Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Industry Announcements > Web Hosting Main Forums > Providers and Network Outages and Updates > limestonenetworks.com
limestonenetworks.com
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 02:47 PM |
Is anyone else having problems with them? I have multiple boxes experiencing latency on the frontend and backend network (about 15-20%)
Support is not helpful, I'm telling them it's internal since it's also affecting the backend and they keep asking for traceroutes out to the internet.
 |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 02:49 PM |
root@cp06 [~]# ping 10.2.2.101 -i 0.2
PING 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=253 time=55.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=51.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=56.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=7 ttl=253 time=51.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=8 ttl=253 time=46.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=10 ttl=253 time=52.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=11 ttl=253 time=54.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=12 ttl=253 time=52.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=13 ttl=253 time=46.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=14 ttl=253 time=56.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=15 ttl=253 time=54.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=17 ttl=253 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=18 ttl=253 time=47.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=19 ttl=253 time=133 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=20 ttl=253 time=54.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=22 ttl=253 time=49.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=23 ttl=253 time=51.5 ms
--- 10.2.2.101 ping statistics ---
23 packets transmitted, 18 received, 21% packet loss, time 4429ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 46.312/56.692/133.533/18.884 ms
root@cp05 [/var/log]# ping 10.2.2.90 -i 0.2
PING 10.2.2.90 (10.2.2.90) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=1 ttl=125 time=55.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=2 ttl=125 time=53.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=4 ttl=125 time=52.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=5 ttl=125 time=52.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=6 ttl=125 time=39.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=7 ttl=125 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=8 ttl=125 time=52.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=10 ttl=125 time=52.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=11 ttl=125 time=51.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=12 ttl=125 time=52.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=13 ttl=125 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=14 ttl=125 time=53.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=16 ttl=125 time=52.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.90: icmp_seq=18 ttl=125 time=52.9 ms
--- 10.2.2.90 ping statistics ---
18 packets transmitted, 14 received, 22% packet loss, time 3434ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 39.041/51.839/55.451/3.652 ms |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 02:50 PM |
and here is a normal ping (in case you complain i'm sending it too fast)
root@cp06 [~]# ping 10.2.2.101
PING 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=253 time=15.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=38.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=32.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=52.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=5 ttl=253 time=61.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=6 ttl=253 time=49.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=7 ttl=253 time=52.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=8 ttl=253 time=53.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=9 ttl=253 time=53.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=10 ttl=253 time=53.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=11 ttl=253 time=57.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=12 ttl=253 time=53.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=13 ttl=253 time=53.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=15 ttl=253 time=53.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=18 ttl=253 time=54.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=19 ttl=253 time=53.5 ms
--- 10.2.2.101 ping statistics ---
19 packets transmitted, 16 received, 15% packet loss, time 18007ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.635/49.455/61.903/10.994 ms
53ms is crazy for something on the same network |
| Posted by Appzmaster, 07-14-2009, 03:20 PM |
|
I have over 5 servers with them and I am not having any issues. |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 03:22 PM |
|
Can you ping an internal host like 10.2.2.101 and see if you get the same packet lost? |
| Posted by Appzmaster, 07-14-2009, 03:29 PM |
hmm it would seem internal does have some latency which is not usuall:
root@lead [~]# ping 10.2.2.101
PING 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=57.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=53.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=55.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=5 ttl=253 time=53.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=7 ttl=253 time=53.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=10 ttl=253 time=28.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=11 ttl=253 time=21.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=12 ttl=253 time=12.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=13 ttl=253 time=1.06 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=14 ttl=253 time=18.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=15 ttl=253 time=39.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=16 ttl=253 time=11.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=17 ttl=253 time=14.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=18 ttl=253 time=29.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=19 ttl=253 time=46.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=20 ttl=253 time=41.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=21 ttl=253 time=51.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=22 ttl=253 time=49.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=23 ttl=253 time=58.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=24 ttl=253 time=53.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.101: icmp_seq=25 ttl=253 time=53.5 ms
--- 10.2.2.101 ping statistics ---
25 packets transmitted, 21 received, 16% packet loss, time 24009ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.067/38.332/58.517/17.987 ms
root@lead [~]# tracert 10.2.2.101
traceroute to 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 225-122-162-69.reverse.lstn.net (69.162.122.225) 0.606 ms 0.782 ms 1.010 ms
2 vl51.cr01-35.core1.dllstx2.dallas-idc.com (74.63.203.217) 0.406 ms 0.612 ms 0.789 ms
3 10.2.2.101 (10.2.2.101) 53.684 ms 54.110 ms 54.542 ms |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 03:33 PM |
Not good.
