As you probably already know, in past discussions of the US round robin it was 
revealed that there weren't enough US mirrors to support the demand and that 
was the primary reason for including low demand off-shore servers as 
supplements to handle the over-flow. I don't know whether that situation still 
exists now that Cisco has assumed responsibility for the network.

Certainly true that Singapore is a long way from Kansas and a quick traceroute 
revealed a lot of bouncing around ending in considerable latency:

> Trace route (tcp) Payload: 64 Interface: en1 10.0.1.127
>             to: 128.199.133.36:80 (128.199.133.36)
> 
>  1 10.0.1.1                                           3.004 ms    0.879 ms    
> 0.820 ms
>  2 96.120.89.145 [AS7922] (US)                        9.855 ms   10.293 ms   
> 12.919 ms
>  3 be-20003-sur04.santaclara.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.86.249.249) [AS7922] (US)
>                                                       9.854 ms   15.705 ms    
> 9.789 ms
>  4 be-332-ar01.hayward.ca.sfba.comcast.net (162.151.79.157) [AS7922] (US)
>                                                      12.421 ms   11.589 ms   
> 13.443 ms
>  5 be-3651-cr01.9greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.65) [AS7922] (US)
>                                                      15.202 ms   16.020 ms   
> 15.877 ms
>  6 hu-0-10-0-1-pe03.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.234) [AS7922] 
> (US)
>                                                      14.962 ms   13.651 ms   
> 12.965 ms
>  7 ae-13.a02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.66.33) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                      14.192 ms   16.465 ms   
> 14.268 ms
>  8 ae-4.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.102) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                      13.502 ms
>  8 ae-9.r01.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.2) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                      21.212 ms   12.815 ms
>  9 ae-1.r22.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.26) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                      12.953 ms   14.005 ms
> 10 ae-2.r20.sngpsi05.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.49) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                     209.130 ms  201.054 ms  
> 210.069 ms
> 11 ae-1.r00.sngpsi05.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.7.19) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                     187.140 ms  178.793 ms  
> 182.803 ms
> 12 ae-0.a00.sngpsi05.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.7.9) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                     183.783 ms  190.572 ms  
> 179.938 ms
> 13 ae-6.r01.sngpsi07.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.7.26) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                     189.889 ms  199.520 ms  
> 201.603 ms
> 14 ae-1.a00.sngpsi07.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.92) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                     177.902 ms  192.850 ms
> 14 unknown.a01.sngpsi07.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.240) [AS2914] (US)
>                                                     183.668 ms
> 15 116.51.17.194 [AS2914] (SG)                      191.202 ms
> 15 ae-0.digital-ocean.sngpsi07.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (116.51.17.166) [AS2914] (SG)
>                                                     188.870 ms
> 15 116.51.17.194 [AS2914] (SG)                      180.435 ms
> 16                                                           *           *    
>        *
> 17                                                           *           *    
>        *
> 18                                                           *           *    
>        *
> 19 128.199.133.36 [open] [AS14061] (SG)             197.110 ms  187.651 ms  
> 195.759 ms
> 
> Reached target: 128.199.133.36
> Elapsed (sec): 17.444

Since I rarely use the ClamAV network for updates these days, I don't have a 
valid mirrors.dat that shows statistics on 128.199.133.36. Is a high failure 
rate the basis of your request?

-Al-

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:06 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Any chance you can remove 128.199.133.36  from the US round robin? It's a 
> long way from Kansas.
> 
> dp
> 
> 
> On 11/8/17 7:50 AM, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote:
>> The team working on these issues is seeing these emails, so it’s good that 
>> you are writing in, if you are still experiencing issues.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
clamav-users mailing list
clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users


Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq

http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml

Reply via email to