Can someone ping and traceroute 64.124.182.8 for me, and tell me where you are doing it from?

I want to see how fast it is from different places, I get **** like:

FROM *****:
[root@xtroot node]# ping 64.124.182.8
PING 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8) from 66.34.51.216 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=117.037 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=117.724 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=117.366 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=117.423 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=117.618 msec


FROM SERVERHOST:
[root@stormdata node]# ping 64.124.182.8
PING 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8) from 216.215.239.24 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=84.7 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=84.1 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=83.9 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8.pogolinux.com (64.124.182.8): icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=83.9 ms

FROM RACKSHACK:
[root admin]# ping 64.124.182.8
PING 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=83.0 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=243 time=83.7 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=243 time=82.6 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=243 time=82.7 ms
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=243 time=84.5 ms

From interserver (VDI):
--- 64.124.182.8 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 96.368/98.194/103.252/1.926 ms

From Weinbar (Aperian):
--- 64.124.182.8 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 80.727/81.050/81.759/0.407 ms

what's up?

cheers,
:beer:

node9: Those ping times (and those reported by other people) show networks which are distant but uncongested. In a research paper I'm writing right now (erm, that is, have been writing for the past 6 months, doing research is much more fun than actually publishing it) I provide a detailed explanation, based on both theoretical results and experimental data, that the standard deviation round-trip (ie, ping) time is a good indicator of network congestion, while the average minus the standard deviation is a good estimator of "light speed" (ie, the time it takes for signals to propagate through all the copper and optical fibre, etc.).

So the fact that you're seeing round trip times of around 100 ms is indicative of the fact that the servers are (physically) far apart, but not indicative of any network congestion -- the only way that pogolinux could improve upon them would be to move their entire NOC.

PS. Generally speaking, uncongested networks have standard deviation ping times of under 3 ms, mildly congested networks (ie, utilization of around 50%, with little or no noticable impact on performance) have standard deviation ping times around 3-6 ms, and above 6 ms standard deviation there is enough congestion to degrade performance.

from weinbar network:
traceroute -n 64.124.182.8 ; ping -c 5 64.124.182.8
traceroute to 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 216.139.227.3 0.364 ms 0.254 ms 0.255 ms
2 157.130.242.25 0.304 ms 0.261 ms 0.261 ms
3 152.63.114.18 8.178 ms 8.154 ms 8.290 ms
4 152.63.112.138 13.545 ms 13.577 ms 13.555 ms
5 152.63.3.161 43.659 ms 43.716 ms 43.744 ms
6 152.63.99.53 45.133 ms 44.975 ms 44.971 ms
7 146.188.242.105 45.703 ms 49.946 ms 44.985 ms
8 157.130.138.46 81.226 ms 80.968 ms 80.762 ms
9 208.184.232.118 79.180 ms 78.919 ms 78.812 ms
10 216.200.127.206 82.288 ms 82.548 ms 82.371 ms
11 208.184.233.133 80.831 ms 81.432 ms 80.809 ms
12 208.184.233.50 85.134 ms 84.992 ms 84.780 ms
13 208.184.210.174 81.078 ms 81.540 ms 81.470 ms
14 64.124.182.8 79.059 ms 78.759 ms 78.815 ms

PING 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8) from 216.139.227.170 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=79.200 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=243 time=78.712 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=243 time=78.749 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=243 time=79.516 msec
64 bytes from 64.124.182.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=243 time=79.116 msec

--- 64.124.182.8 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 78.712/79.058/79.516/0.429 ms

from dialtone network

traceroute to 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 64.65.56.1 1.795 ms 0.519 ms 0.479 ms
2 63.212.176.29 2.088 ms 1.797 ms 1.812 ms
3 64.159.0.9 2.371 ms 2.030 ms 2.202 ms
4 209.247.8.38 63.617 ms 63.115 ms 62.925 ms
5 209.247.10.78 63.453 ms 62.822 ms 62.801 ms
6 209.249.0.173 60.273 ms 58.481 ms 57.999 ms
7 209.249.0.213 59.574 ms 58.490 ms 58.032 ms
8 208.184.233.125 121.757 ms 120.929 ms 120.733 ms
9 208.184.233.133 121.108 ms 120.610 ms 120.626 ms
10 208.184.233.50 122.402 ms 120.993 ms 120.629 ms
11 208.184.210.178 122.135 ms 120.836 ms 120.300 ms
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * *

traceroute to 64.124.182.8 (64.124.182.8), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 216.87.208.1 11.251 ms 20.665 ms 20.679 ms
2 157.130.85.229 1.399 ms 1.354 ms 1.401 ms
3 146.188.233.190 16.517 ms 16.239 ms 15.898 ms
4 152.63.9.233 16.023 ms 16.053 ms 16.043 ms
5 146.188.141.174 33.135 ms 32.833 ms 32.725 ms
6 152.63.32.177 35.266 ms 34.805 ms 35.114 ms
7 146.188.161.77 34.812 ms 35.253 ms 35.450 ms
8 157.130.37.254 30.133 ms 30.699 ms 30.483 ms
9 216.200.127.26 106.984 ms 107.190 ms 106.448 ms
10 208.185.175.126 107.102 ms 106.894 ms 106.806 ms
11 208.185.175.149 107.307 ms 106.781 ms 107.108 ms
12 208.184.210.174 107.251 ms 106.526 ms 106.995 ms
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * *

lol

node9 .. what's so funny ??

pogolinux's server :(

node9,

Don't say that I didn't tell you so.

Originally posted by cperciva
[snip]

So the fact that you're seeing round trip times of around 100 ms is indicative of the fact that the servers are (physically) far apart, but not indicative of any network congestion -- the only way that pogolinux could improve upon them would be to move their entire NOC.

PS. Generally speaking, uncongested networks have standard deviation ping times of under 3 ms, mildly congested networks (ie, utilization of around 50%, with little or no noticable impact on performance) have standard deviation ping times around 3-6 ms, and above 6 ms standard deviation there is enough congestion to degrade performance.



One other thing to take into account with traceroute is that it uses ICMP, which is a different protocol "path" than the data takes.

It is possible for a router to respond to an ICMP (traceroute) request quickly while bogging down in the data throughput department. I have seen a router exhibit fair to good ICMP times while being nearly unresponsive for data transfer.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie

One other thing to take into account with traceroute is that it uses ICMP, which is a different protocol "path" than the data takes.

It is possible for a router to respond to an ICMP (traceroute) request quickly while bogging down in the data throughput department. I have seen a router exhibit fair to good ICMP times while being nearly unresponsive for data transfer.

I think you're getting traceroute and tracert confused. The tracert program supplied with windows does use ICMP packets, but traceroute uses UDP packets. And as for the "differential service" argument, *very* few modern routers are designed to do tha, simply because they don't have time to waste looking at packets when they first come in to determine whether to "fast-track" them.

Originally posted by cperciva
[snip]

I think you're getting traceroute and tracert confused. The tracert program supplied with windows does use ICMP packets, but traceroute uses UDP packets. [snip] [/B]


I was, thanks for the tip.

matrix you ranted about the service/support

not the connectivity

but i am pretty disappointed with the connectivity


[Edited by node9 on 04-08-2001 at 04:40 PM]

node9,

How you forget. I said the PING times weren't that good every time I pinged them. I was also saying that Pogo Sucked, because of the lack of support thus translated it wouldnt suprise me if their servers sucked as well.