![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 29. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by IsoM on February 20, 2002, at 13:07:54
Dr. Bob, just wondering where the problem with download speed is coming from. Sometimes, the page will load normally, but the last few days, it's generally been agonisingly slow, AND I have a cable modem. I can d/l 300K/sec from some sites!
It may only be a coincidence but I think the problems started about the time you updated your site. Any connection? If I'm experiencing difficulties with cable, I dread to think what a 56K modem is having.
I thought you might appreciate a little humour with all the hard work you do for us here. These are true (my son has told me of some other good ones he's encountered too).
"My neighbor works in the operations department in the central office of a large bank. Employees in the field call him when they have problems with their computers. One night he got a call from a woman in one of the branch banks who had this question: "I've got smoke coming from the back of my terminal. Do you guys have a fire downtown?"
"A lady at work was seen putting a credit card into her floppy drive and pulling it out very quickly. When inquired as to what she was doing, she said she was shopping on the Internet and they kept asking for a credit card number, so she was using the ATM "thingy"."
Posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 14:26:28
In reply to Dr. Bob, Server Problems or What?, posted by IsoM on February 20, 2002, at 13:07:54
LOL-those were good...
I'm having major trouble with the site too, and I have cable as well...
Posted by Greg on February 20, 2002, at 15:04:39
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, Server Problems or What?, posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 14:26:28
I'll join the list of those having problems.
Cable rules....most of the time.
Posted by christophrejmc on February 20, 2002, at 20:27:01
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, Server Problems or What?, posted by Greg on February 20, 2002, at 15:04:39
Maybe he changed the network quota to 28.8kbps speeds to teach us broadband users a lesson in empathy?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2002, at 2:39:59
In reply to Dr. Bob, Server Problems or What?, posted by IsoM on February 20, 2002, at 13:07:54
> Dr. Bob, just wondering where the problem with download speed is coming from.
Hmm. I've been wondering about two things myself:
1. Sometimes a page loads and it looks complete, but the browser doesn't seem to think it's finished (the Netscape animation keeps going). I've just been going ahead and not waiting.
2. Sometimes the first thing in the morning it's like the connection takes a while to get "warmed up", but then it's OK...
Is your problem either one of those?
> I thought you might appreciate a little humour with all the hard work you do for us here
Thanks! :-)
Bob
Posted by kiddo on February 21, 2002, at 13:26:18
In reply to Re: Server Problems?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2002, at 2:39:59
The problem on my end is that it takes a really long time for the page to load period...like a really huge file on a 14.4 modem and I use cable. It will start to load and a while later the background and pic will show-nothing else, then slowly I'll start seeing a few threads, but not even close to being finished..it's been taking an average of 2 minutes to have the page complete.
Kiddo
Posted by IsoM on February 21, 2002, at 13:35:56
In reply to Re: Server Problems?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2002, at 2:39:59
Nope, Dr. Bob - neither problem that you mentioned. The page simply takes forever to load. It'll continue bit by bit till it's all there. At least, it never 'times out' but will continue loading.
With a cable modem, a person is always connected to the net. We never turn our computer off as it used for many things, only will put it in 'standy-by' mode sometimes. I really think it must be the server at your end as all other sites load instantly (or very close to).
Posted by IsoM on February 21, 2002, at 13:42:26
In reply to Re: Server Problems?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2002, at 2:39:59
Actually, Dr. Bob, after my above post, I've noticed that a number of posts i put in the other two forums have loaded quickly. No problems this morning - maybe everything's fixed??
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2002, at 7:58:16
In reply to Re: Server Problems? Fixed? » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on February 21, 2002, at 13:42:26
> Actually, Dr. Bob, after my above post, I've noticed that a number of posts i put in the other two forums have loaded quickly. No problems this morning - maybe everything's fixed??
I hope so! Maybe just another case of Transient Net Weirdness? Was it just the main pages, with the listings of posts, or was it the posts themselves, too?
Hmm, the next time we run into this, we should try going back to an earlier archive. The main pages and the archives are set up a little different, maybe that's it?
Bob
Posted by jane d on February 22, 2002, at 10:45:07
In reply to Re: Server Problems? Fixed?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2002, at 7:58:16
> I hope so! Maybe just another case of Transient Net Weirdness? Was it just the main pages, with the listings of posts, or was it the posts themselves, too?
