On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, comex wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Elliott Hird > > <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/6/4 Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com>: > >>> It responded to me within 2 seconds (but then it's less than 50 feet > >>> away from me so YMMV). > >> > >> D'you think that might have something to do with being on your network? > >> > >> It takes ~30s average for me; often I just give up looking for > >> anything. It's really quite annoying; I'm willing to host it if you > >> decide making its speed usable at all is a good idea... > > > > 2 seconds for me.. > > Oddly enough, for me at home on not-too-fast DSL it's ~10sec, but at work > in a building with super-speed-grade lines it's 30+ seconds and often > unusable. I can't figure out what topology or other is going on there > (other sites aren't noticeably slower from work e.g. due to filtering > software at the firewall or anything) so it's a real puzzle. -G.
Could be an overloaded peering line which traffic is being forced down between a particular pair of ASs. That would only cause slowness if both the source and the destination of the links were owned by specific companies, so it would be quite hard to notice. The speed of an internet connection is not just to do with how fast it is at the ends, but also how fast it is in the middle, which tends to depend more on politics between the various companies involved in the Internet than any good technical reasons. -- ais523 who had a finals exam on this sort of thing a few weeks ago, and therefore has it pretty fresh in eir mind
