Menu
▾
▴
pyzor-users
|
From: Robert H. L. <la...@la...> - 2009-08-20 01:16:06
|
For the last three days, about 90% of my reports timeout. Looks like there might be a peering issue with gblx.net and reasonnet.com. As there is a 78ms latency jump, for that hop alone. traceroute to public.pyzor.org (89.18.189.160), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gatekeeper.monsoonwind.com (192.168.0.1) 0.245 ms 0.111 ms 1.113 ms 2 * * * 3 te-3-3-ur09.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.190.153) 15.565 ms 15.527 ms 15.453 ms 4 l-99-ur01.clute.tx.houston.comcast.net (68.85.154.137) 16.707 ms 16.653 ms 16.583 ms 5 pos-1-6-0-0-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.157) 19.677 ms 19.620 ms 19.551 ms 6 TenGigabitEthernet1-4.ar2.snv2.gblx.net (64.215.28.101) 36.294 ms 34.369 ms 34.274 ms 7 tengig-1-2-0.bcr1.ams02.nl.reasonnet.com (64.208.17.206) 198.441 ms 190.979 ms 190.893 ms 8 89.30.133.6 (89.30.133.6) 197.550 ms 196.398 ms 196.316 ms 9 89-18-191-34.pcextreme.nl (89.18.191.34) 189.511 ms 193.194 ms 193.141 ms 10 mx.spamexperts.com (89.18.189.160) 193.059 ms 190.703 ms 195.997 ms -- END OF LINE --MCP |
|
From: Andreas S. <sch...@fa...> - 2009-08-20 07:01:53
|
Hi Pyzors, On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, at 18:15, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: > For the last three days, about 90% of my reports timeout. I haven't counted them but I see a lot more recently, too. > Looks like there might be a peering issue with gblx.net and > reasonnet.com. As there is a 78ms latency jump, for that hop alone. I am coming from somewhere else with apparently better latency but I face timeouts nevertheless. Last time I talked to Dreas and Tony they were aware of the timeouts and were planning to move the server. Cheerio, -- -- Andreas ReAlpine: https://sourceforge.net/projects/re-alpine/ Reborn Alpine continues UW's Alpine/Pine email client |
|
From: Dreas v. D. <dr...@sp...> - 2009-08-20 08:05:53
|
Hi all! Andreas Schamanek wrote: >> Looks like there might be a peering issue with gblx.net and >> reasonnet.com. As there is a 78ms latency jump, for that hop alone. >> > > I am coming from somewhere else with apparently better latency but > I face timeouts nevertheless. > > Last time I talked to Dreas and Tony they were aware of the timeouts > and were planning to move the server. The server has just been moved to another machine in a different network. Please let us know if you still experience timeouts! Sorry for the inconvenience so far. Regards, Dreas |
|
From: Andreas S. <sch...@fa...> - 2009-08-20 11:21:10
|
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, at 10:05, Dreas van Donselaar wrote: > The server has just been moved to another machine in a different > network. Please let us know if you still experience timeouts! I haven't seen a single timeout since then! Neither from my regular feeds nor from a test run of 1500 messages which just finished. Thanks a lot! -- -- Andreas |
|
From: Ed K. <ed...@es...> - 2009-08-20 15:53:14
|
At 04:20 AM Thursday, 8/20/2009, Andreas Schamanek wrote -=> >On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, at 10:05, Dreas van Donselaar wrote: > > > The server has just been moved to another machine in a different > > network. Please let us know if you still experience timeouts! > >I haven't seen a single timeout since then! Neither from my regular >feeds nor from a test run of 1500 messages which just finished. > >Thanks a lot! FYI: From California at 5:40 PDT: $ pyzor ping public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: ........................................................................... Randomly Generated Quote (786 of 1543): I'm moving to Mars next week, so if you have any boxes... --Steven Wright |
|
From: Robert H. L. <la...@la...> - 2009-08-20 16:01:37
|
