Well... I didnt say it was RedScat specific. I simply said "Yet another reason
to not use RedScat." There are many other reasons I dont use it, or support
it. Hopefully w/in a month, Ill be able to do my own testing with
Broadband...
What I was trying to elude to with the uname -r tells you your kernel
version. ofcourse you have to be logged into the machine to issue it... and
on a windows box you wont get the expected response... Its possible that
cable routers check the operating system conencted to it, and throttle
bandwidth based on that info.Lets say that AT&T has stock in Macintosh. They
have cable modems set to wide open for any mac, but anything not mac gets a
throttled connection... therby making mac's look great, and anthing not mac
look slow and not as good.
Are you callig me clueless? Im not using redhat! (although I have
tried using
every version between 4 and 6... I still have my 4 cd pack of RedScat 4 (with
Archives!). come to the meeting this week and Ill give it to ya!
Jamie
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 03:02 am, Horst wrote:
: No, I don't think it's Red Hat specific (as far as 'thinking' can go if
: you are clueless). As I indicated, with other & earlier distros I
: experienced things similar to some extend, but w/o ever documenting
: transfer rates.
:
: Can you expand on what "maybe they trhottle base on uname -r ?" means ?
: - Horst
:
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:
: On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Linux Rocks ! wrote:
: > Yet another reason to not use RedScat.
: > so... do you think at&t is optimized for win98? maybe they trhottle base
: > on uname -r ?
: >
: > Jamie
: >
: > On Tuesday 17 December 2002 09:57 pm, Horst wrote:
: > : Recently I installed RH 8.0 from the demo CDs and noticed very slow
: > : download rates over cable (for the time being completely ignoring
: > : upload). Though I did a custom install there was little to config since
: > : RH detected and suggested DHCP (except the funny thing(*) below). For
: > : security I picked 'medium', that's iptables with DHCP traffic allowed
: > : plus ssh and http service, which I added.
: > :
: > : Web browsing under RH 8.0/cable is slower than on a good phone line
: > : connection under win98. Similar for plain console operation, like scp
: > : -- putty scp on win98 is about 10 times faster (see clips below for a
: > : 70MB download, server far away). I noticed slower transfer rates with
: > : older 'nix installations before, but those were installed before adding
: > : cable (so I just blamed myself for not tweaking).
: > : In short, this is not distro specific, and doesn't seem to be
: > : application layer dependent (on both GUI and console): always, transfer
: > : using win98 applications is much faster )-:
: > : I also added traceroute for both OS's, though only the 1st hop should
: > : be of interest(if at all), right?
: > :
: > : Any hints? --for either cure or diagnostic ? (I am willing to dig
: > : through long logs of ngrep or ethereal *if* needed)
: > :
: > : - Horst
: > : (*) the funny thing on RH 8.0 is that DHCP client doesn't seem to be
: > : able to get a hostname from ATT, thus using the entire MAC address of
: > : eth0 plus other crap as my host name in the command line prompt
: > : (leaving only 50% for me to type commands... until I manually set
: > : hostname)
: > :
: > : THe following records follow...
: > :
: > : ===== win98 / putty scp =======
: > : xyz.sql.zip | 23480 kB | 119.2 kB/s | ETA: 00:06:24 |33%
: > : xyz.sql.zip | 69311 kB | 109.8 kB/s | ETA: 00:00:00 |100%
: > : => about 10 min for 70 MB
: > : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > :
: > : ======= RH 8.0 ========
: > : xyz.sql.zip 10% |****** <snip>| 7004 KB 1:36:31 ETA
: > : ...Killed by signal 2.
: > : => would have taken 1.5 hrs
: > : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > :
: > : ===== win98: ============
: > : Tracing route to 66.178.136.22 (www.efn.org) over a maximum of 30 hops
: > :
: > : 1 14 ms 9 ms 10 ms 10.139.x.y
: > : 2 8 ms 9 ms 8 ms 12.244.85.1
: > : 3 10 ms 25 ms 10 ms 12.244.64.213
: > : 4 66 ms 13 ms 12 ms 12.244.64.209
: > : 5 12 ms 18 ms 13 ms 12.244.64.205
: > : 6 17 ms 18 ms 18 ms 12.244.72.42
: > : 7 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 12.123.44.57
: > : 8 17 ms 21 ms 17 ms 12.122.5.157
: > : 9 75 ms 32 ms 34 ms 12.122.2.61
: > : 10 33 ms 32 ms 37 ms 12.123.13.69
: > : 11 37 ms 37 ms 41 ms 12.123.221.2
: > : 12 37 ms 39 ms 41 ms 208.186.87.13
: > : 13 41 ms 38 ms 40 ms 207.173.114.141
: > : 14 88 ms 38 ms 75 ms 208.186.21.33
: > : 15 42 ms 45 ms 42 ms 207.173.114.58
: > : 16 45 ms 42 ms 43 ms 208.186.20.241
: > : 17 60 ms 57 ms 61 ms 207.173.115.41
: > : 18 149 ms 93 ms 202 ms 208.186.20.129
: > : 19 57 ms 58 ms 59 ms 216.190.151.142
: > : 20 62 ms 61 ms 64 ms 66.178.135.110
: > : 21 68 ms 68 ms 61 ms 206.96.130.251
: > : 22 * * * Request timed out.
: > : 23 64 ms 67 ms 66 ms 66.178.137.37
: > : 24 67 ms 100 ms 77 ms 66.178.136.22
: > :
: > : Trace complete.
: > :
: > : ======== RH 8.0: ===============
: > : 1 10.139.x.y 9.869 ms 8.270 ms 9.986 ms
: > : 2 12.244.85.1 9.472 ms 11.891 ms 24.743 ms
: > : 3 12.244.64.213 29.435 ms 9.673 ms 8.349 ms
: > : 4 12.244.64.209 15.013 ms 24.729 ms 9.878 ms
: > : 5 12.244.64.205 11.819 ms 13.417 ms 12.651 ms
: > : 6 12.244.72.42 14.729 ms 23.798 ms 19.512 ms
: > : 7 12.123.44.57 18.581 ms 18.220 ms 14.856 ms
: > : 8 12.122.5.157 27.143 ms 14.280 ms 16.127 ms
: > : 9 12.122.2.61 31.305 ms 32.376 ms 37.096 ms
: > : 10 12.123.13.69 32.957 ms 31.939 ms 35.193 ms
: > : 11 12.123.221.2 37.626 ms 37.957 ms 38.613 ms
: > : 12 208.186.87.13 38.813 ms 39.686 ms 38.005 ms
: > : 13 207.173.114.141 73.291 ms 62.231 ms 53.878 ms
: > : 14 208.186.21.33 41.366 ms 40.519 ms 39.219 ms
: > : 15 207.173.114.58 41.493 ms 53.242 ms 42.126 ms
: > : 16 208.186.20.241 46.523 ms 46.071 ms 44.927 ms
: > : 17 207.173.115.41 54.712 ms 94.296 ms 77.950 ms
: > : 18 208.186.20.129 57.697 ms 59.497 ms 56.909 ms
: > : 19 216.190.151.142 56.408 ms 68.434 ms 57.192 ms
: > : 20 66.178.135.110 61.916 ms 65.592 ms 63.018 ms
: > : 21 206.96.130.251 67.022 ms 61.514 ms 102.045 ms
: > : 22 * * *
: > : 23 66.178.137.37 63.124 ms 64.825 ms 65.743 ms
: > : 24 66.178.136.22 64.106 ms 64.196 ms 95.871 ms
: > :
: > :
: > : _______________________________________________
: > : Eug-LUG mailing list
: > : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > : http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
: >
: > --
: > No microsoft products were used to produce this message.
: > EUG-LUG Mailing List:
: > http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
: >
: > _______________________________________________
: > Eug-LUG mailing list
: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
:
: _______________________________________________
: Eug-LUG mailing list
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
--
No microsoft products were used to produce this message.
EUG-LUG Mailing List:
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
_______________________________________________
Eug-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
