AOXOMOXOA Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 very cool i like it. it should be worth the wait Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867438 Share on other sites More sharing options...
no-sweat Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 i like what i'm seeing so far, can't wait till its all done :) *EDIT - AND I LOVE THIS QUICK EDIT!!! :D Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867442 Share on other sites More sharing options...
H5N Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Nice job you guys! (Y) *tries quick edit* edit: sweet! :woot: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867445 Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejn Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Heh, had to open IE to try out the "funky fader effect" theme. Pretty slick. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867448 Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0m8er Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Heh, had to open IE to try out the "funky fader effect" theme. Pretty slick. LOL :p Just did the same. Sweet. Great work guys!!! :yes: :santa: :beer: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867456 Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Very nice, I like the new IPB build, many good features. :) Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867472 Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted November 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted November 30, 2005 alright! forums are back up things are picking up weeeeeeee Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867480 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Dorr Veteran Posted November 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted November 30, 2005 Happy with the new Host ? Think I saw Neobond say the old host where charging Neowin for extra bandwidth used. No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that? On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before. Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello! Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49 Should look like this: Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109 eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109 eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109 eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109 ing statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867534 Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixated Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Hmm.. :/ ping 63.28.242.201Pinging 63.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Ping statistics for 63.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), ping 67.19.41.49Pinging 67.19.41.49 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=241 Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=241 Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=241 Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=241 Ping statistics for 67.19.41.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 166ms, Maximum = 281ms, Average = 201ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867546 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daninku Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 66.28.242.201 or 63.28.242.201 ? Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867547 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varish Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=115 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=115 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=115 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=115 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 323ms, Maximum = 327ms, Average = 325ms Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=239Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=239 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=239 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=239 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 342ms, Maximum = 393ms, Average = 360ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867553 Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpshiznid Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that? On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before. Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello! Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49 Should look like this: Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109 eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109 eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109 eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109 ing statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms Did you mean 66.28.242.201 and not 63.28.242.201, because I get Request Timed Out on 63.28.242.201, and I noticed you used 66.28.242.201 in your ping results. :p Anyway, here are my results. Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=238 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=238 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=238 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=238 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 88ms Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=238 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 135ms, Average = 68ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867555 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozgeek Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Heh. I woke up to find Neowin still on my computer screen. (it was a thread I left open. lol. I closed it and re-open it to get fresh tthreads or news but got told the servers were down. lol. btw I am now known as ozgeek, not mr.roberts. (ozgeek stands for Australian geek). and timdorr how do I ping for you? is it ping via cmd? Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867558 Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted November 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted November 30, 2005 Hmmm... I can go to neowin.net/forum, yet all the links inside point to neowin5.net/forum/whatever... Kind of strange... Is this still a result of the DNS servers or what? Hey I just noticed that now I know how many stars I have to go to reach the end :D Just 3 left... Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867562 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varish Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 yes, ping via cmd ;) also its 67.19.42.49 & 66.28.242.201 Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867563 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daninku Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Mine ... Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=239 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=239 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 179ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 181ms Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=112 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 166ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867564 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Dorr Veteran Posted November 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted November 30, 2005 Whoops, yep, I meant 66.28.242.201. Sorry about that. Just curious, though. No biggie :) Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867565 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmak Administrators Posted November 30, 2005 Administrators Share Posted November 30, 2005 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=236 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=236 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=237 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=237 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 131ms, Average = 125ms Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=113 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=113 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 120ms, Maximum = 122ms, Average = 120ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867567 Share on other sites More sharing options...
prz Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Last login: Tue Nov 29 20:55:27 on ttyp1 Welcome to Darwin! nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$ ping 67.19.42.49 PING 67.19.42.49 (67.19.42.49): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=49.703 ms 64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=59.904 ms 64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=84.557 ms 64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=47.258 ms 64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=48.742 ms 64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=52.378 ms ^C --- 67.19.42.49 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 47.258/57.090/84.557/12.945 ms nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$ Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867572 Share on other sites More sharing options...
karma_police Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=243 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=243 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 102ms, Average = 99ms Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=105 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=105 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 130ms, Average = 118ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867574 Share on other sites More sharing options...
accesser Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that? On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before. Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello! Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49 Timdorr, Other than ping time the thing interests me is the number of hops inside the network look at the number of hops once I get inside the cogentco network. traceroute to neowin.net (66.28.242.203), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177) 0.335 ms 0.202 ms 0.258 ms 2 10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129) 0.357 ms 0.389 ms 0.259 ms 3 Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21) 12.936 ms 12.972 ms 12.984 ms 4 10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86) 32.545 ms 12.983 ms 12.982 ms 5 10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42) 13.234 ms 13.208 ms 13.17 ms 6 i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101) 161.363 ms 161.335 ms 161.353 ms 7 unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166) 160.962 ms 160.91 ms 160.872 ms 8 unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66) 160.952 ms 160.934 ms 160.844 ms 9 p6-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.209) 162.04 ms 162.152 ms 162.201 ms 10 p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78) 163.916 ms 163.649 ms 163.72 ms 11 p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5) 195.383 ms 195.381 ms 195.81 ms 12 p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106) 223.775 ms 223.66 ms 223.736 ms 13 p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34) 234.876 ms 235.536 ms 234.794 ms 14 p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154) 234.369 ms 234.337 ms 234.413 ms 15 p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42) 235.05 ms 234.902 ms 234.985 ms 16 g3-1.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.30) 234.651 ms 234.532 ms 234.636 ms 17 StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250) 234.951 ms 234.965 ms 235.292 ms 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867585 Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted November 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted November 30, 2005 Here's my ping times: Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 42ms and Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=114 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=114 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=114 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=114 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 69ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 110ms That second server's not as fast to respond... Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867592 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksg Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=233 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=233 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=233 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=232 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 121ms Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=107 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 124ms, Average = 123ms Pretty adverage ping times for me. Keep up all the good work <3 Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867594 Share on other sites More sharing options...
accesser Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Whoops, yep, I meant 66.28.242.201. Sorry about that. Just curious, though. No biggie :) and for that IP still a lot of hops insde that network traceroute to 66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177) 0.339 ms 0.358 ms 0.24 ms 2 10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129) 0.341 ms 0.281 ms 0.389 ms 3 Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21) 13.067 ms 12.866 ms 12.965 ms 4 10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86) 12.923 ms 13.025 ms 12.967 ms 5 10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42) 13.213 ms 13.205 ms 13.21 ms 6 i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101) 161.414 ms 161.362 ms 161.34 ms 7 unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166) 246.252 ms 160.911 ms 160.839 ms 8 unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66) 160.858 ms 160.93 ms 160.977 ms 9 p15-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.213) 161.429 ms 161.372 ms 161.707 ms 10 p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78) 163.94 ms 163.584 ms 163.764 ms 11 p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5) 195.505 ms 196.641 ms 195.494 ms 12 p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106) 223.754 ms 223.725 ms 223.642 ms 13 p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34) 235.219 ms 234.752 ms 234.889 ms 14 p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154) 234.494 ms 234.479 ms 234.522 ms 15 p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42) 235.082 ms 235.106 ms 234.924 ms 16 g3-2.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.34) 235.012 ms 235.066 ms 235.036 ms 17 StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250) 234.916 ms 234.771 ms 234.756 ms 18 66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201) 234.784 ms 236.982 ms 234.748 ms Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867595 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dissonation Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 From the UK... Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=114 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=114 Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114 Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 116ms, Average = 115ms Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=245 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=245 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=245 Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=245 Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 161ms, Maximum = 164ms, Average = 162ms Edit: ooooo, quick edit is niiiiice Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/403371-forums-online-news-to-follow/page/3/#findComment-586867609 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts