The Need For Speed

[Guru]

What about Nimbus Networks? Here's what the guys at www.teamlambchop say about them:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Unsung Hero
There is one person who is not a member of TLC who has been a huge part of the teams success over the past year plus. That person is Jason Johnston of Nimbus Networks. Through an arrangement with C. Eric Smith, the TLC website here has been hosted by Jason and Nimbus Networks for the past year for free. The only stipulation for the hosting was to put a banner on the site for them, which I have had on the site under the menu bar. Over the past 6+ months the server performance for the site has been outstanding. It has been one constant that I could rely upon while keeping track of things for TLC (definitely more reliable than the stats and server status on the S@H site!). The TLC site has rarely been down, every time I have had to do my updates the site has been up.

Jason is in the process of ramping up services for web site hosting services. If you or anyone else needs some type of web hosting, please drop Jason a line. Right now he is in the process of getting the Nimbus Networks site up and going for more information on the services. In the mean time you can contact Jason at jj@nimbusnetworks.com. There are also a couple of phone numbers available on the Nimbus site now to contact. I am sure they can provide you with the web hosting that you need at competitive prices. Please check them out!</font>

EDIT: I think they are curently updating the main page couse the links over there do not work! All their hosted sites still work!

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

[Guru]

C:\>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=90ms TTL=231
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=231
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=231
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=231

Ping statistics for 62.232.63.111:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 130ms, Average = 107ms

C:\>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=90ms TTL=105
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=105
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=105
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=105

Ping statistics for 194.74.63.248:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 80ms, Maximum = 90ms, Average = 87ms

C:\>ping www.nimbusnetworks.com

Pinging www.nimbusnetworks.com [216.139.208.171] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=241
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=241
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=241
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=241

Ping statistics for 216.139.208.171:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 191ms, Maximum = 201ms, Average = 198ms

C:\>ping www.murc.ws

Pinging www.murc.ws [216.240.130.227] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 216.240.130.227:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

C:\>ping www.murc.ws

Pinging www.murc.ws [216.240.130.227] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 216.240.130.227:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

C:\>ping www.teamlambchop.com

Pinging www.teamlambchop.com [216.139.208.171] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=241
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=241
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=241
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=241

Ping statistics for 216.139.208.171:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 190ms, Maximum = 200ms, Average = 197ms

256Kb ADSL

[Liquid Snake]

DSL is down here My results on a modem:

Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=115
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=115
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=115
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=115
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=115

Ping statistics for 194.74.63.248:
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 200ms, Maximum = 221ms, Average = 212ms

Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=234
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=231ms TTL=234
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=234
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=234
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=234

Ping statistics for 62.232.63.111:
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 220ms, Maximum = 231ms, Average = 226ms

Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.139.208.171: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=243

Ping statistics for 216.139.208.171:
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 170ms, Maximum = 180ms, Average = 174ms

MatroxUsers times out for me as well. I estimate my pings to MatroxUsers are around 200, based on the traceroute.

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

[Kosh Naranek]

TraceRoute


Scanning port 137


That's very weird ... but page loads OK

[Liquid Snake]

Most likely MatroxUsers site has a firewall in front of it that drops ICMP (ping) packets. That's why pings get no replies, but the pages still load.

[Novdid]

They´re both approximately the same for me.

I live in Sweden with a 512K Cable.

[Kosh Naranek]

That is not very polite is it ?

[Liquid Snake]

Actually, I would say it's a security measure. If you drop ping packets, you stop one way of DoS attacks - Denial of Service attacks.

[Pace]

I know xortam, but it appears we can make comments until we are blue in the face ( ) as we'll still get all these lamers posting ping results

Oops, did I say lamer? Sorry, no offence

P.

[xortam]

I find it amusing to see these useless ping results continue after my comments but I'm not going to get . I'm hoping Ant will come up with some better sites and then I'll try to offer some meaningful metrics (gotta be a good bench around the net somewhere).

[az]

Ant, does it have to be a UK based hoster? If not, then we could all help and look around for hosters in other countries wich do provide an english interface for you

AZ

[Liquid Snake]

Well, I don't know of a way to test the site speeds. As xortam said, pings don't have much to do with bandwidth. However, if you get horrible pings, it is likely your bandwidth to the site will be bad too.

Well, my DSL is back and here are my results:

fasthosts
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=114
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=114
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=114
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=114
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=114

donhost
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=244
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=244
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=244
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=244
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=244

Pings to fasthosts are much better. Also, the site loads much faster, while donhost stalls for a few seconds before loading.

[SteveC]

I didn't post a ping result I posted a 'pathping' result. If you're running win2k use PATHPING instead of PING as it checks the site over a period of time and gives you info like dropped packets etc.

And Ant - do make it a UK host!

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

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

[xortam]

The point is that the web experience is much more than just the com link between you and the server. You have to take into account the server performance which is affected by HW, OS, forum SW, workload, etc. Lacking a benchmark that measures the response time of interacting with a site, the best thing we can do is provide qualitative input of Ant's proposals.

[Colin Morey]

rather than pings, what would be best would be traceroutes, (tracert under nt)
this will help confirm connectivity., which is another big factor in the reliability of the company.

Colin