• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Forums online, news to follow

Recommended Posts

AOXOMOXOA    5

very cool i like it. it should be worth the wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no-sweat    2

i like what i'm seeing so far, can't wait till its all done :)

*EDIT - AND I LOVE THIS QUICK EDIT!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
H5N    0

Nice job you guys! (Y) *tries quick edit*

edit: sweet! :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kylejn    0

Heh, had to open IE to try out the "funky fader effect" theme. Pretty slick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b0m8er    3

Heh, had to open IE to try out the "funky fader effect" theme. Pretty slick.

LOL :p Just did the same. Sweet. Great work guys!!! :yes: :santa: :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pepo    0

Very nice, I like the new IPB build, many good features. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sundayx    127

alright! forums are back up things are picking up weeeeeeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr    0

Happy with the new Host ?

Think I saw Neobond say the old host where charging Neowin for extra bandwidth used.

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Should look like this:

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109

ing statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pixated    0

Hmm.. :/

ping 63.28.242.201

Pinging 63.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 63.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

ping 67.19.41.49

Pinging 67.19.41.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=241

Ping statistics for 67.19.41.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 166ms, Maximum = 281ms, Average = 201ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daninku    3

66.28.242.201 or 63.28.242.201 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varish    0
Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=115

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 323ms, Maximum = 327ms, Average = 325ms

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 342ms, Maximum = 393ms, Average = 360ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pimpshiznid    0

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Should look like this:

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109

ing statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms

Did you mean 66.28.242.201 and not 63.28.242.201, because I get Request Timed Out on 63.28.242.201, and I noticed you used 66.28.242.201 in your ping results. :p

Anyway, here are my results.

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 88ms

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 135ms, Average = 68ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ozgeek    157

Heh. I woke up to find Neowin still on my computer screen. (it was a thread I left open. lol. I closed it and re-open it to get fresh tthreads or news but got told the servers were down. lol.

btw I am now known as ozgeek, not mr.roberts. (ozgeek stands for Australian geek).

and timdorr how do I ping for you? is it ping via cmd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigapixels    99

Hmmm... I can go to neowin.net/forum, yet all the links inside point to neowin5.net/forum/whatever... Kind of strange... Is this still a result of the DNS servers or what?

Hey I just noticed that now I know how many stars I have to go to reach the end :D Just 3 left...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varish    0

yes, ping via cmd ;) also its 67.19.42.49 & 66.28.242.201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daninku    3

Mine ...

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 179ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 181ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 166ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr    0

Whoops, yep, I meant 66.28.242.201. Sorry about that. Just curious, though. No biggie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redmak    353
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=236
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=236
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=237
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 131ms, Average = 125ms


Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=113

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 120ms, Maximum = 122ms, Average = 120ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prz    1

Last login: Tue Nov 29 20:55:27 on ttyp1

Welcome to Darwin!

nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$ ping 67.19.42.49

PING 67.19.42.49 (67.19.42.49): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=49.703 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=59.904 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=84.557 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=47.258 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=48.742 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=52.378 ms

^C

--- 67.19.42.49 ping statistics ---

6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 47.258/57.090/84.557/12.945 ms

nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karma_police    0

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 102ms, Average = 99ms 

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 130ms, Average = 118ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
accesser    1

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Timdorr, Other than ping time the thing interests me is the number of hops inside the network look at the number of hops once I get inside the cogentco network.

traceroute to neowin.net (66.28.242.203), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177)  0.335 ms  0.202 ms  0.258 ms
 2  10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129)  0.357 ms  0.389 ms  0.259 ms
 3  Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21)  12.936 ms  12.972 ms  12.984 ms
 4  10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86)  32.545 ms  12.983 ms  12.982 ms
 5  10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42)  13.234 ms  13.208 ms  13.17 ms
 6  i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101)  161.363 ms  161.335 ms  161.353 ms
 7  unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166)  160.962 ms  160.91 ms  160.872 ms
 8  unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66)  160.952 ms  160.934 ms  160.844 ms
 9  p6-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.209)  162.04 ms  162.152 ms  162.201 ms
10  p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78)  163.916 ms  163.649 ms  163.72 ms
11  p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5)  195.383 ms  195.381 ms  195.81 ms
12  p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106)  223.775 ms  223.66 ms  223.736 ms
13  p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34)  234.876 ms  235.536 ms  234.794 ms
14  p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154)  234.369 ms  234.337 ms  234.413 ms
15  p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42)  235.05 ms  234.902 ms  234.985 ms
16  g3-1.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.30)  234.651 ms  234.532 ms  234.636 ms
17  StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250)  234.951 ms  234.965 ms  235.292 ms
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigapixels    99

Here's my ping times:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 42ms

and

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 69ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 110ms

That second server's not as fast to respond...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ksg    0
Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=232

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 121ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 124ms, Average = 123ms

Pretty adverage ping times for me.

Keep up all the good work <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
accesser    1

Whoops, yep, I meant 66.28.242.201. Sorry about that. Just curious, though. No biggie :)

and for that IP still a lot of hops insde that network

traceroute to 66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177)  0.339 ms  0.358 ms  0.24 ms
 2  10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129)  0.341 ms  0.281 ms  0.389 ms
 3  Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21)  13.067 ms  12.866 ms  12.965 ms
 4  10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86)  12.923 ms  13.025 ms  12.967 ms
 5  10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42)  13.213 ms  13.205 ms  13.21 ms
 6  i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101)  161.414 ms  161.362 ms  161.34 ms
 7  unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166)  246.252 ms  160.911 ms  160.839 ms
 8  unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66)  160.858 ms  160.93 ms  160.977 ms
 9  p15-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.213)  161.429 ms  161.372 ms  161.707 ms
10  p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78)  163.94 ms  163.584 ms  163.764 ms
11  p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5)  195.505 ms  196.641 ms  195.494 ms
12  p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106)  223.754 ms  223.725 ms  223.642 ms
13  p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34)  235.219 ms  234.752 ms  234.889 ms
14  p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154)  234.494 ms  234.479 ms  234.522 ms
15  p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42)  235.082 ms  235.106 ms  234.924 ms
16  g3-2.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.34)  235.012 ms  235.066 ms  235.036 ms
17  StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250)  234.916 ms  234.771 ms  234.756 ms
18  66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201)  234.784 ms  236.982 ms  234.748 ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dissonation    0

From the UK...

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 116ms, Average = 115ms

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=245

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 161ms, Maximum = 164ms, Average = 162ms

Edit: ooooo, quick edit is niiiiice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.