Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Lunarpages ping times

[buoy]

I've noticed lunarpages with some pretty slow ping times lately. Anybody else seeing the same thing? Their reviews seem good, but is their speed okay?

[kibble]

calm down people

i been with lunarpages for about a week now and havent noticed anything bad, very smooth moving over

only needed support just after i signed up to change my main domian on my account and this was done quickly

havent noticed any speed issues here in the uk, but im only on 500k dsl so the connection is easier to fill, although my page loads in a flash. at writing its taking about 1-2 seconds to log into ftp and ping is 168ms. although it is 4.30am here and quiet traffic wise

[buoy]

What's the best way to test the speed of a host?

Are there any sites that rank them?

[IGobyTerry]

HostPulse.Net has a ping time tester [http://www.hostpulse.com/app/networktools/ping.asp], however the ping isn't going to tell the true speed of a host. If a host has a file you can download, you can try out that and you can see how fast their network is to you. Keep in mind though, while it may be fast for you, it could be very slow for someone else living in another part of the country.

Also it doesn't matter how the network is, if the server is a Pentium 1 75 mhz.

[Maximiliam]

Can you guys and gals please ellaborate? We are routing with over 60 carriers.

Here is a ping from SBC/Pacbell for example:

Pinging lunarpages.com [216.193.194.188] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 216.193.194.188:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 10ms, Average = 10ms

Now whats wrong with that? Even trying that bandwidth test above you get good ping times.

Don't confuse actual time to connect to FTP with actual latency time for tcp/ip.

To test download speed, click on this link: http://area51.lunarpages.com/1mb.zip and save as..

[buoy]

The test above gives me:

Pinging lunarpages.com [216.193.194.188] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50
Reply from 216.193.194.188: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=50


Ping Statistic :
Packet Sent = 6
Packet Received = 6
Lost = 0 <0% loss>

Approximate round trip times
in milli-seconds :
Minimum = 63
Maximum = 63
Average = 63

That's about what I was seeing, which puts lunarpages middle of the road in the HostPulse results (and is slower than some of my competitor's sites/hosts).

So is download time a better measure than ping time? Is it possible to compare that across different hosts?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to get a feel for this stuff...

[Maximiliam]

Thats is a good ping time buoy. And those results is just from that test site. Wich might be very favorable to the hosting company at that location. Obviously the closer you get to the end network, the better the latency.

Anyhow, dont search for a host using the ping or latency time argument. It really does not show anything about the performance of the company as latency or ping is not that relevant to webhosting anyway.