Bug Swatter |
Dupe Posts |
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I've noticed a lot of double replies lately. It's not just from a couple of people, but from a lot of people. Catalinamoon has 3 in the Announcement forum in reply to Kit's Smilie Thread. Nan has two in the DM forum in Philip's thread. Is there a problem with the server? I've noticed it takes a long time for a reply to go through. |
||
© Copyright 2002 Poet deVine - All Rights Reserved | |||
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I've noticed it, too. But nothing has changed on Athena for ages. |
||
Kit McCallum
Administrator
Member Laureate
since 2000-04-30
Posts 14774Ontario, Canada |
I've noticed quite a bit of lag time off and on, when I submit a reply to a post as well Ron. I just assumed it was either on my end, or you were working on some things in the background. On the scattered double posts, if it's happening to others, I'm wondering if some people are hitting submit more than once due to the posting delay, thinking their first submit hasn't gone through? PS ... I didn't have a delay every time I submitted a response over the weekend, but at least 30% of them were extremely slow - enough that I could walk away from the computer for a short bit and it would be refreshed when I came back. [This message has been edited by Kit McCallum (03-04-2002 06:03 AM).] |
||
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I noticed all weekend that my replies were so delayed that they stayed on my computer even when I thought they went through..so I always go and open a second passions to check if my reply went through and every time it did, so I would just delete the one still sitting. I guess if others didn't check the poem where they replied they might assume it didn't submit...and click again. Don't know if this helps or not. M |
||
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Even with my cable connection, the lag time is about 45 seconds. That's very unusual. |
||
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
My double "echo" post was intentional.. Just me being a proverbial pain.. butt.. My posts have been lagging a LOT... kicking my computer here... |
||
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Interesting - That post whipped right through - Could there be a difference in posting in specific forums??.... Just me being a pain again... still.. |
||
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'll check to see if some of our forums are getting too big, but I really doubt that's the problem. Usually, when you see delays like that, it's caused by an intermittent glitch in the Internet chain. Drop out to a DOS command window and type in tracert piptalk.com and you'll see your computer literally trace the route from you to our server. Everyone will see a different route, and you'll probably see at least slight different routes on a daily or weekly basis. You'll probably see about fifteen to twenty different "hops" in the chain, and if any one of those is having a problem, it will be reflect in your response time. If a lot of you are seeing a lag, it likely means the glitch is somewhere close to Florida and Athena. But it's likely not "too" close, else we'd all be seeing the huge lag. Fortunately, these glitches rarely last more than a few days. Then they move somewhere else. |
||
Kit McCallum
Administrator
Member Laureate
since 2000-04-30
Posts 14774Ontario, Canada |
I just had a long submit delay in the DM forum Ron ... here's the results ... Tracing route to piptalk.com [66.33.0.29] over a maximum of 30 hops: 6 40 ms 51 ms * gw01.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.80.133] 7 30 ms 20 ms 20 ms 64.86.206.129 8 40 ms 30 ms 30 ms if-2-0-5.bb7.NewYork.Teleglobe.net [207.45.220.211] 9 40 ms 30 ms 90 ms ip-208.48.185.133.gblx.net [208.48.185.133] 10 20 ms 30 ms 30 ms pos2-0-2488M.cr1.JFK1.gblx.net [64.214.65.213] 11 40 ms 40 ms 30 ms pos1-0-622M.cr1.ATL1.gblx.net [206.132.115.94] 12 50 ms 70 ms 60 ms pos5-0-0-155M.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [208.178.116.34] 13 70 ms 70 ms * CUSTOMER.pos12-0-0.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [64.215.187.62] 14 80 ms 90 ms 91 ms 216.87.220.14 [216.87.220.14] 15 100 ms 80 ms 91 ms 216.87.220.22 16 60 ms 100 ms 70 ms ns.pipworld.net [66.33.0.29] Trace complete. Another time around, just fyi ... I hit over 140. 12 71 ms 60 ms 60 ms pos5-0-0-155M.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [208.178.116.34] 13 70 ms * 60 ms CUSTOMER.pos12-0-0.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [64.215.187.62] 14 140 ms 81 ms 80 ms 216.87.220.14 [216.87.220.14] 15 70 ms 70 ms 150 ms 216.87.220.22 16 70 ms 80 ms 91 ms ns.pipworld.net [66.33.0.29] And one more (with a timed-out asterisk line) ... just wanted to give you some numbers to compare Ron ... 11 40 ms 31 ms 40 ms pos1-0-622M.cr1.ATL1.gblx.net [206.132.115.94] 12 60 ms 50 ms 90 ms pos5-0-0-155M.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [208.178.116.34] 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 70 ms 80 ms 80 ms 216.87.220.14 [216.87.220.14] 15 100 ms 100 ms 90 ms 216.87.220.22 16 60 ms 100 ms 70 ms ns.pipworld.net [66.33.0.29] OK, last one ... 12 60 ms 60 ms 70 ms pos5-0-0-155M.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [208.178.116.34] 13 60 ms * 231 ms CUSTOMER.pos12-0-0.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [64.215.187.62] 14 70 ms 80 ms 80 ms 216.87.220.14 [216.87.220.14] 15 90 ms 81 ms 90 ms 216.87.220.22 16 60 ms 60 ms 70 ms ns.pipworld.net [66.33.0.29] Am I correct in understanding that if the ms figure hits 100 or higher (or you get asterisks) then it's indicating the problem? I had some probelms with our cable modem a few weeks ago, and the tech had me do something similar, and that is what he had stated. I don't really understand this area very well. [This message has been edited by Kit McCallum (03-04-2002 08:40 PM).] |
||
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I just a hit a big delay in DM (the first one I've really noticed), and ran a tracert while the screen was still "sitting there." 1 148 ms 139 ms 140 ms as0.coln.mi.voyager.net [216.93.82.130] 2 141 ms 138 ms 139 ms e0.rtr0.coln.mi.voyager.net [216.93.82.129] 3 146 ms 145 ms 141 ms 12.se2-0.rtr0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.129.62] 4 147 ms 147 ms 141 ms se4-0.rtr0.klmz.mi.voyager.net [216.93.121.217] 5 152 ms 157 ms 154 ms 497.at-0-0-0.rtr0.chcg0.il.voyager.net [169.207.224.142] 6 149 ms 166 ms 152 ms atm9-0-0-351.br1.CHI1.gblx.net [204.246.198.77] 7 152 ms 155 ms 150 ms 208-49-59-209.frontiernet.net [208.49.59.209] 8 193 ms 189 ms 188 ms pos1-0-622M.cr1.HOU1.gblx.net [206.132.116.126] 9 219 ms 215 ms 214 ms pos0-0-155M.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [206.132.116.98] 10 * 1452 ms 1524 ms CUSTOMER.pos12-0-0.ar1.TPA1.gblx.net [64.215.187.62] 11 215 ms 229 ms 217 ms 216.87.220.14 [216.87.220.14] 12 214 ms 204 ms 205 ms 216.87.220.22 13 212 ms 211 ms 208 ms piptalk.com [66.33.0.29] Trace complete. Clearly, there's a common problem with that last hop at gblx.net (#10). Let's hope they get it fixed soon … |
||
⇧ top of page ⇧ | ||
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. |