Announcement

**Kosh Naranek** · 19 April 2001, 11:51

Pinging www.fasthosts.com [194.74.63.248] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=117
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=117
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=117
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=117

Ping statistics for 194.74.63.248:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 38ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 41ms

Pinging donhost.com [62.232.63.111] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=246
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=246
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=246
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=246

Ping statistics for 62.232.63.111:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 116ms, Average = 85ms

**Kosh Naranek** · 19 April 2001, 11:54

www.fasthosts.com seems a LOT faster to me.
using a 512 kbits cable modem ... bawhaaaaa i want my 2 mbit connection .....

**SteveC** · 19 April 2001, 12:05

Hi Ant,

<
< Somewhere over there is
< where I live
<

Although both sites are in the UK (HURRAH!! ), donhost is much slower than fasthosts...

Code:

C:\>pathping [url="http://www.fasthosts.com"]www.fasthosts.com[/url]

Tracing route to [url="http://www.fasthosts.com"]www.fasthosts.com[/url] [194.74.63.248]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
  0  steve [192.168.0.2]
  1  192.168.0.1
  2  10.30.112.1
  3  gsr01-se.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.224.161]
  4  172.18.8.61
  5  ATM5-BA-HSD-GSR-LINX.cableinet.net [194.117.140.138]
  6  e41-isp1-gw1-uk.cableinet.net [194.117.140.9]
  7  linx-l0.ukcore.bt.net [195.66.224.10]
  8  core1-pos6-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.10]
  9  core1-pos10-0.reading.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.237]
 10  core1-pos8-0.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.105]
 11  mspaccess1-fa1-0-0.birmingham.fixed.bt.net [62.6.196.135]
 12  62.7.239.178
 13  194.74.63.248

Computing statistics for 325 seconds...
            Source to Here   This Node/Link
Hop  RTT    Lost/Sent = Pct  Lost/Sent = Pct  Address
  0                                           steve [192.168.0.2]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  1    1ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  192.168.0.1
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  2   13ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  10.30.112.1
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  3   14ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  gsr01-se.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.224.161]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  4   13ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  172.18.8.61
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  5   16ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  ATM5-BA-HSD-GSR-LINX.cableinet.net [194.117.140.138]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  6   20ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  e41-isp1-gw1-uk.cableinet.net [194.117.140.9]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  7   20ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  linx-l0.ukcore.bt.net [195.66.224.10]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  8   16ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  core1-pos6-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net[194.74.65.10]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  9   18ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  core1-pos10-0.reading.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.237]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
 10   20ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  core1-pos8-0.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.105]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
 11   32ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  mspaccess1-fa1-0-0.birmingham.fixed.bt.net [62.6.196.135]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
 12   24ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  62.7.239.178
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
 13   25ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  194.74.63.248

Trace complete.


C:\>


C:\>pathping [url="http://www.donhost.com"]www.donhost.com[/url]

Tracing route to donhost.com [62.232.63.111]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
  0  steve [192.168.0.2]
  1  192.168.0.1
  2  10.30.112.1
  3  gsr01-se.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.224.161]
  4  172.18.8.61
  5  ATM5-BA-HSD-GSR-LINX.cableinet.net [194.117.140.138]
  6  e41-isp1-gw1-uk.cableinet.net [194.117.140.9]
  7  ukcore-linx.highwayone.net [195.66.224.61]
  8  dr1-fa0-0.tc.highwayone.net [62.232.121.67]
  9  thse-155mb-hw1-link1.orbital.net [62.232.123.101]
 10  62.232.63.111

Computing statistics for 250 seconds...
            Source to Here   This Node/Link
Hop  RTT    Lost/Sent = Pct  Lost/Sent = Pct  Address
  0                                           steve [192.168.0.2]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  1    0ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  192.168.0.1
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  2   14ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  10.30.112.1
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  3   13ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  gsr01-se.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.224.161]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  4   13ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  172.18.8.61
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  5   16ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  ATM5-BA-HSD-GSR-LINX.cableinet.net [194.117.140.138]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  6   19ms     1/ 100 =  1%     1/ 100 =  1%  e41-isp1-gw1-uk.cableinet.net [194.117.140.9]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  7   23ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  ukcore-linx.highwayone.net [195.66.224.61]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  8   17ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  dr1-fa0-0.tc.highwayone.net [62.232.121.67]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
  9   84ms     1/ 100 =  1%     1/ 100 =  1%  thse-155mb-hw1-link1.orbital.net [62.232.123.101]
                                0/ 100 =  0%   |
 10   89ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  62.232.63.111

Trace complete.

Oh yeah - I'm on Telewest's Blueyonder Cable Modem service - 512down/128up kbps

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[This message has been edited by SteveC (edited 19 April 2001).]

**cbman** · 19 April 2001, 12:08

Here's what I get

Microsoft(R) Windows 98
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1981-1999.

C:\WINDOWS>ping forums.murc.ws

Pinging forums.murc.ws [216.162.101.9] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=244
Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=244
Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=244
Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 216.162.101.9:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 122ms, Maximum = 154ms, Average = 134ms

C:\WINDOWS>ping www.fasthosts.com

Pinging www.fasthosts.com [194.74.63.248] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=110
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=110
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=222ms TTL=110
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=212ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 194.74.63.248:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 212ms, Maximum = 222ms, Average = 218ms

C:\WINDOWS>ping www.donhost.com

Pinging donhost.com [62.232.63.111] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=225ms TTL=236
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=662ms TTL=236
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=227ms TTL=236
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 62.232.63.111:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 225ms, Maximum = 662ms, Average = 336ms

You decide... they look almost the same to me.. fasthosts is a bit better.