Ed Kasky wrote: > At 04:20 AM Thursday, 8/20/2009, Andreas Schamanek wrote -=> > >> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, at 10:05, Dreas van Donselaar wrote: >> >>> The server has just been moved to another machine in a different >>> network. Please let us know if you still experience timeouts! >> I haven't seen a single timeout since then! Neither from my regular >> feeds nor from a test run of 1500 messages which just finished. >> >> Thanks a lot! > > FYI: > > From California at 5:40 PDT: > $ pyzor ping > public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: Same here... 100% timeouts now. traceroute to public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gatekeeper.monsoonwind.com (192.168.0.1) 0.341 ms 0.246 ms 0.230 ms 2 * * * 3 te-3-3-ur09.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.190.153) 16.244 ms 16.328 ms 16.318 ms 4 l-99-ur01.clute.tx.houston.comcast.net (68.85.154.137) 18.845 ms 18.920 ms 18.904 ms 5 pos-1-8-0-0-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.229) 21.197 ms 21.238 ms 21.172 ms 6 pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.50) 23.511 ms 20.309 ms 20.256 ms 7 xe-9-3-0-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (213.200.80.165) 28.715 ms 15.081 ms 22.623 ms 8 xe-9-2-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.186.181) 248.597 ms xe-10-0-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.85) 184.920 ms 184.779 ms 9 hetzner-gw.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.64.18) 199.128 ms 201.818 ms 201.811 ms 10 hos-bb1.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 204.169 ms 201.710 ms 201.729 ms 11 hos-tr3.ex3k5.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.198) 201.709 ms 200.180 ms 207.830 ms 12 pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236) 205.074 ms 199.243 ms 207.743 ms -- END OF LINE --MCP |
|
From: Ed K. <ed...@es...> - 2009-08-20 18:28:29
|
At 09:15 AM Thursday, 8/20/2009, you wrote -=> >Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: > > Ed Kasky wrote: > > > >> FYI: > >> > >> From California at 5:40 PDT: > >> $ pyzor ping > >> public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: > >> > > > > Same here... 100% timeouts now. > > >Hmm not sure what's going on. Is it working now? Tests from several >different networks do not show this issue for me currently. From 216.102.129.43: Thu Aug 20 11:25:41 PDT 2009 $ pyzor ping public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: A trace finds a machine - is it the correct one? traceroute to public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 ns5gt.wrenkasky.com (10.10.10.1) 0.564 ms 0.761 ms 1.114 ms 2 router.wrenkasky.com (216.102.129.41) 256.262 ms 259.655 ms 263.193 ms 3 dist4-vlan55.irvnca.pbi.net (67.114.48.66) 266.355 ms 269.820 ms 272.910 ms 4 bb2-g9-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.196) 276.548 ms 279.693 ms 282.822 ms 5 ex3-p0-0.eqabva.sbcglobal.net (151.164.171.26) 357.241 ms 360.278 ms 364.197 ms 6 Equinix-Ash.DC-1-eth020.us.lambdanet.net (206.223.115.97) 367.827 ms 372.908 ms 380.394 ms 7 FRA-3-eth0-110.de.lambdanet.net (81.209.156.9) 471.508 ms 350.626 ms 331.973 ms 8 NUE-2-eth210.de.lambdanet.net (217.71.96.162) 338.384 ms 341.094 ms 344.475 ms 9 lambdanet-gw.hetzner.de (213.239.242.214) 348.339 ms 351.464 ms 354.743 ms 10 hos-bb2.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.147) 360.557 ms 363.177 ms 366.578 ms 11 hos-tr4.ex3k5.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.230) 370.756 ms 374.273 ms 377.041 ms 12 pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236) 379.948 ms 383.576 ms 386.664 ms Ed Kasky ~~~~~~~~~ Randomly Generated Quote (1189 of 1229): Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone? -Thomas Wolfe, novelist (1900-1938) |
|
From: Robert H. L. <la...@la...> - 2009-08-20 18:54:48
|
Ed Kasky wrote: > At 09:15 AM Thursday, 8/20/2009, you wrote -=> > >> Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: >>> Ed Kasky wrote: >>> >>>> FYI: >>>> >>>> From California at 5:40 PDT: >>>> $ pyzor ping >>>> public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: >>>> >>> Same here... 100% timeouts now. >>> >> Hmm not sure what's going on. Is it working now? Tests from several >> different networks do not show this issue for me currently. > > From 216.102.129.43: My timeouts are from 173.8.187.197 DNS returns: public.pyzor.org. 75 IN A 188.40.77.236 $ pyzor ping public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: -- END OF LINE --MCP |
|
From: Larry N. <py...@bl...> - 2009-08-20 22:02:14
|
On 8/20/09 at 5:43 AM -0700 you wrote: > From California at 5:40 PDT: >$ pyzor ping >public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: Same here. I'm getting 100% timeouts from Phoenix. Nedry |
|
From: Dreas v. D. <dr...@sp...> - 2009-08-20 16:15:59
|
Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: > Ed Kasky wrote: > >> FYI: >> >> From California at 5:40 PDT: >> $ pyzor ping >> public.pyzor.org:24441 TimeoutError: >> > > Same here... 100% timeouts now. > Hmm not sure what's going on. Is it working now? Tests from several different networks do not show this issue for me currently. Regards, Dreas |
|
From: Tony M. <to...@sp...> - 2009-08-20 22:39:15
|
Hi everyone, Sorry - this happened while I was asleep (here in NZ) so it was a slow response. The problem should be solved now (once your DNS refreshes so that public.pyzor.org resolves to 188.40.77.206 rather than 188.40.77.236). Please let me know if you experience any more problems after that. I'm still not entirely sure what the issue is (188.40.77.206 and 188.40.77.236 are the same server) and why it didn't occur universally. I'm still looking into that and will post details once I have them. Very sorry for the trouble! Cheers, Tony |
|
From: Ed K. <ed...@es...> - 2009-08-21 00:46:37
|
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Tony Meyer wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Sorry - this happened while I was asleep (here in NZ) so it was a slow response. > > The problem should be solved now (once your DNS refreshes so that > public.pyzor.org resolves to 188.40.77.206 rather than 188.40.77.236). > Please let me know if you experience any more problems after that. > > I'm still not entirely sure what the issue is (188.40.77.206 and > 188.40.77.236 are the same server) and why it didn't occur > universally. I'm still looking into that and will post details once I > have them. > > Very sorry for the trouble! > > Cheers, > Tony Tony, About time you got out of bed ;-) Works from Los Angeles again: $ date && host public.pyzor.org && pyzor ping Thu Aug 20 17:44:07 PDT 2009 public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.206 public.pyzor.org:24441 (200, 'OK') Thanks for all you do to keep this service running! Best, Ed ............................................................................ Randomly generated quote: There is victory in surrender. |
|
From: Tony M. <to...@sp...> - 2009-08-21 02:34:13
|
Hi, The problem is definitely resolved now. If you want to know the technical details of what happened, read on. If not, you're done! The server that public.pyzor.org was moved to has multiple IP addresses. public.pyzor.org was pointed to one setup as eth0:1, but the pyzord client was bound to all interfaces. The pyzor client would correct send a message to pyzor, and pyzord would send a message back to the client. However, the response would have the eth0 IP address as the sender (because pyzord can't tell which IP was connected to, and so all outgoing messages are from the 'default' interface). The client then silently rejected this response, because it didn't match the sendto IP (this occurs at the C library level, not in the pyzor or Python code). It seems that this is just how UDP works on many servers. As far as I have been able to determine, the only way to solve this is to either connect to the default interface (which is the case now) or to bind only to the IP that is wanted (we might swap to that, but no-one will notice anything if we do). I still don't understand why this didn't happen universally. I wonder if it has something to do with the implementation of the underlying C library, although I could both reproduce the problem and have it work in the same OS. More of the gory details are available here, if anyone is super-interested: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1309370/does-a-udp-service-have-to-respond-from-the-connected-ip-address Apologies again for the downtime. Thanks, Tony |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X