Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784

    limestonenetworks.com

    Is anyone else having problems with them? I have multiple boxes experiencing latency on the frontend and backend network (about 15-20%)

    Support is not helpful, I'm telling them it's internal since it's also affecting the backend and they keep asking for traceroutes out to the internet.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    root@cp06 [~]# ping 10.2.2.101 -i 0.2
    PING 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=253 time=55.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=51.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=52.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=56.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=7 ttl=253 time=51.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=8 ttl=253 time=46.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=10 ttl=253 time=52.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=11 ttl=253 time=54.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=12 ttl=253 time=52.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=13 ttl=253 time=46.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=14 ttl=253 time=56.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=15 ttl=253 time=54.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=17 ttl=253 time=52.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=18 ttl=253 time=47.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=19 ttl=253 time=133 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=20 ttl=253 time=54.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=22 ttl=253 time=49.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=23 ttl=253 time=51.5 ms

    --- 10.2.2.101 ping statistics ---
    23 packets transmitted, 18 received, 21% packet loss, time 4429ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 46.312/56.692/133.533/18.884 ms


    root@cp05 [/var/log]# ping 10.2.2.90 -i 0.2
    PING 10.2.2.90 (10.2.2.90) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=1 ttl=125 time=55.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=2 ttl=125 time=53.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=4 ttl=125 time=52.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=5 ttl=125 time=52.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=6 ttl=125 time=39.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=7 ttl=125 time=52.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=8 ttl=125 time=52.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=10 ttl=125 time=52.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=11 ttl=125 time=51.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=12 ttl=125 time=52.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=13 ttl=125 time=52.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=14 ttl=125 time=53.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=16 ttl=125 time=52.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=18 ttl=125 time=52.9 ms

    --- 10.2.2.90 ping statistics ---
    18 packets transmitted, 14 received, 22% packet loss, time 3434ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 39.041/51.839/55.451/3.652 ms

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    and here is a normal ping (in case you complain i'm sending it too fast)

    root@cp06 [~]# ping 10.2.2.101
    PING 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=253 time=15.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=38.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=32.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=52.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=5 ttl=253 time=61.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=6 ttl=253 time=49.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=7 ttl=253 time=52.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=8 ttl=253 time=53.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=9 ttl=253 time=53.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=10 ttl=253 time=53.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=11 ttl=253 time=57.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=12 ttl=253 time=53.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=13 ttl=253 time=53.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=15 ttl=253 time=53.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=18 ttl=253 time=54.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=19 ttl=253 time=53.5 ms

    --- 10.2.2.101 ping statistics ---
    19 packets transmitted, 16 received, 15% packet loss, time 18007ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.635/49.455/61.903/10.994 ms

    53ms is crazy for something on the same network

  4. #4
    I have over 5 servers with them and I am not having any issues.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    Can you ping an internal host like 10.2.2.101 and see if you get the same packet lost?

  6. #6
    hmm it would seem internal does have some latency which is not usuall:

    root@lead [~]# ping 10.2.2.101
    PING 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=57.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=53.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=55.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=5 ttl=253 time=53.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=7 ttl=253 time=53.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=10 ttl=253 time=28.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=11 ttl=253 time=21.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=12 ttl=253 time=12.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=13 ttl=253 time=1.06 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=14 ttl=253 time=18.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=15 ttl=253 time=39.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=16 ttl=253 time=11.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=17 ttl=253 time=14.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=18 ttl=253 time=29.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=19 ttl=253 time=46.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=20 ttl=253 time=41.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=21 ttl=253 time=51.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=22 ttl=253 time=49.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=23 ttl=253 time=58.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=24 ttl=253 time=53.4 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=25 ttl=253 time=53.5 ms

    --- 10.2.2.101 ping statistics ---
    25 packets transmitted, 21 received, 16% packet loss, time 24009ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.067/38.332/58.517/17.987 ms


    root@lead [~]# tracert 10.2.2.101
    traceroute to 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
    1 225-122-162-69.reverse.lstn.net (69.162.122.225) 0.606 ms 0.782 ms 1.010 ms
    2 vl51.cr01-35.core1.dllstx2.dallas-idc.com (74.63.203.217) 0.406 ms 0.612 ms 0.789 ms

    3 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 53.684 ms 54.110 ms 54.542 ms

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    Not good.

