping ip -t is that we notice site continuesly stop going and then go very fast. In a short, not stable.

ping 64.191.7.3 -t

Pinging 64.191.7.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=306ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.191.7.3: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 64.191.7.3:
Packets: Sent = 15, Received = 15, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 251ms, Maximum = 357ms, Average = 283ms

Originally posted by feng
We use ADSL here. You can keep ping that IP address. . . . . . . Well, I have other things to do than to ping an address that appears to be working fine. I'm not saying you are not having problems, but it does look like no one else is. I've pinged it several times with nearly identical results from my dial-up connection. If you believe Nocster is having problems, why not open a ticket with them and give them an example traceroute?

===================================================
=== VisualRoute report on 13-Jul-02 11:44:30 AM ===
===================================================

Report for 64.191.7.3

Analysis: '64.191.7.3' was found in 18 hops (TTL=230).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hop | %Loss | IP Address | Node Name | Location | Tzone | ms | Graph | Network |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | | 144.132.140.45 | CPE-144-132-140-45.nsw.bigpond.net.au | - | | | | Telstra |
| 1 | | 144.132.136.1 | CPE-144-132-136-1.nsw.bigpond.net.au | - | | 15 | x | Telstra |
| 2 | | 61.9.193.4 | - | ?Canberra, ACT, Australia | +10:00 | 15 | x- | Telstra |
| 3 | | 203.18.76.71 | kent-matrix-r01.nsw.ipm.bigpond.com | ?(Australia) | +10:00 | 11 | x | Telstra Multimedia |
| 4 | | 139.130.7.13 | GigabitEthernet5-0-0.ken8.Sydney.telstra.net | Sydney, NSW, Australia | +10:00 | 13 | x | Telstra Corporation Limited |
| 5 | | 203.50.12.153 | GigabitEthernet3-0.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net | Sydney, NSW, Australia | +10:00 | 13 | x | Telstra Internet |
| 6 | | 203.50.6.22 | Pos2-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net | Sydney, NSW, Australia | +10:00 | 9 | x | Telstra Internet |
| 7 | | 203.50.13.246 | GigabitEthernet0-1.syd-core01.Sydney.net.reach.com | ?Canberra, ACT, Australia | +10:00 | 13 | x- | Telstra Internet |
| 8 | | 202.84.249.245 | i-9-6.wil-core02.net.reach.com | ?(Hong Kong) | +08:00 | 183 | x-- | Fiji |
| 9 | | 4.25.112.29 | p7-0.lsanca2-cr2.bbnplanet.net | Los Angeles, CA, USA | -08:00 | 182 | x | GENUITY |
| 10 | | 204.255.169.117 | POS4-0.BR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET | Los Angeles, CA, USA | -08:00 | 202 | x | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 11 | | 152.63.113.10 | 0.so-0-1-0.XL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET | Los Angeles, CA, USA | -08:00 | 207 | x | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 12 | | 152.63.115.142 | 0.so-1-0-0.TL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET | Los Angeles, CA, USA | -08:00 | 180 | x | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 13 | | 152.63.3.198 | 0.so-6-0-0.TL1.DCA8.ALTER.NET | Washington, DC, USA | -05:00 | 259 | x- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 14 | | 152.63.144.50 | 0.so-4-3-0.XL1.DCA8.ALTER.NET | Washington, DC, USA | -05:00 | 255 | x- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 15 | | 146.188.162.238 | 289.at-6-1-0.XR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET | Tysons Corner, VA, USA | -05:00 | 251 | x | UUNET PIPEX |
| 16 | | 152.63.39.201 | 193.ATM5-0.GW8.PHL1.ALTER.NET | Philadelphia, PA, USA | -05:00 | 275 | x- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 17 | | 157.130.223.162 | hostnoc-gw.customer.alter.net | - | | 261 | x- | UUNET Technologies, Inc. |
| 18 | | 64.191.7.3 | - | ?Scranton, PA 18501 | | 285 | x | Network Operations Center Inc. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roundtrip time to 64.191.7.3, average = 285ms, min = 279ms, max = 294ms -- 13-Jul-02 11:44:30 AM

We have already post a ticket with details info. The ping result is kind of okey now, That is the reason why I said it is not stable. But I still got Timeout result almost every 30 repsonses back. yahoo.com or webhostingtalk.com ... All fine.


It just happened since last week.


Here is a reply I got a week ago:

> > These days, server is slow. not kind of stable. Server record shows
okey. Ping
> > speed is around 60ms. but website is slow, and not stable. Plesse
double check
> > for us Thanks!
> > Feng
>
>
> There was a problem with the line from cogent. After receiving quite a
few complaints and traceroutes from our customers we narrowed the problem
down to a problem with the cogent line. At that time we moved all nocster
servers over to the sprint line. In time the servers will be moved back
over to the cogent line, but that will only be when the problems with the
cogent line are resolved.


Site got slow response at the beginning, and then go fast, fast, and then slow again. Just unstable. I can tell from ping result. My friend in different area got the same result.

If you keep the ping window open and leave it alone for 5 mins, you can see how many Response Timed out u got. It also reflect the browsing speed.

Thanks for all you guys.