>
> Hmm, the next time we run into this, we should try going back to an earlier archive. The main pages and the archives are set up a little different, maybe that's it?
>
> BobIt was very bad between 10 and 10:30 central time. Both the listing of posts and the posts themselves loaded slowly. I did go back to a few of the archives (all the admin ones and one 2000 one on PB) and found that they were slow also. Other sites loaded normally but I only tried a few. The problem with your site just disappeared around 10:30.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2002, at 0:40:41
In reply to Afraid not, posted by jane d on February 22, 2002, at 10:45:07
> It was very bad between 10 and 10:30 central time. Both the listing of posts and the posts themselves loaded slowly. I did go back to a few of the archives (all the admin ones and one 2000 one on PB) and found that they were slow also. Other sites loaded normally but I only tried a few. The problem with your site just disappeared around 10:30.
Hmm. Well, I'm stumped. Recurrent Transient Net Weirdness? Could it just be consistently busier at that time of day?
Would you be willing to send an email to my web hosting support people the next time this happens? If so, I'll ask them if that would be OK with them. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2002, at 10:54:19
In reply to Re: Afraid not, posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2002, at 0:40:41
Posted by Willow on March 4, 2002, at 20:22:37
In reply to Re: Afraid not, posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2002, at 0:40:41
I only can open direct links to sites that I know. I can't open yahoo or msn.
Probably a problem with the cyber world?
I guess it too can get brain farts.Wilting Willow
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2002, at 8:10:39
In reply to slow net, posted by Willow on March 4, 2002, at 20:22:37
> I only can open direct links to sites that I know. I can't open yahoo or msn.
The only links on this site that work for you are those to sites that you know? Are you using some kind of child-protection software or something?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2002, at 1:39:48
In reply to Afraid not, posted by jane d on February 22, 2002, at 10:45:07
> It was very bad between 10 and 10:30 central time. Both the listing of posts and the posts themselves loaded slowly. I did go back to a few of the archives (all the admin ones and one 2000 one on PB) and found that they were slow also. Other sites loaded normally but I only tried a few. The problem with your site just disappeared around 10:30.
It was bad again this morning, so I contacted the support people, and they said:
> > If you could run some traceroutes and pings from your location during the time that this issue is happening ... we will be better able to trouble shoot this issue for you.
So if any of you can do that, please email it to me, and I'll pass it on to them. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 13:41:59
In reply to Re: Server Problems, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2002, at 1:39:48
Hey, Dr. Bob, you needed the ping time & tracer routes to try to nail down the problems? Here's mine this Sunday morning - slow as molasses flowing uphill on a winter's day. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d:\home\judy>ping www.dr-bob.orgPinging dr-bob.org [161.58.153.232] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=53
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=53
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=53Ping statistics for 161.58.153.232:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 100ms, Maximum = 140ms, Average = 122msd:\home\judy>tracert www.dr-bob.org
Tracing route to dr-bob.org [161.58.153.232]
over a maximum of 30 hops:1 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms 24.77.76.1
2 50 ms 31 ms 30 ms rd2bb-ge4-0.vc.shawcable.net [24.69.253.3]
3 30 ms 30 ms 20 ms rc2wh-pos12-0.vc.shawcable.net [204.209.213.149]4 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms rc2wt-pos2-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.37]
5 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms ge-6-2.a11.sttlwa01.us.ra.verio.net [199.236.209
.89]
6 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms ge-6-2-0.r04.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.3
1.152]
7 101 ms 80 ms 90 ms p16-0-0-0.r00.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
2.7]
8 100 ms 81 ms 90 ms p16-3-0-0.r02.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
5.115]
9 70 ms 80 ms 80 ms p16-5-0-0.r01.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
2.220]
10 100 ms 110 ms 110 ms p16-2-0-0.r02.stngva01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
5.103]
11 100 ms 110 ms 110 ms ge-1-1.r0728.stngva01.us.wh.verio.net [129.250.2
7.219]
12 501 ms 110 ms 110 ms ge-25.a0701.stngva01.us.wh.verio.net [161.58.129
.1]
13 120 ms 110 ms 110 ms dr-bob.org [161.58.153.232]Trace complete.
