Re: Slow browsing with cable modem

• Previous message: Fritz: "Re: SAMBA Read Only problem"
• In reply to: Stephen Zilliox: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Next in thread: /dev/rob0: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Reply: /dev/rob0: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Reply: Stephen Zilliox: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: 25 Apr 2004 21:02:00 -0700

"Stephen Zilliox" <szilliox@charter.net> wrote in message news:<108numtbmmr063c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Strange... Have you checked your proxy settings?
> No proxies set as far as I know. I checked under the Mandrake linux control
> center.
> >
> > Can you ping default GW? (68.113.6.1)
>
> [root@stevescomputer stephen]# ping 68.113.6.1
> PING 68.113.6.1 (68.113.6.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> From 10.210.32.1 icmp_seq=26 Packet filtered
> From 10.210.32.1 icmp_seq=27 Packet filtered
> From 10.210.32.1 icmp_seq=91 Packet filtered

Won't even let you ping your GW -- low blow, foul! But you really
shouldn't ping endlessly this way. Try ping -c4 x.x.x.x
>
> --- 68.113.6.1 ping statistics ---
> 186 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time
> 184974ms

Oops, errors again -- thought we had lost those. An immediate
ifconfig here could have provided a tad more info re: the errors. It
_is_ one advantage to sending so many packets.

> > Traceroute ?
> >
> [root@stevescomputer stephen]# traceroute -n 68.113.6.1
> traceroute to 68.113.6.1 (68.113.6.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> 2 * * *
> 3 * * *
> 4 * * *
> 5 * * *
> 6 * * *
> 7 * 10.210.32.1 74.893 ms *

Usually running traceroute to your GW is a wasted effort as you don't
get anything back that is useful except this "hop" indicator that
shows a kind of shortest loop. Yours returns in 7, mine in 3 --
74.9ms vs 9.3ms. Even with the extra hops this is a _long_ time to
return. Maybe that's why they reject pings to your GW -- it's slow
too?

> > Is this the case...?:
> > Cable modem <----> eth0 in your Mandrake box
> > No extras?
> PCI ethernet card in my computer attached to cable modem to cable to
> Charter. I used DHCP under both Win XP and Linux to try to connect to the
> web. I did not ding around changing connection parameters unless I was
> following suggestions from you folks and that was only after I had tried
> everything I could think of using the Mandrake Control Center. I suspect
> that there is probably a wide variety of skill levels represented on these
> groups, but it is difficult to know whose advice to follow.

We sometimes don't appreciate how confusing so many voices can be --
especially in the throws of net connection woes. J.M. is bringing you
along OK -- no damage done and lots of info from you that helps to
provide leads or eliminate suspects. Yours may be a subtle problem
that's hard to pin down. Be patient with us if you can as we sift
through the evidence.

> I appreciate
> all the help and advice I get but I do realize I could possibly really muck
> up my system. One of the first things I tried with this problem was to
> reinstall the whole Mandrake system. Didn't help. I also moved from
> Mandrake 9.2 to 10.0 thinking that perhaps there were bugs that had possibly
> been worked out. Didn't work. When I was on 56k dialup, I spent most all
> of my time in Linux, but since web access is important to any computer nut I
> have been forced to spend most of my time in--as you say--Windoze.
>
> Steve Z.

Some notes while I wait for the traceroutes from my end to time out...

Re: Configuration

Your last 2 network config IPs look OK to me -- ie., at least they are
consistent and make sense. GW on same net segment as you and you can
ping it. Can you ping name servers consistently?

These (your IP, GW, and name servers),are the basic set of IPs needed
to get out to the internet. They come from the DHCP server that gives
you your lease and your IP.

You'll note that the first 2 name servers are on a different network
from the last two -- 4 name servers on two geographically separated
nets indicates someone expects high traffic loads and a need for
backup servers.

When ping and traceroute give consistent results to these IPs, your
network _connectivity_ is not a problem -- neither at your end nor at
the ISP's. Throughput rate is another matter. Consistent pings stats
indicate "normal". Slow times and/or dropped packets to these servers
or GW indicate ISP network problems.

Heavy net loads will slow DNS lookups especially -- ie., most
noticable with web surfing. Differences in browser performance
indicate differences in browsers. Note that Moz does do background
(look ahead) fetches -- this is known to cause performance degradation
in some specific network environments. This could be compounded by
ISP's caching proxies that are not in synch -- even worse if you're
running Squid or have local (Moz) caching set just wrong. Try
different caching settings in Moz. Both of these are under Edit -
Preferences - Advanced - Cache. Also check Mozilla site for settings
available only with a text editor -- sorry I don't remember which
support/help/faq page you'll need to find the link.

Re: Hardware
Your first post showed errors in ifconfig output, the last did not.
(Alas, the ping above did.) The errors were few in number but were
based on "corrupt" frames -- ie., bad signals on the wire. The low
number of errors and their intermittent appearance usually result in
much hair pulling -- that's why I have so little left ;-( Larger
numbers usually indicate auto-negotiation failure between the nic and
CM. Check with mii-tool -v for link status and speed as a double
check. man mii-tool for other data collection methods.

Can you run (probably via a DOS sys floppy) the Netgear diagnostics?
http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/N100159.asp
They sound a bit crude but better by far than nothing.
Getting "serious" (ie., desperate) with diagnostics you can have a
look at:
http://www.scyld.com/diag/index.html
In a pinch, and much, much easier, can you borrow a different nic for
testing? And change out the patch cord between your nic and CM?

As I said in my earlier post, I have no info or experience with
Toshiba cable modems. You can access CM setup/signal data via
http://192.168.100.1 (?). What configuration and signal readings does
its diagnostic page show? Borderline signals can be cause erratic
behavior/errors. Have you checked for firmware updates? (While
waiting I did look but found none offered -- they are expected to be
delivered by ISP when CM boots, probably)

Hardware problems would have to be pretty subtle, I think, to show in
Linux but not Windows. Combined with different drivers, though, you
can't rule them out. Also some Windows drivers/OS updates are
suspected to leave some few nics with scrambled registers that cause
weird symptoms or complete failure under Linux.

traceroute returns (same results with -I) to name servers ...

With $ /usr/sbin/traceroute 66.189.219.29 or .30
I get as far as 12.127.79.150 (10th hop) which http://openrbl.org
shows as:
 Lookup 12.127.79.150 (unresolved) in 21+11 Zones
  AS: [NO_ROUTE]
 Net 12/8 ATT Middletown, New Jersey @ip.att.net
ie., packets are being dropped quick...

With $ /usr/sbin/traceroute 66.169.254.29 or .30
I get as far as:
10 12.127.79.150 (12.127.79.150) 81.083 ms 79.638 ms 88.969 ms
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 172.29.237.161 (172.29.237.161) 87.306 ms 105.076 ms 86.204 ms
14 172.29.237.166 (172.29.237.166) 102.917 ms 101.913 ms 102.467
ms
15 192.168.3.2 (192.168.3.2) 92.433 ms 84.910 ms 104.389 ms

http://www.openrbl.org shows:
 Lookup 172.29.237.161 (unresolved) in 21+11 Zones
  AS: 172.28.0.0/15 AS3549 Global Crossing Sunnyvale/California
 Net 172.16-172.31 IANA-BBLK-RESERVED Marina Del Rey, California
and
 Lookup 172.29.237.166 (unresolved) in 21+11 Zones
  AS: 172.28.0.0/15 AS3549 Global Crossing Sunnyvale/California
 Net 172.16-172.31 IANA-BBLK-RESERVED Marina Del Rey, California

and since you're in the area of:
from Linux:
 Lookup 68.113.7.247 (ts46-01-qdr2036.wlawla.wa.charter.com)
        in 21+11 Zones
  AS: [NO_ROUTE]
 Net 68.113.0-31 KWCK-WA-68-113-0 St Louis, Missouri @chartercom.com
and from Windows:
 Lookup 66.189.180.71 (ts46-01-qdr583.wlawla.wa.charter.com)
        in 21+11 Zones
  AS: [NO_ROUTE]
 Net 66.189.176-191 MDFRD-OR-66-189-176 St Louis, Missouri
@chartercom.com

Seems "strange" to me that you could end up in two such separated
networks -- Kennewick and Medford -- at the same time from Walla
Walla. Maybe they send Linux users to ISP's mud hole net ...

Name server IPs run through openrbl.org:
 Lookup 66.189.219.29 (ns1.wa.charter.com) in 21+11 Zones
  AS: [NO_ROUTE]
 Net 66.189.208-223 PTORCD-WA-66-189-208
        St Louis, Missouri @chartercom.com

 Lookup 66.169.254.29 (unresolved) in 21+11 Zones
  AS: [NO_ROUTE]
 Net 66.169.224-255 KWCK-WA-66-169-224
        St Louis, Missouri @chartercom.com

This is about as far as you can get with "easy" tools. The next step
up is to pull out Ethereal and capture all packets as you ping and
traceroute to your name servers (and GW if you want). Keep capturing
as you use Moz and some other browser to visit a few "problem" sites.

Normally you'll capture 500 - 1000KB per hour so there shouldn't be
any worry with data size, should there? This is just "test" browsing
-- don't get carried away.

If you do have Konqueror available, compare it to Moz performance
(while capturing packets). It uses different technology and if it or
another browser works consistently but Moz does not, then Moz is
boinking out on you. If eyeball performance is similar (and not good)
it's time to inspect those packets you captured. Save them to file to
keep around and we can give pointers on how to use Ethereal for
revealing nuggets of information.

My turn-around time on the NGs is deplorable -- life in rural America
leaves me only with Google as a means of access. But I am watching...

hth a little,
prg
email above disabled

• Previous message: Fritz: "Re: SAMBA Read Only problem"
• In reply to: Stephen Zilliox: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Next in thread: /dev/rob0: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Reply: /dev/rob0: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Reply: Stephen Zilliox: "Re: Slow browsing with cable modem"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]