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
93 packets transmitted, 75 packets received, 19% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 46.864/53.819/252.807/23.331 ms

yeah, i get a lot of packet loss pinging from two completely different locations.

Thank you lotuslnd! We believe that in the next few days, most of people will complain about the stability! This post will be kind of warning. The thing We got impressed is the NOCSTER support. The support is so great that we even can forgive all of the mistakes they have made.

The server is set up one day late. They charged us on the wrong amount at the first month, and then we found the speed is not stable. We will keep watching on it. God bless NOCSTER, otherwise we can only change the DS company 'cause we don't want to lose customers!



Originally posted by lotuslnd
--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
93 packets transmitted, 75 packets received, 19% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 46.864/53.819/252.807/23.331 ms

yeah, i get a lot of packet loss pinging from two completely different locations.

I attached my ping results. You will notice the Response Timed Out frequency! No good! Everytime, got timeout message, website got stuck there! Not stable these days. What's happend with NOCSTER? Have they solved the problem already?

I'll ping your server 100 times and give you results....

I'm doing it now and it doesn't look that bad... What ISP are you on???

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
103 packets transmitted, 98 packets received, 4% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 28.237/29.103/38.821/2.048 ms
[root@grep root]#


4% loss is acceptable....

My server with them has about the same loss....

check http://www.hostingweatherreport.com

for www.burst.net - yesterday, there are 3 Interruptions, today are 4 Interruptions. They surely got a little bit trouble.

4% loss is acceptable? you're setting a pretty low standard for yourself by saying something like that. :)

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
108 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 46.712/50.350/58.983/1.993 ms

i'm still seeing a problem. i don't think 7% is acceptable by any means.

0% loss is acceptable, your paying and you should recieve a good service...

:eek:

Here is a comparison.

Originally posted by lotuslnd
4% loss is acceptable? you're setting a pretty low standard for yourself by saying something like that. :)

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
108 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 46.712/50.350/58.983/1.993 ms

i'm still seeing a problem. i don't think 7% is acceptable by any means.


4% is acceptable... Thats the internet... Its not always going to return 0%... If i was getting 15% and up packet loss, I'd be worrried....

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 20% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 83.903/87.368/91.446/2.159 ms

and here a traceroute :

traceroute to 64.191.7.3 (64.191.7.3), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 f13.ba01.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.4.165) 0.559 ms 0.586 ms 0.380 ms
2 g0-2.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.177) 0.903 ms 0.681 ms 0.578 ms
3 p14-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.41) 46.469 ms 46.316 ms 47.295 ms
4 p15-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.62) 47.202 ms 46.368 ms 46.320 ms
5 p6-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.85) 72.125 ms 72.172 ms 72.063 ms
6 p14-0.core01.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.2) 74.213 ms 74.264 ms 74.366 ms
7 g49.ba01.b003003-3.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.67.238) 74.508 ms 74.492 ms 74.617 ms
8 BurstNet.demarc.cogentco.com (66.250.5.70) 79.116 ms 81.174 ms 80.434 ms
9 pos-6-1-border.scr1.hostnoc.net (66.197.191.17) 89.522 ms * 89.680 ms
10 64.191.7.3 (64.191.7.3) 88.517 ms 84.587 ms 82.587 ms

That doesn't look good at all... 20% packet loss is quite heavy.

I have spoken with their tech support people and they do not consider the problem serious enough to call in someone to fail over to the other link or do anything else about the problem. They are refusing to notify upper escalation management or do anything about the problem....they are just waiting on "Nick" to come in.

Originally posted by Gernot
--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 20% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 83.903/87.368/91.446/2.159 ms

That doesn't look good at all... 20% packet loss is quite heavy.


But you only did 20 packets, the rest of us are doing 100 or so....

--- 64.191.7.3 ping statistics ---
99 packets transmitted, 99 received, 0% loss, time 97999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.160/0.187/0.465/0.045 ms
root@rum [~]#

That was from within nocster... So it does look like a network issue...

After alerting the tech to this thread (guess he didn't think my opinion counted enough) he got the right people involved and routed around the problem.


Matt saves the day again.

<<edit: grammer>>

I think Cogent is back off again until they can tweak it to give better results. Right now I'm getting 0% loss on my server.

Yep, do a tracert to a Nocster server -- it's going through Sprint now, not Cogent. I'm not getting any packet loss anymore.

Me too. Now everything seems okey, but who knows what will happen tomorrow?

Originally posted by FDrive
Yep, do a tracert to a Nocster server -- it's going through Sprint now, not Cogent. I'm not getting any packet loss anymore.

There you go,

Cogent = packet loss
Sprint = no packet loss

:stickout :stickout :stickout

edude, what exactly is the purpose of your last post? Please enlighten me.

Peter

Originally posted by feng
Me too. Now everything seems okey, but who knows what will happen tomorrow?



I imagine Burst will try and figure out why their Cogent lines were having problems. For the time being, I guess Nocster servers will be with Sprint.

In response to edude--

The packet loss isn't necessarily due to Cogent itself -- in fact I highly, highly doubt that. Despite what everyone around here seems to think, Cogent isn't crap. It's not the best, but it's not bad. It seems more like there was a problem with Burst's specific connection.

At least that's what it seems like to me...