No. of Recommendations: 5
5360ms USEQ\WEB18
3609ms USEQ\WEB16

$ traceroute boards.fool.com
traceroute to boards.fool.com (199.83.128.4), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 0.874 ms 0.841 ms 1.137 ms
2 10.5.35.121 (10.5.35.121) 7.379 ms 9.659 ms 12.138 ms
3 G1-3-3-4.NWRKNJ-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (100.41.193.104) 17.147 ms 22.133 ms 24.646 ms
4 ae0-0.NWRK-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.209.154) 24.621 ms 27.106 ms 130.81.199.14
(130.81.199.14) 29.559 ms
5 * * *
6 2.ae1.XT1.NYC4.ALTER.NET (140.222.228.119) 39.505 ms 9.907 ms 12.281 ms
7 TenGigE0-4-1-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.69) 12.386 ms
TenGigE0-6-1-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.113) 25.069 ms
TenGigE0-6-2-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.117) 25.075 ms
8 tinet-gw.customer.alter.net (152.179.72.122) 19.900 ms 22.346 ms 25.044 ms
9 xe-0-1-1.nyc39.ip4.gtt.net (141.136.110.238) 29.858 ms 32.337 ms 32.333 ms
10 * * *
[snip]
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *

$ ping -c 5 boards.fool.com
PING uisg4.x.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=14.4 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=2 ttl=250 time=18.5 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=3 ttl=250 time=14.9 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=4 ttl=250 time=13.9 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=5 ttl=250 time=15.5 ms

--- uisg4.x.incapdns.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4019ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.986/15.488/18.523/1.606 ms
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JeanDavid, any better for you today? The Fool was slow for me too yesterday, but so was half the Internet. Better so far today.

Richard
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The Fool was slow for me too yesterday, but so was half the Internet. Better so far today."

Hi Richard,

Probably due to this, tip of the hat to tketola: http://boards.fool.com/31386114.aspx

Time Warner had a problem...

Regards, Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is what I got just now when I picked up your post

359ms USEQ\WEB16

That is about 10x faster than yesterday.

If you look at what I posted yesterday, you will see that your servers were running about 10x slower than today. You will also see from the pings that they were running quite fast. So it was not the Internet. The traceroute reveals little to me, since traceroute was blocked on so many of the hops.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I disagree that it was the Internet or Time-Warner's part of it. According to my pings yesterday to The Motley Fool, the pings were running quite fast:

$ ping -c 5 boards.fool.com
PING uisg4.x.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=14.4 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=2 ttl=250 time=18.5 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=3 ttl=250 time=14.9 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=4 ttl=250 time=13.9 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=5 ttl=250 time=15.5 ms

--- uisg4.x.incapdns.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4019ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.986/15.488/18.523/1.606 ms

I insist that the problem was with the Fool's servers (at least in my case), not the Internet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JeanDavid, not disputing your assertions. I know our CMS system was down and there were some issues with CAPS, but I'm ignorant of why the boards were slowed down.

Richard
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JeanDavid, not disputing your assertions. I know our CMS system was down and there were some issues with CAPS, but I'm ignorant of why the boards were slowed down.

Hey! I hope I was not misunderstood. I am not mad at anybody. It just seemed, based on my analysis, that the Internet was running just fine (for me) and that the Fool servers were running slowly, as reported by the invisible line at the bottom of most pages. There they were about 10x to 20x slower than I am accustomed to. And today they are back up to normal.

Now maybe the Internet backbone was slower for other people, and that would slow them down even more than I experienced.

I do not know why your boards were slowed down either.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey! I hope I was not misunderstood. I am not mad at anybody.

No worries. TWC continues to have problems, this time with connections to Microsoft sites, including gaming.

Onward:)

Richard
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here we go again:

5235ms USEQ\WEB18

$ ping -c 5 boards.fool.com
PING uisg4.x.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=12.3 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=2 ttl=250 time=11.4 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=3 ttl=250 time=10.4 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=4 ttl=250 time=9.50 ms
64 bytes from 199.83.128.4.ip.incapdns.net (199.83.128.4): icmp_seq=5 ttl=250 time=13.4 ms

--- uisg4.x.incapdns.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4017ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 9.505/11.451/13.467/1.388 ms
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I insist that the problem was with the Fool's servers (at least in my case), not the Internet.

You simply can't know that from doing a ping.

Slow ping times can be caused by anything between your computer and their server. For example, a bad ethernet cable in your home, or a problem with your cable modem, or a problem with the coax drop from the phone pole, or your ISP's router, or any of the upstream routers it needs to pass through on the way to the fool, or one of the Fool's routers.

But here's the puzzle: Why do you think these numbers are bad?

