Results 1 to 24 of 24
Thread: limestonenetworks.com
-
07-14-2009, 02:47 PM #1Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-14-2009, 02:49 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
07-14-2009, 02:50 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
07-14-2009, 03:20 PM #4New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 0
I have over 5 servers with them and I am not having any issues.
-
07-14-2009, 03:22 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- 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?
-
07-14-2009, 03:29 PM #6New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 0
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
-
07-14-2009, 03:33 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- 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?
-
07-14-2009, 03:36 PM #8Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 223
I have no problems on my servers in Limestone.
-
07-14-2009, 03:36 PM #9New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 0
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.
-
07-14-2009, 03:37 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 3,784
Thanks appz!
-
07-14-2009, 03:39 PM #11New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 0
-
07-14-2009, 03:41 PM #12Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 223
12% packet loss to you 10.2.2.101
-
07-14-2009, 03:41 PM #13Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-14-2009, 03:42 PM #14Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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!
-
07-14-2009, 03:43 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-14-2009, 03:44 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-14-2009, 03:44 PM #17New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 0
This is why I like limestone =) they are on top of things so fast. I have had nothing but great experience with their support.
-
07-14-2009, 04:13 PM #18Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-14-2009, 04:53 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-14-2009, 06:13 PM #20New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 0
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
-
07-14-2009, 06:15 PM #21Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 223
Excellent;
-
07-15-2009, 08:53 AM #22Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
07-15-2009, 08:59 AM #23Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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,
-
07-15-2009, 12:26 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Pune, India
- Posts
- 1,428
No issues after my post. Thank you for fixing it promptly.
Ishan
Similar Threads
-
Looking for VPS by Limestonenetworks
By Zangar in forum VPS HostingReplies: 3Last Post: 10-22-2008, 12:34 AM -
Any experience with Limestonenetworks?
By Jacob Wall in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 11Last Post: 10-03-2008, 09:38 PM -
limestonenetworks VS BurstNet
By East4Serv in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 95Last Post: 08-21-2008, 09:19 PM -
LimeStoneNetworks
By CafeContinent in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 21Last Post: 04-16-2008, 03:46 PM -
Limestonenetworks rocks!
By TrueHosting in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 6Last Post: 12-27-2007, 12:29 PM