d:\home\judy>
Posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 14:10:23
In reply to Re: Server Problems, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2002, at 1:39:48
Dr. Bob, it's now loading quickly, so I'm including the new ping times & tracer route, in case it's of benefit for you.
d:\home\judy>ping www.dr-bob.org
Pinging dr-bob.org [161.58.153.232] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=53
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=53
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=53
Reply from 161.58.153.232: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=53Ping statistics for 161.58.153.232:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 110ms, Maximum = 140ms, Average = 122msd:\home\judy> tracert www.dr-bob.org
Tracing route to dr-bob.org [161.58.153.232]
over a maximum of 30 hops:1 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms 24.77.76.1
2 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms rd2bb-ge4-0.vc.shawcable.net [24.69.253.3]
3 60 ms 30 ms 31 ms rc2wh-pos12-0.vc.shawcable.net [204.209.213.149]4 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms rc2wt-pos2-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.37]
5 51 ms 30 ms 30 ms ge-6-2.a11.sttlwa01.us.ra.verio.net [199.236.209
.89]
6 50 ms 30 ms 30 ms ge-6-2-0.r04.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.3
1.152]
7 100 ms 80 ms * p16-0-0-0.r00.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
2.7]
8 110 ms 80 ms 90 ms p16-3-0-0.r02.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
5.115]
9 100 ms 91 ms 80 ms p16-5-0-0.r01.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
2.220]
10 130 ms 110 ms 100 ms p16-2-0-0.r02.stngva01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.
5.103]
11 100 ms 110 ms 110 ms ge-1-1.r0728.stngva01.us.wh.verio.net [129.250.2
7.219]
12 131 ms 100 ms 110 ms ge-25.a0701.stngva01.us.wh.verio.net [161.58.129
.1]
13 221 ms 100 ms 110 ms dr-bob.org [161.58.153.232]Trace complete.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 10, 2002, at 15:32:52
In reply to Re: Server Problems Now Fast Again » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 14:10:23
> Dr. Bob, it's now loading quickly, so I'm including the new ping times & tracer route, in case it's of benefit for you.
Thanks! Two things:
1. I'll pass them on with the times of your posts, but maybe it would be more exact in the future to do a "date" to include?
2. Are you sure it's OK if everything you posted remains public?
3. So what do you make of the results? The pings were about the same, right? Was the 501 the problem in the 1st traceroute? The * in the 2nd was OK?
Bob
Posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 16:14:34
In reply to Re: Ping Times and Tracer Route, posted by Dr. Bob on March 10, 2002, at 15:32:52
Wish I could tell you more, but I don't know enough about servers & connections, just how to find the info for you. So I can't say much except the * means it timed out. I thought you might just want to pass it along to your server to check out. The difference between the two sets of info was about 1/2 hour, but next time, I'll give a date & time, if you want a next time.
As for the information being public, we have so many security features & fire-walls set up that the only info that can come into our system is info we request. Anyone else trying to enter meets a "black hole" so to speak.
Posted by christophrejmc on March 10, 2002, at 17:09:28
In reply to Re: Ping Times and Tracer Route » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 16:14:34
> As for the information being public, we have so many security features & fire-walls set up that the only info that can come into our system is info we request. Anyone else trying to enter meets a "black hole" so to speak.
I imagine you're talking about local filtering (although it applies to any kind of firewall setup)... The packets still reach your system (or device), they're just rejected (ICMP sent in response) or ignored. Blocking or stopping services can (usually) prevent unauthorised access, but there's not much you can do to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. It's also not too difficult to extract quite a bit of (personal) information from what you posted. Not probable, but possible.
Just letting you know,
Christophre
Posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 19:24:44
In reply to Re: Ping Times and Traceroute » IsoM, posted by christophrejmc on March 10, 2002, at 17:09:28
No Chris, I didn't give details (& won't) but I mean very literally our system is unaccessible. Seeing there's just two users on it & we've not decided whether to set it up for FTP yet, it's really, truly inaccessible. I did post enough info to get into our system if it weren't for all the extra fire-wall protection. We don't have a back door on our system. Thanks for your concern. I don't mean to sound like the Titanic with it can't sink motto. There was a lot of work put into our security & fire-walls.
