From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 18 20:09:33 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6021106564A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:09:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prad@towardsfreedom.com) Received: from pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945E18FC15 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:09:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prad@towardsfreedom.com) Received: from pd2mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (pd2mr3so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.108]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K2O00EIUDBXN830@l-daemon> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:09:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml10so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.80]) by pd2mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-7.05 (built Sep 5 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K2O00F9TDBVPM50@pd2mr3so.prod.shaw.ca> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:09:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gom.home ([70.67.160.176]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K2O000RJDBTXK00@l-daemon> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:09:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gom.home (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gom.home (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DC4B839; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:09:19 -0700 From: prad In-reply-to: <20080618153149.24ae6b56.wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-id: <20080618130919.39c55de6@gom.home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <20080616001840.0d0e8fe9@gom.home> <20080616082332.02b87114.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20080617220514.1ebdabef@gom.home> <20080618083654.GB71985@osiris.chen.org.nz> <20080618091609.b987bf37.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20080618115609.09acaadb@gom.home> <20080618153149.24ae6b56.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: Bill Moran Subject: Re: internet slowdown X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:09:33 -0000 On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:31:49 -0400 Bill Moran wrote: > > what is really weird is that the machine that hosts that site isn't > > the only one which has slowed down. the other machine which only > > serves email experiences the same thing (slow ssh connection, long > > ping times). > > I'm confused as to why you think this is related to the machine when > there are multiple machines involved? > i may have stated the case poorly. i thought is was a 7 issue not a machine issue. > If you're _absolutely_ sure the problem started occurring with the 7 > upgrade, I'd look at the possibility that the NICs you're using aren't > as well supported in 7 as they were in 6. Have you verified all the > speed/duplex settings are matched? > we don't know how to do this, but will try to find out. however, see below, since i no longer think the problem is 7. > > we are going to bypass the servers by using one of our dynamic ip > > addresses and see what it is like then. if that computer > > experiences a slowdown, i think it may suggest that the problem is > > due to network activity within the cable company. if there is no > > slowdown, then that seems to point the problem exclusively to our > > servers. > > That's also a good diagnostic step. > ok i am 99% convinced now that this has nothing to do with freebsd 7 at all. here's why: 1. there are 2 servers involved and they both get affected so as you say, bill "It sure sounds like a network issue, from the description of the symptoms." if it were a 7 issue, then there is no reason for them to be affected simultaneously - but if it is a network issue, they would experience the slowdowns together which they do. 2. by-passing the servers produced mirror results. the machine on the dynamic address displayed an identical ping pattern to the same sites as those going through the servers. this would suggest that the problem has nothing to do with our servers. 3. we just found that on more than one instance when there was heavy activity on the website server, the pinging rate was low. this suggests that our servers are more than capable of handling the load and are not slowing our access down at all. 4. though i said we didn't have the problem with 6.3 initially which was true, this doesn't mean that the problem lies with 7 - all it means is that we didn't notice anything wrong with 6.3 while we used it. if this is a network issue from the outside, it may have started recently and merely coincides with our upgrade to 7. also, my son recalls that on rare occasions 6.3 may have acted somewhat slower than usual (though nothing like what we are experiencing now). 5. i don't see why there would be a dns problem since we are sshing from within our local network which the servers are part of. in fact, it is slow even when you use the ip address directly. so my present conclusion is that bottlenecks may be developing in the 'vicinity' of our assigned ip addresses (static and dynamic). these may not even be the fault of our cable company possibly, but i'll check with them anyway again. the only nagging matter though is why sshing in sometimes becomes slow. i will do as you suggest though bill (and jonathan) and produce some network graphs and look at the dns. it will be good to become familiar with these things since part of the reason for setting up our home servers was to gain an education about this stuff. i really appreciate the interest you've shown in our little problem and will follow through on your earlier suggestions as well as any others you may have. -- In friendship, prad ... with you on your journey Towards Freedom http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website) Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's