[Fwd: Re: [PEAR] sloooow web installer]

Greg, This was my last message to Martin. I seem to have resolved it. Don't know if it will help you any or not. -Alan -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Alan Richmond <alan@aardwolfweb.com> > To: Martin Jansen <martin@divbyzero.net> > Subject: Re: [PEAR] sloooow web installer > Date: 26 Oct 2003 17:18:24 -0800 > > On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 09:39, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > Just tried pear install html_template_xipe > > > (57k), took more than 10 min. Should take 2 sec on a cable modem. > > > > Takes less than 2 seconds for me on an average DSL connection ... > > It only takes a second or two on my Win2k box... Both are plugged into > the same router. Both are using DHCP. > > I noticed in the firewall logs that gnome apps, like gFTP, Evolution, > and Galeon, were using a different IP address than KDE apps. Seemed a > little weird. Switched to a static IP so both gnome and kde are using > the same IP now but that didn't seem to help any. > > > > Did you check if there are some proxy problems? Can you access > > www.pair.com reasonably fast? (Pair is hosting pear.php.net.) > > Clicking around www.pair.com is plenty fast in a browser. pear.php.net > just timed out on me opening the main page. Both show timeouts in a > traceroute: > > # traceroute www.pair.com > traceroute to pair.com (66.39.3.7), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets > 1 ip68-225-3-1.hu.sd.cox.net (68.225.3.1) 33.043 ms 13.233 ms > 19.840 ms > 2 68.6.14.129 (68.6.14.129) 9.679 ms 12.091 ms 9.262 ms > 3 68.6.13.9 (68.6.13.9) 21.656 ms 20.722 ms 27.959 ms > 4 fed1dsrc02-pos0802.rd.sd.cox.net (68.6.8.126) 25.633 ms 23.717 ms > 25.028 ms > 5 fed1bbrc01-pos0203.rd.sd.cox.net (68.1.0.200) 27.257 ms 24.349 ms > 38.139 ms > 6 rsmtbbrc01-pos0102.rd.oc.cox.net (68.1.0.186) 48.769 ms 37.978 ms > 32.694 ms > 7 rsmtbbrc02-pos0100.rd.oc.cox.net (68.1.0.183) 38.250 ms 28.652 ms > 35.947 ms > 8 langbbrc01-pos0100.r2.la.cox.net (68.1.0.191) 31.631 ms 30.157 ms > 30.966 ms > 9 68.105.30.130 (68.105.30.130) 29.205 ms 37.113 ms 29.529 ms > 10 anhmca1wcx2-pos5-0.wcg.net (64.200.140.69) 95.655 ms 96.176 ms > 91.002 ms > 11 anhmca1wcx3-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.143.78) 221.427 ms 142.427 ms > 229.598 ms > 12 hrndva1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.240.30) 113.200 ms 112.471 ms > 104.500 ms > 13 washdc5lcx1-pos5-0.wcg.net (64.200.240.194) 96.808 ms 111.791 ms > 96.487 ms > 14 washdc5lcx1-yipes-gige.wcg.net (64.200.94.194) 112.306 ms 111.292 > ms 117.749 ms > 15 * * * > 16 * * * > 17 www.pair.com (66.39.3.7) 103.846 ms 122.854 ms 99.718 ms > > > traceroute pear.php.net > traceroute to pair12.php.net (216.92.131.66), 30 hops max, 38 byte > packets > 1 ip68-225-3-1.hu.sd.cox.net (68.225.3.1) 27.100 ms 14.960 ms > 19.841 ms > 2 68.6.14.129 (68.6.14.129) 16.375 ms 5.171 ms 11.727 ms > 3 68.6.13.9 (68.6.13.9) 20.732 ms 24.206 ms 25.946 ms > 4 fed1dsrc02-pos0802.rd.sd.cox.net (68.6.8.126) 31.565 ms 24.227 ms > 28.034 ms > 5 fed1bbrc02-pos0101.rd.sd.cox.net (68.1.0.206) 29.636 ms 31.445 ms > 40.459 ms > 6 12.124.23.77 (12.124.23.77) 24.333 ms 46.944 ms 42.106 ms > 7 gbr2-p70.sd2ca.ip.att.net (12.123.145.26) 40.464 ms 45.794 ms > 39.127 ms > 8 tbr2-p012401.la2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.253) 44.569 ms 34.579 ms > 27.453 ms > 9 tbr2-p013801.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.10.13) 68.412 ms 74.882 ms > 72.696 ms > 10 tbr1-p012401.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.9.141) 70.272 ms 72.695 ms > 69.458 ms > 11 tbr1-cl4.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.10.29) 93.829 ms 88.590 ms > 83.407 ms > 12 tbr2-cl9.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.2.86) 87.505 ms 104.116 ms > 88.691 ms > 13 gbr2-p30.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.12.110) 87.835 ms 95.359 ms > 86.610 ms > 14 gar1-p370.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.123.137.25) 90.696 ms 87.755 ms > 90.837 ms > 15 12.118.191.18 (12.118.191.18) 94.117 ms 95.354 ms 101.537 ms > 16 * * * > 17 pb12.pair.com (216.92.131.66) 105.176 ms 104.935 ms 97.566 ms > > > I don't normally use a proxy, but since you mentioned it I changed my > pear config to use a proxy and it seems to have "fixed" it. Also fixed > the slow web site. A little slower than the Windows box but blazingly > faster than before. Just bad luck routing on the inet, I guess. > Strange that Windows seems to deal with it better than Linux, though. > > Thanks, > Alan