We're not using our pc as a server, just had it ready as a back-up for when the work places were switched around. It's back to just being our own computer again. We've looked over the entries on how often people try to tap into our computer - there may often be 10-20 attempts an hour. Soon people really have too much time on their hands & nothing useful to do.
Thought you might smile at this cartoon about DoS Attack: http://www.denialinfo.com/
Posted by christophrejmc on March 10, 2002, at 20:44:11
In reply to Re: Ping Times and Traceroute » christophrejmc, posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 19:24:44
> No Chris, I didn't give details (& won't)
What details? You mean your IP? You gave slightly less than 256 possibilities. Take away reserved addresses, nameservers, hosts NOT firewalling, etc... I think you get my point. ;)
> but I mean very literally our system is unaccessible. Seeing there's just two users on it & we've not decided whether to set it up for FTP yet, it's really, truly inaccessible. I did post enough info to get into our system if it weren't for all the extra fire-wall protection.
Yeah, I was just saying that you would still be somewhat at risk for DoS. (Piss off any 12 year-olds with OC48 access lately?)
> We don't have a back door on our system. Thanks for your concern.
Hmm? I didn't mean to imply you had a backdoor...
You're using a cable modem, right? Ever scanned your subnet for users with default NETBIOS setups (the same one that the cable modem installation people usually enable)? Jeez... full read/write access to the entire system for anyone on the same subnet.
Did you think I meant backdoor by what I said about people getting your personal information? I'm not sure how your ISP keeps its records, but I have seen information about an @home user (I think I've heard that most of the cable modem services in Canada are owned by @home) pulled by accessing @home itself (or possibly, the local @home server). This is more common with independent ISPs because of their lack of concern for external/internal security.
> We've looked over the entries on how often people try to tap into our computer - there may often be 10-20 attempts an hour. Soon people really have too much time on their hands & nothing useful to do.
Tell me about it. Luckily, with few exceptions, those doing such scans rarely have enough brains to do anything with the results (save for running some lame sourcecode they got from Bugtraq).
> Thought you might smile at this cartoon about DoS Attack: http://www.denialinfo.com/
Hey, at least no-one's getting killed. :)
-Christophre
Posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 20:57:04
In reply to Re: Ping Times and Traceroute » IsoM, posted by christophrejmc on March 10, 2002, at 20:44:11
No, Chris, I meant details of how our system's set up & the securities being used.
DoS attack only happens to servers, right? Correct me, if I'm wrong but be prepared to show me evidence. Home users can't get a DoS attack. And no more about my connection, but it's NOT @home.
Do you realise how hard it is to type with a cat on your lap bumping your fingers & trying to lay her head on the key-board? I keep having to go back & correct. Mostly, I'm just drooling over the passiflora selections, coveting them, so I don't need to type, just hop back to PB occasionally. As soon as I head to the computer, she heads for my lap.
Posted by christophrejmc on March 11, 2002, at 0:50:29
In reply to Re: Security » christophrejmc, posted by IsoM on March 10, 2002, at 20:57:04
> DoS attack only happens to servers, right? Correct me, if I'm wrong but be prepared to show me evidence. Home users can't get a DoS attack.
Anything with an IP address can get DoS'd (actually, an IP is not necessary, but that's even further off subject). The simplest DoS is a ping flood -- basically doing the same thing you did for Dr. Bob, but at a much faster rate.
>And no more about my connection, but it's NOT @home.
I didn't mean it is @home, I just meant that they are connected with @home (according to a friend who uses the same provider as you; I'm not sure if he's correct), so they possibly use similar (or the same) hardware, software, etc. It doesn't really matter, I was just using @home as an example.
> Do you realise how hard it is to type with a cat on your lap bumping your fingers & trying to lay her head on the key-board? I keep having to go back & correct. Mostly, I'm just drooling over the passiflora selections, coveting them, so I don't need to type, just hop back to PB occasionally. As soon as I head to the computer, she heads for my lap.Awww... My rats used to climb all over my keyboard, it was fun to sit and watch them type out long strings of letters, sometimes making small words.
Posted by IsoM on March 11, 2002, at 1:24:33
In reply to Re: Security » IsoM, posted by christophrejmc on March 11, 2002, at 0:50:29
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.