Can you put in a ticket so they stop blaming my server and start looking at the "real" problem? |
| Posted by spdfox, 07-14-2009, 03:36 PM |
|
I have no problems on my servers in Limestone. |
| Posted by Appzmaster, 07-14-2009, 03:36 PM |
|
I am at work at the moment and do not have access to the Rockware panel I have 1 1/2 hours left till I head out I will enter one when i get home. |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 03:37 PM |
|
Thanks appz! |
| Posted by Appzmaster, 07-14-2009, 03:39 PM |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spdfox
I have no problems on my servers in Limestone.
|
And this is between your servers internally? the 10. IPs |
| Posted by spdfox, 07-14-2009, 03:41 PM |
|
12% packet loss to you 10.2.2.101 |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 03:41 PM |
|
That's not my IP, just a random IP. Can you ping other 10.x.x.x blocks, I get packet lost on most of them. |
| Posted by KrisFromLimestone, 07-14-2009, 03:42 PM |
We are aware of this thread and are investigating further. If you are a Limestone Networks client experiencing issues, we request that you open a ticket so that we can keep you updated as well as accurately track if there are any further Limestone clients experiencing noticeable network issues.
Thank you! |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 03:43 PM |
Mine is 10.2.2.102
root@cp06 [~]# ping 10.2.2.102
PING 10.2.2.102 (10.2.2.102) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=62.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=53.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=53.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=44.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=50.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=53.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=52.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=48.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=11 ttl=61 time=51.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=12 ttl=61 time=48.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=13 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=14 ttl=61 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=15 ttl=61 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=18 ttl=61 time=53.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.2.2.102: icmp_seq=19 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
--- 10.2.2.102 ping statistics ---
19 packets transmitted, 16 received, 15% packet loss, time 18005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 44.881/52.387/62.340/3.484 ms
It seems other IPs are just fine less then 1ms....
Something odd is going on. |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 03:44 PM |
PING 10.1.8.58 (10.1.8.58) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=52.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=38.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=11.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=0.805 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=0.856 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=8.13 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=36.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=22.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=35.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=11 ttl=61 time=32.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=61 time=49.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=13 ttl=61 time=47.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=14 ttl=61 time=53.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=15 ttl=61 time=53.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=18 ttl=61 time=53.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.8.58: icmp_seq=22 ttl=61 time=52.9 ms
--- 10.1.8.58 ping statistics ---
22 packets transmitted, 17 received, 22% packet loss, time 21004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.805/33.138/53.234/18.871 ms
There's another internal of mine. |
| Posted by Appzmaster, 07-14-2009, 03:44 PM |
|
This is why I like limestone =) they are on top of things so fast. I have had nothing but great experience with their support. |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 04:13 PM |
Update from them:
The packet loss is being caused by a faulty access switch which your server is connected to. This issue is currently affecting roughly 20 servers. We believe that it is a bug in Cisco's IOS software and the switch will be rebooting in the next 15-30 minutes with a new version of IOS. Afterwards, we will monitor for packet loss and replace the switch if the packet loss issues are not fully resolved. |
| Posted by stablehost, 07-14-2009, 04:53 PM |
|
Issue has been fixed. Sucks it took 90 minutes of explaining it was an internal issue before they looked at it, but glad it's fixed. |
| Posted by Appzmaster, 07-14-2009, 06:13 PM |
|
Hey I have no complaints for the little price tag their support people do a lot more than other unmanaged providers I have seen. Thanks Guys |
| Posted by spdfox, 07-14-2009, 06:15 PM |
|
Excellent; |
| Posted by ishan, 07-15-2009, 08:53 AM |
This was only for the private network ?
One of our techies sent me a ping result showing 75% packet loss using ping.eu .
It was 0% loss when I tried it using same website 5 min later. |
| Posted by KrisFromLimestone, 07-15-2009, 08:59 AM |
Ishan,
We were seeing packet loss on both the public and private networks on this specific switch (about 20 servers effected). The proposed fix by our Network Engineers resolved the issues and we are not seeing any further issues. However, if you do experience issues, please let us know and we'll investigate promptly.
Thank you, |
| Posted by ishan, 07-15-2009, 12:26 PM |
No issues after my post. Thank you for fixing it promptly.
Ishan |
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
Shared Hosting
Shared Hosting
