Only just saw this msg.
I did indeed load up wireshark and was using it. But I couldn't see any
packet identifying itself as an ipv6 packet. I realise that is
illogical. Every IP address registered by Wireshark was definitely an
ipv4 format.
I s'pose I could switch it back on and go again,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 06:56:57AM +1100, Kyle wrote:
Only just saw this msg.
I did indeed load up wireshark and was using it. But I couldn't see any
packet identifying itself as an ipv6 packet. I realise that is
illogical. Every IP address registered by Wireshark was definitely an
Kyle == Kyle k...@attitia.com writes:
Kyle If I switch off ipv6, will that help?
If you don't have a complete ipv6 stack, turn it off. Most
machines will try to talk with an ipv6 server if it's advertised ---
and if your remote host doesn't have full connectivity, it'll attempt
the
Well done Michael!
As I indicated earlier in my post, many issues with slow application
performance these days are due to waiting for either unanswered queries or
getting wrong answers. The quick check of raw throughput (your 10MB transfer
in a *blip* proved that) can help you concentrate on the
Perhaps you can use a socks proxy through a SSH tunnel and ask the
Linux box to do DNS for you. This means the only thing that is
affecting your speed behind the firewall is the actual connection
between the host(running FF) and the firewall.
e.g.
on the Mac/Windows, ssh -D 1234
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Martin Visser martinvisse...@gmail.com wrote:
Kyle, a few things.
Firstly you talk about 15Kbps. In my mind this reads as 15 thousand bits
per second. This is slower than dialup speeds. (A little b is always bits
*not* bytes, which is B in communication
Kyle == Kyle k...@attitia.com writes:
Kyle Must remember to hit Reply to All Yes, the mail server *is*
Kyle the box. It also serves DHCP and DNS. But I didn't think they
Kyle were all that heavy.
So, connexions to the (imap? smtp?) mail server time out. Can you run
wireshark on the server,
It's all good. Keep the thoughts coming please.
I actually use IMAP over SSL. But for good measure Telnetted (and
Wiresharked) over both my SSL IMAP port and 25. Both responses come back
PDQ. And Wireshark shows traffic moving from one host to the other and
return. I'm pretty confident of my
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Kyle k...@attitia.com wrote:
It's all good. Keep the thoughts coming please.
I actually use IMAP over SSL.
you can use openssl s_client in place of telnet to connect -
http://www.jaharmi.com/2007/09/26/using_openssl_securely_connect_your_imap_account
has a
Not sure I understand you there James.
I telnet-ed in to test Peter's theories below. But for good measure, I
just tried with openssl as a command too and that responds immediately.
I just don't get it. One host behind the server/router is a MAC on OSX
with 4GB, another WinXP with 2GB. The
Just out of curiosity, what is your IMAP backend? e.g. LDAP, etc
Chris
On 21/02/2009, at 9:59 AM, Kyle k...@attitia.com wrote:
Not sure I understand you there James.
I telnet-ed in to test Peter's theories below. But for good measure,
I just tried with openssl as a command too and that
Sorry I meant authentication and account information backend. If they
are stored in a remote ldap server and the traffic is slow to that
server, in my experience it can cause clients to get bad responses.
Also can you take off SSL and see if it is faster?
Perhaps check syslog for errors on
Kyle, a few things.
Firstly you talk about 15Kbps. In my mind this reads as 15 thousand bits
per second. This is slower than dialup speeds. (A little b is always bits
*not* bytes, which is B in communication speek). Even if you meant 15 000
bytes per second (which equate to 150 000 is slow). So I
Lots of help coming in here, for which I am eternally grateful. Thank
you all.
Chris,
Yeah, nope. I've scoured the maillog and there's no errors there.
IMAP Backend is local file based.
The conversation seems to have migrated to the mail server, but its not
just that. As mentioned HTTP
On 21/02/2009, at 3:04 PM, Kyle wrote:
Keeping it simple with HTTP (using Firefox), a site like smh.com.au
(where I visit daily, so if there's any local caching going on, it's
cached and I reckon internode would likely be caching smh.com.au)
takes a minimum 11 secs to load and regularly
... OK!!!
That is indeed what it does Michael, when it doesn't timeout. I had
previously read up on F'Fox and turned on the various turbocharging
options, but hadn't thought of ipv6.
So I changed network.dns.disableIPv6 to true on the hosts behind the
switch and Wow! That's a
Thanks the response and explanation James.
I get the following, sooo... not _too_ bad I guess from that perspective.
[k...@bottlenose ~]$ free
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 20729081987788 85120 0 1710841096132
-/+
maybe you should check your interfaces for half/full duplex and if there's
errors or collisions...
otherwise have a play with vmstat, iostat, mpstat etc - they could point you
in a direction to look further, at least it will give you hints to see if
the box is actively swapping (have swapped out
Kyle == Kyle k...@attitia.com writes:
Kyle So I guess I need to look elsewhere as to why my experience is
Kyle slow. To clarify my thinking, my 'slow' experience relates to
Kyle the Server/Router routing to/from the hosts behind it.
Is this on individual connexions or after a connection is
Must remember to hit Reply to All
Yes, the mail server *is* the box. It also serves DHCP and DNS. But I
didn't think they were all that heavy.
To address Kelvin's reply, DNS calls for internal and external machines
are super quick, so I'm guessing the DNS server is also doing its job
properly.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:35:09PM +1100, Peter Chubb wrote:
Kyle == Kyle k...@attitia.com writes:
Kyle So I guess I need to look elsewhere as to why my experience is
Kyle slow. To clarify my thinking, my 'slow' experience relates to
Kyle the Server/Router routing to/from the hosts behind
Hi Alex,
No, I doubt it.
I have recently checked, tested and setup MTU settings all the way
through the chain and that made it a little better, but still not what I
would expect from 15Kbps download.
Kind Regards
Kyle
22 matches
Mail list logo
