Hi John and Ryan,

Thanks for looking into this.

The good news is that now I am seeing faster responses for my
website.
I did not change anything on my end, but maybe you guys did, or the
traffic was more well-behaved :)

 In any case, here are my impressions of using the twitter APIs.

Use case: Posting updates to Twitter using oAuth API for the case when
the consumer app
already has the access token.

Weekdays mornings (Pacific Time) are generally slower than evenings or
weekends.
Two timed experiments showed it took 3 sec, and 2 sec for posting two
consecutive updates on Monday evening.

The first message often takes longer than subsequent updates for the
same access token (any token caching going on here ?).

Here is a traceroute output taken Monday evening:

traceroute to twitter.com (168.143.162.36), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
 1  ip-173-201-183-251.ip.secureserver.net (173.201.183.251)  0.918
ms  0.977 ms  1.106 ms
 2  ip-208-109-113-169.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.113.169)  1.505
ms  1.490 ms  1.499 ms
 3  ip-208-109-113-158.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.113.158)  1.445
ms  1.424 ms  1.412 ms
 4  ip-208-109-112-162.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.112.162)  1.386
ms  1.395 ms  1.429 ms
 5  ip-208-109-112-138.ip.secureserver.net (208.109.112.138)  1.463
ms  1.515 ms  1.584 ms
 6  xe-0-2-0.mpr3.phx2.us.above.net (64.124.196.37)  1.092 ms  1.184
ms  1.142 ms
 7  ge-0-3-0.mpr3.lax9.us.above.net (64.125.28.70)  37.857 ms  37.838
ms  37.811 ms
 8  xe-0-1-0.er1.lax9.us.above.net (64.125.31.89)  38.317 ms  38.306
ms  38.290 ms
 9  xe-0-1-0.mpr1.lax12.us.above.net (64.125.31.189)  9.359 ms  9.476
ms  9.461 ms
10  * * *
11  ae-1.r20.lsanca03.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.253)  10.309 ms * *
12  * * *
13  ae-0.r20.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.96)  89.869 ms
56.178 ms *
14  ae-2.r20.mlpsca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.6)  62.913 ms
62.933 ms *
15  * * *
16  128.241.122.117 (128.241.122.117)  60.817 ms  59.320 ms  59.353 ms
17  * * *
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

I would be interested in any pointers you guys might have related to
faster response times.

Thanks for all your help!

-Raj

On May 10, 2:51 pm, John Kalucki <j...@twitter.com> wrote:
> We're pretty sure that this isn't a connectivity issue. At least, it's
> not *just* a connectivity issue.
>
> -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki
> Infrastructure, Twitter Inc.
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:06 PM, mikawhite <mikawh...@me.com> wrote:
> > delayed tweet:ping & traceroute
>
> > 64 bytes from 128.242.240.61: icmp_seq=9 ttl=244 time=36.851 ms
>
> > --- api.twitter.com ping statistics ---
> > 10 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 20% packet loss
> > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 36.851/37.725/39.607/0.902 ms
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > traceroute to api.twitter.com (128.242.240.93), 64 hops max, 40 byte
> > packets
> >  1  10.0.1.1 (10.0.1.1)  1.337 ms  0.661 ms  0.678 ms
> >  2  192.168.254.254 (192.168.254.254)  2.009 ms  1.609 ms  0.977 ms
> >  3  dr01.moab.ut.frontiernet.net (74.40.8.109)  8.835 ms  7.860 ms
> > 9.103 ms
> >  4  74.40.41.233 (74.40.41.233)  14.145 ms  13.365 ms  14.576 ms
> >  5  xe--0-2-0---0.cor01.slkc.ut.frontiernet.net (74.40.4.1)  13.959
> > ms  14.443 ms  14.768 ms
> >  6  ae1---0.cor02.plal.ca.frontiernet.net (74.40.5.61)  34.496 ms
> > 32.226 ms  32.357 ms
> >  7  ae1---0.cbr01.plal.ca.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.170)  60.735 ms
> > 65.466 ms  35.187 ms
> >  8  xe-0.paix.plalca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (198.32.176.14)  34.242 ms
> > 36.110 ms  33.274 ms
> >  9  xe-1-1-0.r21.mlpsca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.50)  30.914 ms
> > 37.517 ms  30.781 ms
> > 10  mg-2.c20.mlpsca01.us.da.verio.net (129.250.29.81)  34.434 ms
> > 36.171 ms  34.288 ms
> > 11  128.241.122.213 (128.241.122.213)  36.377 ms  34.334 ms  33.771 ms
> > 12  * 128.241.122.213 (128.241.122.213)  34.956 ms !X *
> > 13  * * *
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to