    Can you put in a ticket so they stop blaming my server and start looking at the "real" problem?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    223
    I have no problems on my servers in Limestone.

  9. #9
    I am at work at the moment and do not have access to the Rockware panel I have 1 1/2 hours left till I head out I will enter one when i get home.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    Thanks appz!

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by spdfox View Post
    I have no problems on my servers in Limestone.
    And this is between your servers internally? the 10. IPs

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    223
    12% packet loss to you 10.2.2.101

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    That's not my IP, just a random IP. Can you ping other 10.x.x.x blocks, I get packet lost on most of them.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    78
    We are aware of this thread and are investigating further. If you are a Limestone Networks client experiencing issues, we request that you open a ticket so that we can keep you updated as well as accurately track if there are any further Limestone clients experiencing noticeable network issues.

    Thank you!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    Mine is 10.2.2.102

    root@cp06 [~]# ping 10.2.2.102
    PING 10.2.2.102 (10.2.2.102) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=62.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=53.7 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=53.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=44.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=50.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=53.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=52.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=48.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=11 ttl=61 time=51.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=12 ttl=61 time=48.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=13 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=14 ttl=61 time=52.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=15 ttl=61 time=52.9 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=18 ttl=61 time=53.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=19 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms

    --- 10.2.2.102 ping statistics ---
    19 packets transmitted, 16 received, 15% packet loss, time 18005ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 44.881/52.387/62.340/3.484 ms

    It seems other IPs are just fine less then 1ms....

    Something odd is going on.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    PING 10.1.8.58 (10.1.8.58) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=52.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=38.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=15.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=11.3 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=0.805 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=0.856 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=8.13 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=36.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=22.6 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=35.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=11 ttl=61 time=32.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=61 time=49.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=13 ttl=61 time=47.5 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=14 ttl=61 time=53.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=15 ttl=61 time=53.2 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=18 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
    64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=22 ttl=61 time=52.9 ms

    --- 10.1.8.58 ping statistics ---
    22 packets transmitted, 17 received, 22% packet loss, time 21004ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.805/33.138/53.234/18.871 ms


    There's another internal of mine.

  17. #17
    This is why I like limestone =) they are on top of things so fast. I have had nothing but great experience with their support.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    Update from them:

    The packet loss is being caused by a faulty access switch which your server is connected to. This issue is currently affecting roughly 20 servers. We believe that it is a bug in Cisco's IOS software and the switch will be rebooting in the next 15-30 minutes with a new version of IOS. Afterwards, we will monitor for packet loss and replace the switch if the packet loss issues are not fully resolved.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,784
    Issue has been fixed. Sucks it took 90 minutes of explaining it was an internal issue before they looked at it, but glad it's fixed.

  20. #20
    Hey I have no complaints for the little price tag their support people do a lot more than other unmanaged providers I have seen. Thanks Guys

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    223
    Excellent;

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    1,428
    This was only for the private network ?

    One of our techies sent me a ping result showing 75% packet loss using ping.eu .
    It was 0% loss when I tried it using same website 5 min later.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    78
    Ishan,

    We were seeing packet loss on both the public and private networks on this specific switch (about 20 servers effected). The proposed fix by our Network Engineers resolved the issues and we are not seeing any further issues. However, if you do experience issues, please let us know and we'll investigate promptly.

    Thank you,

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    1,428
    No issues after my post. Thank you for fixing it promptly.

    Ishan

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for VPS by Limestonenetworks
    By Zangar in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 12:34 AM
  2. Any experience with Limestonenetworks?
    By Jacob Wall in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 09:38 PM
  3. limestonenetworks VS BurstNet
    By East4Serv in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 09:19 PM
  4. LimeStoneNetworks
    By CafeContinent in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 03:46 PM
  5. Limestonenetworks rocks!
    By TrueHosting in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 12:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •