New mindprod.com website

Q

Qu0ll

Roedy Green said:
If you want, you can try out the new Mindprod.com site at
http://65.110.21.43

It should be quite a bit quicker with much faster hardware and a
bigger pipe into the Internet.

Roedy, I have just tried it and unless the whole world is trying to at the
same time I have to say it is so slow that it's practically unusable.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
O

Owen Jacobson

Roedy, I have just tried it and unless the whole world is trying to at the
same time I have to say it is so slow that it's practically unusable.

Whereas I had the opposite experience (Vancouver, Canada, from a
reasonably fast residential connection). Mileage, clearly, varies.

What's the new pipe, Mr. Green?

-O
 
R

Roedy Green

Roedy, I have just tried it and unless the whole world is trying to at the
same time I have to say it is so slow that it's practically unusable.

Hmm. Where are you calling from?

I call in from Victoria, and it is much faster than it used to be.
 
Q

Qu0ll

Roedy Green said:
Hmm. Where are you calling from?

Australia. I've just tried it again and it's p-a-i-n-f-u-l-l-y slow.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
S

Sherman Pendley

Roedy Green said:
Hmm. Where are you calling from?

I call in from Victoria, and it is much faster than it used to be.

It's about the same for me. That is, the old site wasn't noticeably slow,
and neither is the new one. I'm in the U.S., in a small town you've probably
never heard of, about 70 miles west of Washington D.C.

sherm--
 
A

Andreas Leitgeb

Roedy Green said:

As we're just talking of your website, I once wrote some
kind of "bug-report" for one of the "Student's projects",
namely the "Interface Finder".

It's the "2.) Split it at the semicolons ..." lines, of which
I think it's bad style, because unnecessarily platform-dependent.
The only valid "char" to use is: File.pathSeparatorChar

I don't know, if you just missed that bugfix, or if you
don't want to fix it for whatever other reasons, though.
 
J

Joe Attardi

Roedy said:
It should be quite a bit quicker with much faster hardware and a
bigger pipe into the Internet.

Just thought I'd sound off on this, too. I'm in Massachusetts, USA, and
the site loaded nice and quick! Nice upgrade, Roedy.
 
Q

Qu0ll

Roedy Green said:
is the old one any faster?

Yes, significantly so.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
G

George Neuner

If you want, you can try out the new Mindprod.com site at
http://65.110.21.43

It should be quite a bit quicker with much faster hardware and a
bigger pipe into the Internet.

http://mindprod.com will direct you to the old site at
http://65.110.21.60 for now.

Google ads funded this.

Also in Massachusetts USA, on cable. A few places feel a bit slower
than the old site ... but just a bit.

The table on the Java glossary page doesn't render properly in Firefox
2.0.0.10. Some of the image links are rendered as text - apparently
the name of the image instead of the image itself. The links all
appear to work, they just look wrong. Everything works properly in
IE. see http://65.110.21.43/jgloss/jgloss.html


Overall though a nice job!

George
 
R

Roedy Green

What's the new pipe, Mr. Green?

According to my ISP, the new server has:

has two 100 Mbps ethernet connections to our upstream, which are
unlimited (partly because we aren't in the "95th percentile billing"
model), and they have over 65 peers and 10 Gbps ethernet connections
to various backbones (some which are even faster than that). In
short, we're well connected.
 
R

Roedy Green

The table on the Java glossary page doesn't render properly in Firefox
2.0.0.10. Some of the image links are rendered as text - apparently
the name of the image instead of the image itself. The links all
appear to work, they just look wrong. Everything works properly in
IE. see http://65.110.21.43/jgloss/jgloss.html

that happens if the downloads for the images time out. You can fix it
with a reload to get the images into cache. I used to see it from time
to time on the old site.

ISP suggested some of the slowness of the new vs old could be
attributed to having to recache stuff that you would have locally
cached already from the old site, especially all the images. It should
correct itself after a bit of use.

There was a problem with slowness to the old site that turned out to
be an improperly configured routing table. It seems odd that and
Australian routing table would distinguish between two such similar
IPs.

Some thoughts on the painful Australian performance.
try
ping 65.110.21.43
and
ping 65.110.21.60
to compare raw socket speed. Perhaps something about the way the new
server is configured and your browser or TCP/IP stack is the culprit.
What OS and browser are you using?
 
L

Lew

Roedy said:
try
ping 65.110.21.43
and
ping 65.110.21.60
to compare raw socket speed.

U.S., mid-Atlantic seaboard:

$ ping 65.110.21.43
--- 65.110.21.43 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 112.092/119.695/147.069/10.425 ms

$ ping 65.110.21.60
--- 65.110.21.60 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 111.934/127.964/176.515/24.135 ms

Fedora 7, 64b, kernel 2.6.23.1-21.fc7
 
A

Andrew Thompson

Roedy Green wrote:

(I am not Quoll, but I am also in Australia..)
Some thoughts on the painful Australian performance.
try
ping 65.110.21.43
and
ping 65.110.21.60
to compare raw socket speed.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 65.110.21.43

Pinging 65.110.21.43 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 65.110.21.43:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 192ms, Maximum = 204ms, Average = 198ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 65.110.21.60

Pinging 65.110.21.60 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 65.110.21.60:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 190ms, Maximum = 195ms, Average = 193ms
..Perhaps something about the way the new
server is configured and your browser or TCP/IP stack is the culprit.
What OS and browser are you using?

Win XP Pro. IE 6. Note that I tried your new IP the other
night, but my *own* connection is bandwidth throttled*, so I
am not in a good position to do web site download 'speed
testing'.

* Does the ping info. somehow get around that throttling?
 
O

Owen Jacobson

Roedy Green wrote:

(I am not Quoll, but I am also in Australia..)
Some thoughts on the painful Australian performance.
try
ping 65.110.21.43
and
ping 65.110.21.60
to compare raw socket speed.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 65.110.21.43

Pinging 65.110.21.43 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 65.110.21.43:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 192ms, Maximum = 204ms, Average = 198ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 65.110.21.60

Pinging 65.110.21.60 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 65.110.21.60:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 190ms, Maximum = 195ms, Average = 193ms
..Perhaps something about the way the new
server is configured and your browser or TCP/IP stack is the culprit.
What OS and browser are you using?

Win XP Pro. IE 6. Note that I tried your new IP the other
night, but my *own* connection is bandwidth throttled*, so I
am not in a good position to do web site download 'speed
testing'.

* Does the ping info. somehow get around that throttling?

Well, an ICMP ECHO message is on the order of a hundred bytes per
second, normally -- not exactly likely to saturate your bandwidth cap.
You said nothing of a *latency* limit, which is what ping measures. :)

Cheers,
-O
 
G

George Neuner

that happens if the downloads for the images time out. You can fix it
with a reload to get the images into cache. I used to see it from time
to time on the old site.

Could be something with Firefox. Refreshing doesn't fix the problem,
it just changes which images don't load. Each refresh yields a
different looking table and I can't seem to get all the images at the
same time.

OTOH, the Java glossary page is the only page that this happens.

ISP suggested some of the slowness of the new vs old could be
attributed to having to recache stuff that you would have locally
cached already from the old site, especially all the images. It should
correct itself after a bit of use.

I'm downloading fresh each session. My browsers nuke their caches
when exiting - very few of the websites I frequent have a lot of
static content so the caches tend to get filled with junk that will
never be used again.

I haven't clocked the downloads, it is just an impression that some
pages are a bit slower on the new site.

George
 
R

Roedy Green

Could be something with Firefox. Refreshing doesn't fix the problem,
it just changes which images don't load. Each refresh yields a
different looking table and I can't seem to get all the images at the
same time.

Are you using Firefox 2.0.0.10? I'd like to report this to the Firefox
people. I have never seen that happen with any browser anywhere.

Is there any sort of caching going on beyond what the browser does?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top