On Thursday 29 November 2007, Billy Holmes wrote:
Mick wrote:
I just ran some quick tcptraceroute tests and can see that my random port
number has the same or less latency than port 80, or port 22
connections . . .
try two things:
1) put your sshd on port 443 if you can. see if you can
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Dale wrote:
Billy Holmes wrote:
that's what the REMOTE machine will do after you connect to it, but
before you get a prompt. This can (normally) be configured on an
application basis to not do it.
OK. I read most of it, what I could get a grip on anyway.
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Vladimir Rusinov wrote:
On 11/27/07, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you come across such a problem before? How can I troubleshoot
it? In
this day and age of broadband connections it seems strange to get worse
performance than on a dialup network . . . I
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Dale wrote:
Billy Holmes wrote:
that's what the REMOTE machine will do after you connect to it, but
before you get a prompt. This can (normally) be configured on an
application basis to not do it.
OK. I read most of it,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:57:25 +
Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just ran some quick tcptraceroute tests and can see that my random
port number has the same or less latency than port 80, or port 22
connections . . .
DNS Servers over loaded, on one side of the transaction or the other?
--
Mick wrote:
I just ran some quick tcptraceroute tests and can see that my random port
number has the same or less latency than port 80, or port 22
connections . . .
try two things:
1) put your sshd on port 443 if you can. see if you can connect with no
latency.
or
2) perform this as
Hi All,
I have noticed this problem when I try to connect to two different machines in
two different continents. One is on cable (US) the other on ISDN ADSL
(Greece). In the evening and sometimes weekends ssh connections from my
laptop to these two PCs are either taking ages or time out.
Hi All,
I have noticed this problem when I try to connect to two different
machines in
two different continents. One is on cable (US) the other on ISDN ADSL
(Greece). In the evening and sometimes weekends ssh connections from my
laptop to these two PCs are either taking ages or time out.
Christopher Copeland wrote:
On 27 Nov 2007, at 10:19, Mick wrote:
Hi All,
I have noticed this problem when I try to connect to two different
machines in
two different continents. One is on cable (US) the other on ISDN ADSL
(Greece). In the evening and sometimes weekends ssh connections
On 27 Nov 2007, at 10:19, Mick wrote:
Hi All,
I have noticed this problem when I try to connect to two different
machines in
two different continents. One is on cable (US) the other on ISDN ADSL
(Greece). In the evening and sometimes weekends ssh connections
from my
laptop to these two
Christopher Copeland wrote:
On 27 Nov 2007, at 10:19, Mick wrote:
Hi All,
I have noticed this problem when I try to connect to two different
machines in
two different continents. One is on cable (US) the other on ISDN ADSL
(Greece). In the evening and sometimes weekends ssh connections
Dale wrote:
snipped
I also ran into something like this on a local network. I corrected
this by adding the remote systems to my hosts file and putting the entry
in the host file on the remote system. I'm not sure what affect this
had but it worked like a charm after that. I guess it lets
Thank you all for your replies,
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Chris Frederick wrote:
Dale wrote:
I also ran into something like this on a local network. I corrected
this by adding the remote systems to my hosts file and putting the entry
in the host file on the remote system.
[ship...]
Mick wrote:
Thank you all for your replies,
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Chris Frederick wrote:
Dale wrote:
I also ran into something like this on a local network. I corrected
this by adding the remote systems to my hosts file and putting the entry
in the host file on the
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:26:18 -0600
Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to add to this, I was using the IP address too and it was very
slow. This was also on a local network. After adding the lines to my
host files, it was fast no matter whether I used the name or the IP
address. I still
Dan Farrell wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:26:18 -0600
Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to add to this, I was using the IP address too and it was very
slow. This was also on a local network. After adding the lines to my
host files, it was fast no matter whether I used the name or the
On Nov 27, 2007 4:19 PM, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Farrell wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:26:18 -0600
Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to add to this, I was using the IP address too and it was very
slow. This was also on a local network. After adding the
Mark Shields wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 4:19 PM, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Farrell wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:26:18 -0600
Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. It has that exact line in the
Dale wrote:
didn't even name the systems since all I used them for was to run
folding. After I named them and put the entries in the hosts file, it
worked fine even when ssh'ing in with the IP number. Before that, it
took forever to login.
google: reverse lookup dns wikipedia
click on the
Billy Holmes wrote:
Dale wrote:
didn't even name the systems since all I used them for was to run
folding. After I named them and put the entries in the hosts file, it
worked fine even when ssh'ing in with the IP number. Before that, it
took forever to login.
google: reverse
20 matches
Mail list logo
