Re: Performance Checking

There ya go.  Accessed the site and it renders pretty fast on cable.
Considering the latency of a 56k modem is about 250ms, I would say it might
have problems at times.  Any return trip time of 200ms or less is ok for
your average page.

Moe's site seems to render ok too.  Got to be some dynamic that is not
apparent.

Given the complexity of Moe's site, I would be more than happy with it's
performance.  I even pulled up some of the PDF's and they seemed to render
ok.

C:\>tracert parlorsongs.com

Tracing route to parlorsongs.com [209.100.195.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    15 ms    31 ms    16 ms  24.2.41.1
  2    16 ms   <10 ms    16 ms  10.0.191.1
  3    16 ms    16 ms    15 ms  10.0.188.1
  4    15 ms    16 ms    15 ms  c1-pos5-0.nrflva1.home.net [24.7.73.109]
  5    31 ms   <10 ms    16 ms  c1-pos3-3.washdc1.home.net [24.7.68.126]
  6    31 ms   <10 ms    16 ms  p5-3.washdc3-ba2.bbnplanet.net [4.24.8.41]
  7    31 ms    15 ms    16 ms  p1-0.washdc3-ba1.bbnplanet.net [4.24.4.101]
  8    16 ms    15 ms    16 ms  p7-0.washdc3-br1.bbnplanet.net [4.24.4.122]
  9    46 ms    16 ms    47 ms  p3-0.nycmny1-br1.bbnplanet.net [4.24.7.45]
 10   110 ms    16 ms    31 ms  p4-0.nycmny1-br2.bbnplanet.net [4.24.6.226]
 11    94 ms    78 ms    78 ms  p4-0.sanjose1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net [4.24.7.58]
 12   157 ms    78 ms    93 ms  p8-0-0.sanjose1-br2.bbnplanet.net
[4.0.3.190]
 13    78 ms    93 ms    79 ms  NSanjose-core0.nap.net [207.112.242.253]
 14    94 ms   110 ms   109 ms  na194.nap.net [207.112.247.194]
 15   109 ms    94 ms   109 ms  sea-e0.2alpha.com [207.227.3.138]
 16   110 ms     *       94 ms  sea1.2alpha.net [209.100.192.1]
 17   110 ms   109 ms    94 ms  www.roadkill-cafe.com [209.100.195.18]

Trace complete.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Maine" <maine(at)2alpha.net>
To: "Bryan Bateman" <batemanb(at)home.com>
Cc: "Mailing List Account" <digitald(at)digitaldaze.com>; <moe(at)maxim-ic.com>;
<hwg-servers-digest(at)mail.hwg.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Performance Checking


>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Bryan Bateman wrote:
>
> > First let me apologize for my mis-interpretation of the term co-located.
I
> > have in the past (during discussions of disaster recovery ) heard the
term
> > used in reference to multiple sites.  That is not the case of the
original
> > posting which I have included below Bob's response.
> >
> Bryan,
>
> no need to appologize for not understanding something, I don't understand
> most of what I do or why I do it. I just do a lot of praying nothing
> breaks and use Mac servers ;)
>
> > However, as you can see, he mentions four servers.  There must be some
sort
> > of load balancing going on.
> >
> > My posting was to show that server performance was not always the case
for
> > poor system ( servers, network, etc.) performance.
>
> ======== snip =======
> > These are "real world" hosting problems and would make for good
discussion,
> > both in what was used to determine problems as well as resolve the
problems.
>
>
> While it is always good to keep on top of your network and fine tune
> things as much as possible it is also very important to look at other
> factors as well.
>
> One that you can't control is the backhaul from the client machine. If the
> client machine is running through a bad phone line through a dial-up that
> is sub-leasing lines through another ISP who has his own backhaul through
> a larger provider accross the country your screwed because that VP who is
> complaining is never going to be happy.
>
> Another issue, and one I pointed out in depth to Moe in a privet message
> concerns page design and browser weekness. That VP who is upset is
> expecting a snappy instant on-screen display, but the home page at
> http://www.maxim-ic.com/  has sixteen graphics images over 70 links, some
> huge meta tags, redundant layout info and is all wrapped in a pretty darn
> big table. All things guaranteed to slow down the actual rendering of the
> page no matter how fine the server network is tuned.
>
> Add this to the overall data route and user expectations that are probably
> unrealisticly high and poor ol' Moe is screwed. Nothing he can do will
> make that irate VP happy.
>
> Bryan while your at it how about running a trace route on my hobby site
>
> http://parlorsongs.com/
>
> I live on an Indian reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington
> State, my server is colocated in Seattle. My connectivity is crap. I work
> through the worlds worst dialup provider over lousy phone lines. My local
> throughput even with a confirmed  v90 connection is in the basement,
> usually in the hundreds of bytes some times in the tens, so it is hard for
> me to judge how responsive my server is. I know it should be pretty good
> but when you are monitoring a system that is skower than you can type, one
> painfull charactor at a time, it is tough to tell sometimes.
>
> TNX in addvance
>
> Robert
>
>

HWG: hwg-servers mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA