Slow...

[JayJhabrix]

Slow as molasses today... Posting is even slower than a snail.

Was looking for an earlier thread but was sooo slow to find that i just started a new one... sorry about that.

[~graffiti]

It's constistently getting stuck on wwwimages.adobe.com.

[Guest]

what dave said. the page never finishes loading for me. just sits at 'waiting for wwwimages.adobe.com' for-ev-ah.

[Chris Cox]

Again, we need details.

It's constistently getting stuck on wwwimages.adobe.com.

How long between the request and first response?

Where are you located?  (that is a Akami server, with nodes all over the world)

What's the ping time from your location to wwwimages.adobe.com ?  (including the ping result with destination address would help narrow down which server you're talking to)

[~graffiti]

Chris Cox wrote:

Again, we need details.

It's constistently getting stuck on wwwimages.adobe.com.

How long between the request and first response?

Where are you located?  (that is a Akami server, with nodes all over the world)

What's the ping time from your location to wwwimages.adobe.com ?  (including the ping result with destination address would help narrow down which server you're talking to)

I suppose I'll have to wait until it slows down again to get the correct?

I'm South of Seattle WA. The time between the request to wwwimages.adobe.com and the next item loading was 50 seconds.

I'll get the ping info next time I see it happen. This is what I got doing it just a minute ago.

PING a1953.x.akamai.net (66.119.205.7): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=4.377 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=4.856 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=4.801 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=4.792 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=5.295 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=6.104 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=14.573 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=4.324 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=4.788 ms
64 bytes from 66.119.205.7: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=4.000 ms

--- a1953.x.akamai.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 4.000/5.791/14.573/2.978 ms

[BigJohnD]

FWIW - my IP Address Location: Chester, Cheshire, United Kingdom 

Pinging a1953.x.akamai.net [86.53.218.58] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 86.53.218.58: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=57

Reply from 86.53.218.58: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=57

Reply from 86.53.218.58: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=57

Reply from 86.53.218.58: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 86.53.218.58:

    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

    Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 64ms, Average = 63ms

Pinging 66.119.205.7 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.119.205.7: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=43

Reply from 66.119.205.7: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=43

Reply from 66.119.205.7: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=43

Reply from 66.119.205.7: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=43

Ping statistics for 66.119.205.7:

    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

    Minimum = 205ms, Maximum = 206ms, Average = 205ms

Iechyd da! John
00:21 17/11/2009 GMT

[Chris Cox]

John - um, yeah, pinging a server in Seattle from your location is going to be slower, and doesn't contribute any useful information.

The only result that matters is pinging wwwimages.adobe.com - to get one of YOUR local servers.

[BigJohnD]

Agreed - an 8 hour time difference  = approx one third of the way round the planet, possibly via the fringes of outer space, so I can't really complain when it takes a fifth of a second.

Pinging wwwimages.abobe.com [208.73.210.27] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 208.73.210.27: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=237

Reply from 208.73.210.27: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=237

Reply from 208.73.210.27: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=237

Reply from 208.73.210.27: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 208.73.210.27:

    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

    Minimum = 209ms, Maximum = 211ms, Average = 209ms

Time for a wee dram, then off to the land of nod…

Iechyd da! John
00:37 17/11/2009 GMT

[Chris Cox]

Big John - apparently your requests were routed to Los Angeles.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Here my contribution at this time of night:

this a Ping of 20 tries

a Ping of 10 Tries resulted in a 30% packet loss.

a ping of 20 tries resulted in a 10% Packet loss.

Is this normal for this time of night?

[Chris Cox]

Packet loss usually means there is a problem closer to you -- something wrong with your local network.

[BigJohnD]

Here's the results of some traces, to parkinglot.information.com aka wwwimages.abobe.com (208.73.210.27),  host58.akamai-thn.cust.telecomplete.net (86.53.218.58) and 66.119.205.7.

