| Author |
Message |
sunbaoming
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:59 am Post subject: too many time out and package lost |
|
|
too many time out with ping .
ping from Bejing, China.
datacenter: Dallas, TX, USA
mac:~ baoming$ ping 72.14.179.39
PING 72.14.179.39 (72.14.179.39): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=0 ttl=45 time=314.233 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=1 ttl=45 time=337.602 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=2 ttl=45 time=360.552 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=3 ttl=45 time=383.505 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=4 ttl=45 time=306.242 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=5 ttl=45 time=332.629 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=6 ttl=45 time=354.156 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=7 ttl=45 time=373.719 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=8 ttl=45 time=401.680 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=9 ttl=45 time=321.389 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=10 ttl=45 time=344.686 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=11 ttl=45 time=366.544 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=12 ttl=45 time=390.556 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=13 ttl=45 time=309.502 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 14
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=15 ttl=45 time=356.780 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=16 ttl=45 time=379.343 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=17 ttl=45 time=402.908 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=18 ttl=45 time=325.903 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 19
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=20 ttl=45 time=370.549 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 21
Request timeout for icmp_seq 22
Request timeout for icmp_seq 23
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=24 ttl=45 time=361.872 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 25
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=26 ttl=45 time=307.988 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=27 ttl=45 time=332.882 ms
64 bytes from 72.14.179.39: icmp_seq=28 ttl=45 time=354.202 ms
^C
--- 72.14.179.39 ping statistics ---
30 packets transmitted, 23 packets received, 23.3% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 306.242/351.714/402.908/29.041 ms |
|
| Back to top |
|
anderiv
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This, most likely, is something that it completely out of Linode's control (and out of The Planet's control as well). There's a lot of internet between Bejing and Dallas.
I just ran a ping from Minneapolis, MN to my linode in Dallas - the ping ran for about 15 minutes and I dropped one ping during that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Guspaz
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 1030
Location: Montreal, QC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Some sort of pathping or traceroute or mtr might be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
vonskippy
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 410
Location: Colorado, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All that content filtering, great firewalling, and deep packet inspection doesn't come without a few packets being sacrificed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sunbaoming
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: C:\Users\sbm>tracert 72.14.179.39
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms sbm-PC [192.168.95.1]
2 <1 ms 1 ms 3 ms sbm-PC [192.168.253.2]
3 2 ms 3 ms 1 ms sbm-PC [192.168.0.1]
4 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms sbm-PC [10.1.32.1]
5 2 ms 2 ms 3 ms sbm-PC [10.7.0.21]
6 5 ms 2 ms 3 ms 119.253.0.9
7 4 ms 2 ms 3 ms 203.86.64.98
8 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms 119.253.0.21
9 5 ms 4 ms 4 ms 211.144.11.61
10 7 ms 7 ms 8 ms bt-228-133.bta.net.cn [202.106.228.133]
11 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms 61.148.156.177
12 10 ms 7 ms 7 ms 123.126.0.169
13 29 ms 29 ms 30 ms 219.158.4.70
14 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms 219.158.5.126
15 243 ms 241 ms 238 ms 219.158.30.178
16 193 ms 193 ms 194 ms be-10-303-pe01.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.229.41]
17 250 ms 251 ms 249 ms pos-0-4-0-0-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.53]
18 242 ms 243 ms 242 ms pos-0-13-0-0-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.85.133]
19 256 ms 255 ms 258 ms pos-0-7-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.210]
20 * 246 ms * pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.1950stemmons.tx.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.90]
21 361 ms 361 ms 360 ms theplanet-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.228.2]
22 358 ms 348 ms 352 ms te9-1.dsr02.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.87.253.22]
23 354 ms * 360 ms 86.fd.5746.static.theplanet.com [70.87.253.134]
24 352 ms 355 ms 348 ms po2.car02.dllstx2.theplanet.com [70.87.254.86]
25 342 ms * 344 ms li41-39.members.linode.com [72.14.179.39]
C:\Users\sbm>
Can I change another linode data center and transfer all my vps to that one which without lost OS and my data? |
|
| Back to top |
|
mnordhoff
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
sunbaoming wrote: Can I change another linode data center and transfer all my vps to that one which without lost OS and my data?
Yes. File a support ticket. You will get new IP addresses, however.
Fremont is the closest data center to China, but availability there is limited. Dallas is second-closest.
Fremont may not be much better for you -- try ping and mtr against fremont1.linode.com to see if it's an improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sunbaoming
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fremont, CA
Sold out.
Quote:
Fremont may not be much better for you -- try ping and mtr against fremont1.linode.com to see if it's an improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
mnordhoff
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
sunbaoming wrote: Fremont, CA
Sold out.
This is true, but at least a little bit of space opens up occasionally. File a ticket and you'll be early in the line to get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
jdlspeedy
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from China, isn't London DC closer to China than Fremont DC?
Joe |
|
| Back to top |
|
mnordhoff
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jdlspeedy wrote: from China, isn't London DC closer to China than Fremont DC?
Geographically, as the bird flies? Looks like you're right. Internet-wise may be different, though. Still, I guess it's worth checking London out just to see, but I'd be surprised if it was significantly better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spearson
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 57
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vonskippy wrote: All that content filtering, great firewalling, and deep packet inspection doesn't come without a few packets being sacrificed.
QFT. This is probably your problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sunbaoming
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
trace from IDC which located in Bejing,China.
traceroute -n london1.linode.com
traceroute to london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 10.10.10.1 1.440 ms 1.387 ms 0.854 ms
2 124.42.X.X 2.625 ms 2.114 ms 2.940 ms
3 203.86.64.121 2.075 ms 2.677 ms 2.079 ms
4 203.86.64.82 2.983 ms 2.281 ms 2.816 ms
5 192.168.51.73 4.521 ms 3.471 ms 4.044 ms
6 159.226.254.53 1.996 ms 2.044 ms 2.470 ms
7 159.226.254.158 2.274 ms 3.056 ms 2.163 ms
8 194.25.210.105 205.778 ms 205.786 ms 206.176 ms
9 217.239.40.58 209.882 ms 209.862 ms 225.681 ms
MPLS Label=314224 CoS=0 TTL=127 S=0
10 217.239.40.61 278.173 ms 278.093 ms 62.154.14.5 279.628 ms
MPLS Label=314496 CoS=0 TTL=127 S=0
11 217.239.40.33 309.745 ms 309.082 ms 309.047 ms
MPLS Label=16651 CoS=0 TTL=127 S=0
12 62.156.131.149 306.345 ms 309.121 ms 306.414 ms
13 193.159.226.146 346.202 ms 346.193 ms 346.959 ms
14 217.20.44.218 346.551 ms 346.475 ms 346.609 ms
15 109.74.207.9 341.924 ms 341.624 ms 341.798 ms
ping london, fremont from China IDC wrote: ping london1.linode.com
PING london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=339 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=339 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=339 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=339 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=339 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=340 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=341 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=340 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=340 ms
64 bytes from london1.linode.com (109.74.207.9): icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=340 ms
--- london1.linode.com ping statistics ---
11 packets transmitted, 10 received, 9% packet loss, time 10004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 339.237/340.142/341.007/1.007 ms, pipe 2
ping fremont1.linode.com
PING host27.linode.com (64.71.152.17) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=226 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=226 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=228 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=224 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=227 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=226 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=226 ms
64 bytes from fremont1.linode.com (64.71.152.17): icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=219 ms
--- host27.linode.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 7009ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 219.288/225.545/228.107/2.586 ms, pipe 2
mnordhoff wrote: jdlspeedy wrote: from China, isn't London DC closer to China than Fremont DC?
Geographically, as the bird flies? Looks like you're right. Internet-wise may be different, though. Still, I guess it's worth checking London out just to see, but I'd be surprised if it was significantly better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Guspaz
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 1030
Location: Montreal, QC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Looks like your best bet is Fremont... It's strange, that the latency to China is so bad. It's about the same distance away as Australia, but I ping over 100ms less to Australia... |
|
| Back to top |
|
glg
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 452
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guspaz wrote: Looks like your best bet is Fremont... It's strange, that the latency to China is so bad. It's about the same distance away as Australia, but I ping over 100ms less to Australia...
All the crap they throw up costs latency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
