Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 2/26/2002 9:35:22 AM EST
Thanks a [b]LOT[/b] Goatboy! It seems as fast as it was before.....
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:40:39 AM EST
I dont have to beat on my computer today to speed it up, im back to normal, well as normal as I get........... Bluemax
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:45:22 AM EST
Its still not fast for me, but its usable. Bill3508
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:49:26 AM EST
Still running slow here, getting lots of 'gateway timeouts' and false 404 file not found errors too.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:52:49 AM EST
That's wierd....I wonder why it isn't as fast for the rest of yall? Maybe Goatboy decided to get the speed up in Texas first [:)] Whatever it is, I hope it stays the same here and picks up for the rest of you guys......
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 10:22:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 10:28:53 AM EST
Speed is a whole lot better than in the past few days. A great improvement. But it is still not quite as fast as before the "big crash." Almost, but not quite. Thanks for the effort GB.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 10:52:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr: It is smoking fast here! It picked up a lot in the last hour.[^]
View Quote
Ditto. Compared to the speed in the past week, I feel like my hair should be on fire [:D]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 10:59:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 10:59:43 AM EST by EdAvilaSr]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 10:59:28 AM EST
It took over 1 full minute to load this web page. And I have a T1 line! [>Q][>Q][>Q][>Q][>Q][>Q]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:18:46 AM EST
Yep, I can kiss my work productivity goodbye again. Damn, and the boss was just getting used to me actually getting some work done [;)] [:P] LL [:P]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:19:16 AM EST
Refresh of this page took 25 seconds for me. Getting better, but I ain't scalded.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:23:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 11:24:22 AM EST by EdwardAvila]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:42:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:47:51 AM EST
Much faster for me. [beer] Tyler
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:03:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:14:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:24:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:31:13 PM EST
YEAH! Much faster than it was 24 hours ago. Atta Boy, GB!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:01:09 PM EST
Woo-who! I no long have to open another browser and hit my other sites while I wait for the pages to load!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:03:30 PM EST
Good job Goatboy, the sites running much better than in the past !!! It' nice to surf with speed.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:11:59 PM EST
Yeah well done Goatboy. Glad to see the site getting back up to snuff!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:16:17 PM EST
GB & Ed, Much better here, too. Thanks
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:16:23 PM EST
Whoo hoooo [:)]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:42:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By akira: Whoo hoooo [:)]
View Quote
Double Whoo hoooo here! The site's back up to speed and I got my first thread tacked almost simultaneously! [:)]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 2:25:48 PM EST
nice, this site is as fast as the car in my sig pic now!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 2:41:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By Waverunner: nice, this site is as fast as the car in my sig pic now!
View Quote
I always like the t-shirt with the picture of the Texas Highway Patrol Mustang. Underneath the picture it said, "It takes one to catch one". [:)]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 3:03:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 3:04:08 PM EST by EdwardAvila]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 3:13:36 PM EST
Compared to the last few days Boss, we're in hyper-drive. Thanks to you and GB (I can understand how hard it must be to have to carry GB)!! [;)]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 3:14:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 5:30:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 5:35:17 PM EST
Slower... but better than it's been recently. Still heavy periods of latency and packet loss: C:\>ping -t www.ar15.com Pinging www.ar15.com [] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=41 Reply from bytes=32 time=801ms TTL=41 Request timed out. Reply from bytes=32 time=501ms TTL=41 Reply from bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=41 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from bytes=32 time=841ms TTL=41 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from bytes=32 time=401ms TTL=41 But when it's good, it's good. Looks like a cable modem!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 5:39:36 PM EST
GoatBoy stopped chewing on the line finally.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 5:49:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 5:56:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 5:58:52 PM EST by Pthfndr]
Even way out here in the boondocks on 30 year old phone lines and a dialup modem it's running as fast for me as it ever did in the past. Good job guys! Once everyone east of the rockies go to bed it ought to really fly.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 5:56:54 PM EST
I did a ping to see what the avg. reply time would be. It is 110ms from my house in IL. Not bad round trip time considering how many hops I have to across to get to the server. I counted 25 hops from my house to the server via traceroute. C:\>ping -t Pinging with 32 bytes of data: Reply from bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=40 Reply from bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=40 Ping statistics for Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 70ms, Maximum = 181ms, Average = 110ms Control-C ^C C:\>tracert Tracing route to rrcs-nys-24-97-83-181.biz.rr.com [] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 2 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 5 10 ms 20 ms 30 ms 6 10 ms 50 ms 31 ms gbr2-p100.cgcil.ip.att.net [] 7 60 ms 20 ms 20 ms tbr1-p013502.cgcil.ip.att.net [] 8 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms ggr1-p340.cgcil.ip.att.net [] 9 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms att-gw.cgi.qwest.net [] 10 10 ms 50 ms 10 ms chi-core-03.inet.qwest.net [] 11 30 ms 40 ms 40 ms dca-core-03.inet.qwest.net [] 12 30 ms 50 ms 70 ms dca-core-02.inet.qwest.net [] 13 30 ms 40 ms 70 ms ewr-core-03.inet.qwest.net [] 14 70 ms 40 ms 41 ms ewr-edge-06.inet.qwest.net [] 15 40 ms 40 ms 30 ms 16 30 ms 60 ms 40 ms bb2-new-P0-0.atdn.net [] 17 40 ms 70 ms 40 ms bb2-alb-P6-0.atdn.net [] 18 40 ms 40 ms 40 ms pop1-alb-P1-0.atdn.net [] 19 40 ms 50 ms 50 ms rr-syracuse.atdn.net [] 20 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms roc-mth-gsr-spp-gsr.nyroc.rr.com [] 21 50 ms 61 ms 50 ms syr-24-92-224-36.nyroc.rr.com [] 22 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms roc-24-93-2-197.rochester.rr.com [] 23 40 ms 60 ms 50 ms roc-24-93-2-26.rochester.rr.com [] 24 60 ms 70 ms 60 ms 25 80 ms 121 ms 110 ms rrcs-nys-24-97-83-181.biz.rr.com [] Trace complete. Now that the 2 DSL links are up, how are you planning on load balancing across the two links? Whos routers are you using? Have you thought about using a cache server to cache the ads and other static content? Mike
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 6:07:37 PM EST
Hell yeah!!! She is rockin and rollin again!! DK [:D]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 6:12:07 PM EST
Rock and Roll baby!!!!!! Site rips now!!![smoke] T
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 6:12:14 PM EST
GB, Running much faster tonight that the past week or so. Congratulations! A visual trace route still shows the bottleneck is at the server itself, which returns a ping in 130 to 250ms. This is a 3x improvement for a few days back at about this time of night, so there is a difference. You know, 500MB/hour is quite impressive. That's 8MB/Min, or 1.1Megabits/second. Say, that's pretty close to T1 speed! For what its worth, I see little difference between the two IP addresses. Maybe things leveled out quicker than anyone thought.
Top Top