Increased response times to DAC today?

DarrenTSO · May 14, 2015

# ping nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk
PING nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=1.55 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.60 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=1.62 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.52 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=1.57 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=1.61 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=1.60 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=1.54 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=1.57 ms

armistice · May 18, 2015

DarrenTSO said:
# ping nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk
PING nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=1.55 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.60 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=1.62 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.52 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=1.57 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=1.61 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=1.60 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=1.54 ms
64 bytes from nomfwlp01-reth0-0.nominet.org.uk (213.248.252.2): icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=1.57 ms

Thanks very much for posting that, very impressive consistency.

Interesting that no one else has been willing to enter into this debate or offer any timings or insights.
Is this not the right place to discuss these type of things? {answers by PM, if preferred to be non public ;-) }

Adam H · May 18, 2015

armistice said:
Thanks very much for posting that, very impressive consistency.

Interesting that no one else has been willing to enter into this debate or offer any timings or insights.
Is this not the right place to discuss these type of things? {answers by PM, if preferred to be non public ;-) }

Im not a catcher but if it helps when i ping the address you gave in the thread i couldnt get below 2.30ms on 2 servers so the above is impressive, Ill try a couple more servers with different providers when i get a moment free if it helps.