The slowest part is the 10 miles or so along the telephone wires under the River Mersey to Linix by the airport. (spk.lpl.linix.co.uk = Speke, Liverpool, Linix.co.uk - my ISP)

Index	avg,ms	IP Address	Host Name	Country	City
1	1	192.168.1.1	www.routerlogin.com	-----	-----
2	57	78.33.51.18	hg7301.spk.lpl.linix.co.uk	-----	-----
3	58	217.14.176.5	217-14-176-5.as25582.net	United States	Rochester
4	60	217.14.176.33	217-14-176-33.as25582.net	United States	Rochester
5	63	195.50.119.213		-----	-----
6	63	4.69.133.97	ae-11-11.car1.Manchesteruk1.Level3.net	United States	New York
7	68	4.69.133.102	ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net	United States	New York
8	68	4.69.141.166	ae-100-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net	-----	-----
9	137	4.69.137.66	ae-41-41.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net	-----	-----
10	148	4.69.134.78	ae-91-91.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net	United States	New York
11	152	4.69.134.125	ae-94-94.ebr4.NewYork1.Level3.net	United States	New York
12	226	4.69.135.185	ae-2.ebr4.SanJose1.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
13	217	4.69.134.246	ae-74-74.csw2.SanJose1.Level3.net	United States	New York
14	214	4.69.134.229	ae-73-73.ebr3.SanJose1.Level3.net	United States	New York
15	228	4.69.132.10	ae-2.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
16	221	4.69.144.70	ae-24-70.car4.LosAngeles1.Level3.net	-----	-----
17	222	4.71.128.74	BANDCON.car4.LosAngeles1.Level3.net	United States	Los Angeles
18	225	208.73.208.14		-----	-----
19	225	208.73.210.27	parkinglot.information.com	United States	New York

Index	avg,ms	IP Address	Host Name	Country	City
1	1	192.168.1.1	www.routerlogin.com	-----	-----
2	58	78.33.51.18	hg7301.spk.lpl.linix.co.uk	-----	-----
3	59	217.14.176.5	217-14-176-5.as25582.net	United States	Rochester
4	70	217.14.176.33	217-14-176-33.as25582.net	United States	Rochester
5	63	195.50.119.213		-----	-----
6	64	4.69.133.97	ae-11-11.car1.Manchesteruk1.Level3.net	United States	New York
7	68	4.69.133.102	ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net	United States	New York
8	69	4.69.139.73	ae-1-51.edge3.London1.Level3.net	-----	-----
9	77	4.68.63.106	teleglobe-level3-xe.london1.level3.net	United States	Los Angeles
10	72	195.219.195.50	if-11-1-3.mse1.LVX-London.as6453.net	Colombia	Cali
11	72	195.219.92.22		Canada	Vancouver
12	72	213.160.96.49	v100-r5.thn.telecomplete.net	-----	-----
13	72	86.53.218.58	host58.akamai-thn.cust.telecomplete.net	Canada	Vancouver

Index	avg,ms	IP Address	Host Name	Country	City
1	1	192.168.1.1	www.routerlogin.com	-----	-----
2	58	78.33.51.18	hg7301.spk.lpl.linix.co.uk	-----	-----
3	59	217.14.176.5	217-14-176-5.as25582.net	United States	Rochester
4	60	217.14.176.33	217-14-176-33.as25582.net	United States	Rochester
5	63	195.50.119.213		-----	-----
6	63	4.69.133.97	ae-11-11.car1.Manchesteruk1.Level3.net	United States	New York
7	68	4.69.133.102	ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net	United States	New York
8	68	4.69.141.166	ae-100-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net	-----	-----
9	138	4.69.137.70	ae-42-42.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net	-----	-----
10	146	4.69.132.93	ae-3-3.ebr4.Washington1.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
11	153	4.69.134.178	ae-64-64.csw1.Washington1.Level3.net	United States	New York
12	162	4.69.134.145	ae-62-62.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net	United States	New York
13	165	4.69.132.69	ae-2-2.ebr2.Chicago2.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
14	166	4.69.132.113	ae-1-100.ebr1.Chicago2.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
15	193	4.69.132.61	ae-3.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
16	229	4.69.132.53	ae-2.ebr2.Seattle1.Level3.net	United States	Minneapolis
17	237	4.68.105.36	ae-23-52.car3.Seattle1.Level3.net	United States	New York
18	220	4.71.152.142	NORTHWEST-O.car3.Seattle1.Level3.net	Canada	Calgary
19	220	66.119.192.210		United States	Wenatchee
20	220	66.119.205.7	66.119.205.7	United States	Wenatchee

Iechyd da! John
00:09 18/11/2009 GMT

[Guest]

Chris Cox wrote:

Packet loss usually means there is a problem closer to you -- something wrong with your local network.

But would that explain why everything else is going by at 12-15mb at my location and only this forum is slow? Is my local network 'selective' about the Adobe Forums? These forums are practically unusable. I only come here to see if there has been any improvement since the changeover. Nothing yet. The sad part is that these forums had a wonderful following of expert help - truly inspiring for oodles of users, but now that is gone simply because of the loss of usability.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Saskatchewanobie wrote on 11/19/2009 11:17 PM:

But would that explain why everything else is going by at 12-15mb at my location and only this forum is slow? Is my local network 'selective' about the Adobe Forums?