(960kbit DSL)

------------------
Canadian... Hell Ya!!!

**dZeus** · 19 April 2001, 12:35

fasthost definately

[root@cal022054 /etc]# ping www.fasthosts.com
PING www.fasthosts.com (194.74.63.248) from 130.89.228.112 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 194.74.63.248: icmp_seq=0 ttl=112 time=22.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.74.63.248: icmp_seq=1 ttl=112 time=19.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.74.63.248: icmp_seq=2 ttl=112 time=20.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.74.63.248: icmp_seq=3 ttl=112 time=20.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.74.63.248: icmp_seq=4 ttl=112 time=20.8 ms

--- www.fasthosts.com ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 19.3/20.5/22.5 ms
[root@cal022054 /etc]# ping www.donhost.com
PING donhost.com (62.232.63.111) from 130.89.228.112 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 62.232.63.111: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=61.9 ms
64 bytes from 62.232.63.111: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=157.0 ms
64 bytes from 62.232.63.111: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=58.7 ms
64 bytes from 62.232.63.111: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=44.5 ms
64 bytes from 62.232.63.111: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=81.3 ms
64 bytes from 62.232.63.111: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=54.7 ms

--- donhost.com ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 44.5/76.3/157.0 ms

**Wulfman** · 19 April 2001, 12:46

fasthosts.com average ping 160
donhost.com average ping 130

austria, dsl line

mfg
wulfman

**DuRaNgO** · 19 April 2001, 14:07

Fasthosts is noticably faster than Donhost upa here in New Hampshire
jim

edit: through a RoadRunner cable connection

[This message has been edited by DuRaNgO (edited 20 April 2001).]

**Ali** · 19 April 2001, 14:15

They are both VERY slow.

Fasthosts is the faster of the two, but they both feel like you are pulling the pages off a 486 with a 33.6K modem!

ADSL in little old New Zealand. (8Mbit, we are only 2 buildings from the main exchange).

Ill try from home at lunch time on my satelite connetion.

**Beezer** · 19 April 2001, 14:52

Here in California, Fasthost seems a bit faster than Donhost on the T1 here at work. Both are faster than current MURC situation. I'm using IE 5.0

**Ali** · 19 April 2001, 17:02

Fasthosts is the faster again. Donhosts is very very slow here.

This is through a Satelitte connection from NZ

Average pings:
fasthosts 648ms
donhosts 772ms
Matroxusers 0ms (request timed out).
Strange about matroxusers, because its going quite fast.

Ali

**Pace** · 20 April 2001, 01:24

Ping vs Bandwidth seems to have been forgotten

**windigo** · 20 April 2001, 01:46

Ouch! both are very slow which is odd since Bell usually has a good connection speed to europe
56k Canada

------------------
MSI K7TPro2 Duron 750@900
256Ram G400DH32mb
Pioneer SCSI 16xDVD
msn messenger id: mkanashta

**Maggi** · 20 April 2001, 08:36

l'il update ...

Ping www.fasthosts.com [194.74.63.248] mit 32 Bytes Daten:

Antwort von 194.74.63.248: Bytes=32 Zeit=32ms TTL=107
Antwort von 194.74.63.248: Bytes=32 Zeit=31ms TTL=107
Antwort von 194.74.63.248: Bytes=32 Zeit=31ms TTL=107
Antwort von 194.74.63.248: Bytes=32 Zeit=31ms TTL=107

Ping-Statistik für 194.74.63.248:
Pakete: Gesendet = 4, Empfangen = 4, Verloren = 0 (0% Verlust),
Ca. Zeitangaben in Millisek.:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 32ms, Mittelwert = 31ms

Ping donhost.com [62.232.63.111] mit 32 Bytes Daten:

Antwort von 62.232.63.111: Bytes=32 Zeit=78ms TTL=245
Antwort von 62.232.63.111: Bytes=32 Zeit=62ms TTL=245
Antwort von 62.232.63.111: Bytes=32 Zeit=110ms TTL=245
Antwort von 62.232.63.111: Bytes=32 Zeit=79ms TTL=245

Ping-Statistik für 62.232.63.111:
Pakete: Gesendet = 4, Empfangen = 4, Verloren = 0 (0% Verlust),
Ca. Zeitangaben in Millisek.:
Minimum = 62ms, Maximum = 110ms, Mittelwert = 82ms

...

So my vote now turned to Fasthosts.

**xortam** · 20 April 2001, 09:24

Well Pace, like I said earlier, ping doesn't mean squat. If you want to compare web sites, you should clear your cache, and time how long it takes to link to a number of pages w/i their site. Try this test at various times of the day and night. I believe there are some formal web benches available too. Personally, I hope Ant keeps looking because I don't think either of these sites offer acceptable performance.

**Ant** · 20 April 2001, 09:25

I'm still looking and getting very depressed

Announcement

The Need For Speed

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment