Roedy Green wrote:
(I am not Quoll, but I am also in Australia..)
Some thoughts on the painful Australian performance.
try
ping 65.110.21.43
and
ping 65.110.21.60
to compare raw socket speed.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 65.110.21.43
Pinging 65.110.21.43 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time 4ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.43: bytes=32 time 2ms TTL=242
Ping statistics for 65.110.21.43:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 192ms, Maximum = 204ms, Average = 198ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 65.110.21.60
Pinging 65.110.21.60 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=242
Reply from 65.110.21.60: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=242
Ping statistics for 65.110.21.60:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 190ms, Maximum = 195ms, Average = 193ms
..Perhaps something about the way the new
server is configured and your browser or TCP/IP stack is the culprit.
What OS and browser are you using?
Win XP Pro. IE 6. Note that I tried your new IP the other
night, but my *own* connection is bandwidth throttled*, so I
am not in a good position to do web site download 'speed
testing'.
* Does the ping info. somehow get around that throttling?
second, normally -- not exactly likely to saturate your bandwidth cap.
You said nothing of a *latency* limit, which is what ping measures. :)