nteresting indeed. I will check these machines. BTW, someone suggested
to run mtr with a higher mtu. I tried with this command:

mtr --psize 1500 google.com . With this size I get an empty screen.
Also tried with psize 800 and I also get empty screen. With psize 500
I get the path to google but then I get around 55-60% packet loss. If
I ping

ping -s 1500 google.com
PING google.com (64.233.167.99) 1500(1528) bytes of data.

--- google.com ping statistics ---
15 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 14001ms


ping -s 800 google.com
PING google.com (64.233.167.99) 800(828) bytes of data.

--- google.com ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 11022ms



ping -s 500 google.com
PING google.com (64.233.167.99) 500(528) bytes of data.
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=1 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=2 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=3 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=4 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=5 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=6 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=7 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=8 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=9 ttl=236
(truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=10
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=11
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=12
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=13
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=14
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=15
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=16
ttl=236 (truncated)
64 bytes from py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99): icmp_seq=17
ttl=236 (truncated)

--- google.com ping statistics ---
17 packets transmitted, 17 received, 0% packet loss, time 16012ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 178.251/184.751/193.826/4.534 ms

Now I know from someone who checks security at various places that
those who are using adsl, he saw something called quality of service.
When people complain, they start to put more centrals because they are
afraid to lose customers and put more centrals. The fact that you have
5MBit/s doesn't mean you get this speed if you are far away from the
nearest central.

Anyone else suffers from packet loss?


On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Hetz Ben Hamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use ADSL (5Mbit). My ISP: Netvision.
>
>  It seems that they also have some serious packet drops even from my
>  machine to Netvision! check this out: (problems are marked with
>  arrows)
>
>  ./mtr -c 10 -r netvision.net.il
>  HOST: witch.dyndns.org            Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
>   1. 192.168.1.1                   0.0%    10    1.3   0.9   0.7   1.4   0.3
>   2. lo0.lns05.hfa.nv.net.il       0.0%    10   11.4  26.6  11.4 147.4  42.5
>  -->>  3. vl201.coresw1.hfa.nv.net.il  30.0%    10   30.6  16.3  12.0
>  30.6   6.4 <<---
>   4. po41.srvc4.hfa.nv.net.il      0.0%    10   30.5  16.6  11.7  30.5   7.4
>   5. ???                          100.0    10    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
>
>  ./mtr -c 10 -r www.ynet.co.il
>  HOST: witch.dyndns.org            Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
>   1. 192.168.1.1                   0.0%    10    0.8   0.9   0.7   1.4   0.2
>   2. lo0.lns05.hfa.nv.net.il       0.0%    10   11.5  11.6  11.3  12.1   0.2
>  -->>  3. vl201.coresw1.hfa.nv.net.il  40.0%    10   12.1  14.6  11.8
>  27.1   6.1 <<--
>   4. po41.srvc4.hfa.nv.net.il      0.0%    10   11.6  12.9  11.6  17.9   2.1
>   5. 212.143.162.136               0.0%    10   14.2  13.2  11.4  16.3   1.6
>
>  Hmm, I wonder if Netvision knows about this..
>
>  Hetz
>
>
>
>  On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM, sara fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > Hello Everyone
>  >
>  >  I am having major problem with packet loss at some hot server that
>  >  sits in tel aviv. www.dnsstuff.com revealed this info.
>  >
>  >  I would like to know how many people suffer from this problem.
>  >
>  >  For this task mtr program is needed. The program can be downloaded at
>  >  http://www.bitwizard.nl/mtr/ .
>  >
>  >  The description of  the program is mtr  combines  the  functionality
>  >  of the traceroute and ping programs in a single network diagnostic
>  >  tool.
>  >
>  >    As mtr starts, it investigates the network connection between the
>  >  host mtr runs on and HOSTNAME.  by sending  packets  with  purposly
>  >  low  TTLs.  It  continues to send packets with low TTL, noting the
>  >  response time of the intervening routers.  This allows mtr to print
>  >  the  response  percentage  and response  times of the internet route
>  >  to HOSTNAME.  A sudden increase in packetloss or response time
>  >  is often an indication of a bad (or simply overloaded) link.
>  >
>  >  After installing this program please run the command mtr google.com or
>  >  even mtr walla.co.il mtr ynet.co.il
>  >
>  >  I got in all 3 urls ~75% packet loss at ip 213.57.43.199 and at
>  >  213.57.43.22 (or 14) another ~20% packet loss.
>  >
>  >  Please inform me how many people suffer from this problem and who is
>  >  their isp. Mine is 012. but the ips mentioned belong to hot.
>  >
>  >  I already talked with a nice technician at hot and he promissed to
>  >  give me an answer. Meanwhile at 012 tried to help me and in the end he
>  >  told me it's a operating sytem problem. I just hate to hear such
>  >  stupid excuses. I tried bot with and without iptables and it's the
>  >  same. Instead of solving the problem they blame the OS. And all this
>  >  happens with router or without.
>  >
>  >  Besides that, the first IP is actually border gateway.
>  >
>  >  Thanks for your help
>  >
>
>
> >  =================================================================
>  >  To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>  >  the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
>  >  echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Skepticism is the lazy person's default position.
>  my blog (hebrew): http://benhamo.org
>

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to