Could be. If you are on Windows, instead of a normal ping, do a pathping

to see where the packet loss is.

[Guest]

Could be. If you are on Windows

No Windows allowed within 200 yards of my office. Signed on to 50mbs service and still the same result for these forums. Bogged down from Jive can be the only reason. Everything else is working at lightning speed. Facebook gets a little slow at times, but not like these forums, which are unique to themselves.

I wonder what was wrong with the old forums where we could zip around like slot cars and cover questions from one software subject to another in such smooth transition it seemed like there was no limit to the exchange of ideas and information. Here, I haven't the time to bring ideas let alone information, it's simply too prohibitive because of the time constraints.

Adobe offers so much to talk about among users. Too bad these forums won't allow much more than the most desperate questions needing answers as navigation is on par with trekking the Amazon.

Where's my pith helmet?

[Guest]

I wonder what was wrong with the old forums where we could zip around like slot cars and cover questions from one software subject to another in such smooth transition it seemed like there was no limit to the exchange of ideas and information. Here, I haven't the time to bring ideas let alone information, it's simply too prohibitive because of the time constraints.

+1

[Chris Cox]

I wonder what was wrong with the old forums

A lack of scalability?

And a list of other problems behind the scenes half a mile long...

Give us SPECIFICS about what is going slowly, and maybe we can do something about it.

But whining without any evidence isn't going to accomplish anything.

[the_wine_snob]

FWIW, since I moved to Google Chrome, to address other recent problems with Jive and IE 7.0.5, I have to say that the speed is good. However, we ARE talking about the Thanksgiving long weekend in the US, so that might not be a good test. Let's see if I am as happy, come Monday, after California opens for business, or after the US East Coast gets off work. That will tell the story. I might be lamenting how "slow" things are then too.

Hunt

[Guest]

whining without any evidence isn't going to accomplish anything.

The only evidence I have is viewing it on my computer at up to 50mbs connection speed. Everything else is running as fast as a greased pig sliding down a laundry chute. Only the Adobe Forums are off the chart and really unusable because of wait times between functions (enter a post - wait, move to another page - wait.)

Sorry I can't offer more than that. You are welcome to come over to my house and try it out.

Ken

Also, how come Wine Snob has his 13,000 posts since 2002 under his name and I don't have my 27,000+ posts since 1997?

How unfair to toss our names and our post ratings out with the bathwater. You'd think an improved system would allow greater user satisfaction and convenience, not less.

IMHO

[the_wine_snob]

Also, how come Wine Snob has his 13,000 posts since 2002 under his name and I don't have my 27,000+ posts since 1997?

Actually, that should probably read "Wine Snob has ONLY his 13,000 posts... " as I lost all of mine from before 2002. I would highly doubt that the ones from the NTTP-only days would ever have shown, but from the days when the fora were added to the Internet, all posts prior to 2002 were lost for me, as well.

Hunt

[Guest]

the_wine_snob wrote:

Also, how come Wine Snob has his 13,000 posts since 2002 under his name and I don't have my 27,000+ posts since 1997?

Actually, that should probably read "Wine Snob has ONLY his 13,000 posts... " as I lost all of mine from before 2002. I would highly doubt that the ones from the NTTP-only days would ever have shown, but from the days when the fora were added to the Internet, all posts prior to 2002 were lost for me, as well.

Hunt

ya. ditto. from about 200... ish myself.

[Guest]

Gotta count your blessings. Losing your posts is only a small matter of no consequence. Most likely, based on past 'improvements' we should be getting a new re-vamped forum around June of 2031. Not that far off and we could be realizing better performance.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

I will be long dead and buried by then, I am 60 already.

[the_wine_snob]

Phillip,

If the Mayan calender theory is correct - it'll be moot anyway.

BTW - you don't look a day over 40.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

No I don't aprticularly belive in the Myan Calendar Theory. Even if you did, if you examine it  the prediction that their cilvilzations had to start over Not that the world blew up.

We're not Guaranteed  how long we last. we could all croak in 10 minutes or another 30/40 years.

Thanks. looks are deceiving. I may look that way  but if you went by the way I actually feel with all my arthritis. I would be about 160.

[~graffiti]

At least with the Mayan calendar, you have until 2012. I looked at my calendar and it ends December 31.