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.986/15.488/18.523/1.606 ms


A maximum ping of 18.523 is quite good. (Remember that ping reflects not just speed, but latency.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But here's the puzzle:

He was experiencing poor response times, but had good ping times. Logically, that means the problem is not with poor internet connectivity. That leaves the ends of the internet pipe as the suspects - the Fool's servers or the poster's own computer. He believes his computer is not the problem, which leaves the Fool's servers.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
He believes his computer is not the problem, which leaves the Fool's servers.

If no one else is having that problem, then could there be some other problem? Sometimes when I'm having trouble with slow connections I close the browser and reopen it, and sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that helps. Other times a Restart helps.

But I'm not sure the blame lies with the Fool when no one else seems to be suffering with the same problem.

Life is sometimes very strange.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If no one else is having that problem, then could there be some other problem?

Logically, my next step would be to question the assumption that the user's computer is not the source of the problem.

We're also assuming that whatever is responding to the pings is the same system that responds to web page requests. I know just enough about the internet to be pretty sure that is a bad assumption. Pings can be responded to by one physical computer (or router or switch or whatever) while web pages are responded to by another.

So in reality, even the pings aren't a great test, although they do help rule out some parts of the internet between the user and the general vicinity of TMF's servers. Basically, we know we're not talking about a widespread internet outage. And we know that the user is connected to the internet.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When I am getting slow response from TMF the message at the bottom of my browser (Firefox) about what server it is waiting on changes. The various servers might resolve to the same physical box, or to several boxes at the same site, or to servers in diverse physical locations. To complicate that it is common for a single server name to have multiple servers behind it to share the load; each time you connect it gets resolved in some way to the specific server you will be using for a while.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I insist that the problem was with the Fool's servers (at least in my case), not the Internet.

You simply can't know that from doing a ping.


I agree. I used the ping data to indicate that, since the ping data were actually quite good, that it was not likely to be an Internet problem.

Slow ping times can be caused by anything between your computer and their server. For example, a bad ethernet cable in your home, or a problem with your cable modem, or a problem with the coax drop from the phone pole, or your ISP's router, or any of the upstream routers it needs to pass through on the way to the fool, or one of the Fool's routers.

I agree, though I have never had a bad eithernet cable in my home. I assume a typical bad eithernet cable would give an infinite ping time. I did have a bad router, and response times got worse and worse until I had Verizon replace the router (which they did, free).

I gave the traceroute and the ping times to rule out the Internet as the problem. The traceroute was not useful because so many links did not respond to the traceroute.

But here's the puzzle: Why do you think these numbers are bad?

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.986/15.488/18.523/1.606 ms

A maximum ping of 18.523 is quite good. (Remember that ping reflects not just speed, but latency.)


You misunderstood: I think those times were pretty good.

The numbers that made me think the problem was at the Fool servers were the ones like this:

5360ms USEQ\WEB18
3609ms USEQ\WEB16

that give the times through The Fool's servers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If no one else is having that problem, then could there be some other problem?

Logically, my next step would be to question the assumption that the user's computer is not the source of the problem.


I agree that would have been the logical next step. I know my computer was running adequately fast on other web sites, and even with the normal (not message boards) Fool pages, so I did not test my machine further. And that The Fool server response times, like this: 78ms USEQ\WEB16 (this one is good) were in the range of three to five seconds and perhaps higher at times when the latency was so high.

We're also assuming that whatever is responding to the pings is the same system that responds to web page requests. I know just enough about the internet to be pretty sure that is a bad assumption. Pings can be responded to by one physical computer (or router or switch or whatever) while web pages are responded to by another.

If I could assume that the machine ultimately responding to the pings was the same as the ones responding to the page requests, that would be greater confirmation than I provided, but I could not assume that. The pings went to boards.fool.com which I assume is geographically as close to the ones that respond to the message boards as I can get. I do not know that this is the case, and if I were running the tech support at The Motley Fool, I would not divulge the actual location(s) of The Fool's servers for security reasons. Mr. Twitty might tell them to me, because we trust one another, but I would not ask him.

Remember, I gave the ping times to indicate what was not the problem, not to prove they were the problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the explanation.

How did you measure these numbers?

5360ms USEQ\WEB18
3609ms USEQ\WEB16
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How did you measure these numbers?

5360ms USEQ\WEB18
3609ms USEQ\WEB16


Select everything on the page (CMD-A [Mac] or CTRL-A [PC]) and scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. You'll see it there.

dsbrady
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How did you measure these numbers?

5360ms USEQ\WEB18
3609ms USEQ\WEB16


The way I do it is to look at the very bottom of the page, that looks like this.

Powered and implemented by Interactive Data Managed Solutions. Terms & Conditions
Interactive Data

Then press the leftmost button of your mouse down and highlight the invisible line right below and you will see

Powered and implemented by Interactive Data Managed Solutions. Terms & Conditions
Interactive Data
63ms USEQ\WEB15

or something like that.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement