4WebHelp
 FAQ  •  Search  •  User Groups  •  Forum Admins  •  Smilies List  •  Statistics  •  Rules   •  Login   •  Register
Toggle Navigation Menu

 Can you explain these tracert results?
Post New TopicReply to Topic
View Previous Topic Print this topic View Next Topic
Author Message
Peter
Team Member



Joined: 09 Jan 2002
Posts: 147
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2002 9:39 am (15 years, 1 month ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

Hi,

In investigating U.S. based hosts for my next hosting provider I keep on getting long times like:
Code:
Tracing route to www.cagedtornado.com [140.99.17.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    22 ms    22 ms    21 ms  81-86-192-1.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.192.1]
  2    22 ms    23 ms    22 ms  62-241-161-1.dsl.pipex.com [62.241.161.1]
  3    22 ms    22 ms    23 ms  POS5-0.GW1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.63.129]
  4    22 ms    22 ms    23 ms  so-3-0-0.xr2.lnd9.alter.net [158.43.150.145]
  5    23 ms    22 ms    24 ms  so-1-1-0.TR1.LND9.Alter.Net [146.188.15.37]
  6    93 ms    94 ms    94 ms  so-2-0-0.IR2.NYC12.Alter.Net [146.188.8.178]
  7    96 ms    94 ms    93 ms  0.so-0-0-0.IL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.23.65]
  8   172 ms   173 ms   172 ms  0.so-3-0-0.TL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.29.109]
  9   172 ms   171 ms   172 ms  0.so-0-2-0.XL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.2.73]
 10   171 ms   172 ms   172 ms  POS4-0.XR2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.115.230]
 11   183 ms   182 ms   182 ms  194.ATM6-0.GW3.PHX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.114.141]
 12   184 ms   183 ms   182 ms  puregig-oc12-gw.customer.ALTER.NET [157.130.230.146]
 13   183 ms   183 ms   183 ms  ge1-2-1000M.sw1.core.phx.puregig.net [140.99.96.70]
 14   182 ms   183 ms   184 ms  puregig-deru-1000M.puregig.net [140.99.96.118]
 15   184 ms   185 ms   186 ms  www.cagedtornado.com [140.99.17.3]

Trace complete.


So, it looked as if their network was slow. Then I tried Amazon.com:
Code:
Tracing route to amazon.com [207.171.182.16]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    23 ms    21 ms    22 ms  81-86-192-1.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.192.1]
  2    21 ms    23 ms    22 ms  62-241-161-1.dsl.pipex.com [62.241.161.1]
  3    22 ms    24 ms    23 ms  POS4-0.GW1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.63.105]
  4    21 ms    22 ms    22 ms  so-3-0-0.xr1.lnd9.alter.net [158.43.150.141]
  5    24 ms    22 ms    22 ms  so-0-1-0.TR2.LND9.Alter.Net [146.188.15.41]
  6    96 ms    94 ms    94 ms  so-2-0-0.IR2.NYC12.Alter.Net [146.188.8.178]
  7    95 ms    94 ms    95 ms  0.so-0-0-0.IL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.23.65]
  8   168 ms   168 ms   168 ms  0.so-0-1-0.TL2.POR3.ALTER.NET [152.63.70.21]
  9   174 ms   173 ms   173 ms  0.so-4-0-0.XL2.SEA1.ALTER.NET [152.63.145.234]
 10   172 ms   174 ms   173 ms  POS5-0.XR2.SEA1.ALTER.NET [152.63.106.234]
 11   173 ms   172 ms   172 ms  194.ATM6-0.GW6.SEA1.ALTER.NET [152.63.106.189]
 12     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 13     *        *        *     Request timed out.
(continued all the way to 30)


So, am I doing something wrong in tracerting? Only very few U.S. hosts give me a quicker response:
Code:
Tracing route to www.fluidhosting.com [66.150.201.71]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    23 ms    21 ms    20 ms  81-86-192-1.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.192.1]
  2    23 ms    22 ms    22 ms  62-241-161-1.dsl.pipex.com [62.241.161.1]
  3    24 ms    22 ms    22 ms  POS4-0.GW1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.63.105]
  4    21 ms    22 ms    21 ms  so-3-0-0.xr2.lnd9.alter.net [158.43.150.145]
  5    21 ms    29 ms    22 ms  so-1-1-0.TR2.LND9.Alter.Net [146.188.15.45]
  6    94 ms    95 ms    94 ms  so-6-0-0.IR1.NYC12.Alter.Net [146.188.15.50]
  7    95 ms    94 ms    93 ms  0.so-0-0-0.IL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.23.57]
  8    94 ms    94 ms    94 ms  0.so-3-0-0.TL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.9.246]
  9   101 ms    99 ms   102 ms  0.so-5-0-0.XL1.BOS4.ALTER.NET [152.63.16.125]
 10    99 ms   100 ms    99 ms  0.so-7-0-0.XR1.BOS4.ALTER.NET [152.63.16.122]
 11    99 ms   100 ms   100 ms  179.ATM6-0.GW5.BOS4.ALTER.NET [152.63.25.57]
 12   101 ms   102 ms   102 ms  internap-gw.customer.alter.net [65.194.79.74]
 13   101 ms   101 ms   100 ms  border7.ge1-2-bbnet2.bsn.pnap.net [63.251.128.76]
 14   101 ms   102 ms   102 ms  fluidhosting-1.border7-8.bsn.pnap.net [66.150.201.250]
 15   102 ms   102 ms   102 ms  www.fluidhosting.com [66.150.201.71]

Trace complete.


Ebay.com gave a response like Amazon.com, but Yahoo.com was like fluidhosting.com, with a max time of 105ms.

Can someone explain please?

Thanks,
Peter

________________________________
Maple Design - quality web design and custom programming
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by PeterSend Personal MessageVisit Poster's WebsiteYahoo MessengerICQ Number
Ben
Senior WebHelper
Senior WebHelper


Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 431
Location: Liverpool - UK

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 1:43 pm (15 years, 1 month ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

Quote:
5 23 ms 22 ms 24 ms so-1-1-0.TR1.LND9.Alter.Net [146.188.15.37]
6 93 ms 94 ms 94 ms so-2-0-0.IR2.NYC12.Alter.Net [146.188.8.178]


The jump from 23ms to 93ms is the jump across the ocean. so-1-1-0.TR1.LND9.Alter.Net from its name looks to be located in London and so-2-0-0.IR2.NYC12.Alter.Net in New York. A traceroute just measures the time it takes for a router to reply to an ICMP packet so the futhur the router is away, the longer it takes to receive the responce.

Id imagine the increase in ping time between 0.so-0-0-0.IL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET and 0.so-3-0-0.TL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET can be explained in the same way, in that newyork is probably miles away from LA.

In general a traceroute isnt really much use in selecting a host as unless the route really is terrible then you wont generally notice much, server loads and other stuff affect things a lot more.

Also routing is an odd thing and while it may take a good route one day, a few hours later it might take a round the world trip to arrive at its destination.

As for the Amazon trace

Quote:
11 173 ms 172 ms 172 ms 194.ATM6-0.GW6.SEA1.ALTER.NET [152.63.106.189]
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
(continued all the way to 30)


If the site was up, this can be explained by a router being configured to reject ICMP(ping) traffic. Microsoft also reject ICMP so pinging/trace routing them will result it a load of timed outs.

________________________________
Ben Scott

Red and White Kop
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by BenSend Personal MessageSend emailVisit Poster's Website
Peter
Team Member



Joined: 09 Jan 2002
Posts: 147
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 4:50 pm (15 years, 1 month ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

Thanks Ben.

So what's the best way to test a host (there must be some way to choose between them!)

Peter

________________________________
Maple Design - quality web design and custom programming
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by PeterSend Personal MessageVisit Poster's WebsiteYahoo MessengerICQ Number
Daniel
Team Member



Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:41 pm (15 years, 1 month ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

Personally, I just ping them Mr. Green

________________________________
Image
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by DanielSend Personal Message
Ben
Senior WebHelper
Senior WebHelper


Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 431
Location: Liverpool - UK

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:59 pm (15 years, 1 month ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

There isn't really a way other than experience Sad. Or search WHT (mod note: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/) for other peoples experience.

________________________________
Ben Scott

Red and White Kop
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by BenSend Personal MessageSend emailVisit Poster's Website
Display posts from previous:      
Post New TopicReply to Topic
View Previous Topic Print this topic View Next Topic


 Jump to:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


Page generation time: 0.09147 seconds :: 18 queries executed :: All Times are GMT
Powered by phpBB 2.0 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group :: Based on an FI Theme