“Ok, you must have reading comprehension issues.”
Let’s test your hypothesis, shall we?
This is what you ACTUALLY wrote:
“you won’t see a ping under 80ms from ANY server at any given time”
“This is MY FINDINGS when the pool and servers were completely out of wack.”
You didn’t write:
“I can’t see a ping under 80ms from ANY server at any given time”
What you ACTUALLY wrote was:
“you won’t see a ping under 80ms from ANY server at any given time”
And yet, all I had to do to test your statement/theory/hypothesis was to run a simple, quick, dumb ping test and the data that resulted from that was able to provide the evidence that flies in the face of YOUR statement where you stated “YOU won’t see a ping under 80ms from ANY server at any given time”.
YOU didn’t write “I didn’t see a ping under 80ms from ANY server at any given time”.
Therefore; BOTH of your statements are false.
My reading comprehension (because you wrote “you won’t see”, not “I didn’t see”) is JUST fine, thank you very much.
LOL…if you’re going to blame others for YOUR faults, it would’ve probably behooved you to check how quickly and easily it would be for others to pinpoint and disprove your statement.
And whilst we’re at it, let’s clarify a few things:
- You wrote that you work in IT (since 1998) and that this is what you do and that you know how to conduct network testing.
And yet, all it took was for someone who DOESN’T work in IT, to run a simple ping command to provide the data and the evidence in this data-driven, evidence-based discussion that I am CLEARLY able to ping the HiveOn pool servers with LESS than 80ms ping times, a feat that according to you (who supposedly does this daily), cannot and should not have been able to happen.
Therefore; on the front of you saying that quote “you” “won’t see a ping under 80ms”, all I had to do was literally ping it and I can get < 80 ms ping times - a feat that you said I “won’t see a ping under 80ms” and yet I did.
When I asked you to explain how I was able to accomplish what you stated was something that I “won’t see”, instead of ACTUALLY looking at the data and being like “maybe you’re right. Huh. Apparently, you CAN see a ping time under 80ms”, you, instead, go on this whataboutism and deflection rant rather than actually providing an answer when the data CLEARLY shows that your statement is false/wrong/incorrect.
Instead of taking responsibility for your statement, you blame others instead.
CLEARLY, in 23 years of doing this, you STILL haven’t developed sufficient proficiency in your profession to take responsibility for your errata statements when you make them. No, instead, you blame others for YOUR mistakes.
- You drop your credentials (that you’ve been doing this kind of stuff since 1998) and you self-profess that you know what you’re doing, and yet, all I had to do was to run a simple
ping test to disprove your statement and hypothesis.
Again, when asked “I’m getting a min of 16 ms and an average of 20 ms, how do you explain that?” - you NEVER explained how I was able to accomplish what you stated was something that I “won’t see (a ping under 80ms from ANY server).”
In other words, the credentials that you dropped LITERALLY proved how worthless they are by the fact that someone who doesn’t even work in IT, can run a simple command, and am able to clearly show data that contradicts your statement, for which, you have literally ZERO response in regards as to how I am able to see the data that you said that I won’t see.
Your credentials are worthless when someone who doesn’t even work in IT can run a simple ping command and so easily and readily disprove your statement.
It shows that it doesn’t matter that you’ve been doing this since 1998 and it doesn’t matter that this is what you do all day, every day.
If someone such as myself who DOESN’T do this every day, and who DOESN’T work in IT can just run ping and provide the data to disprove your statement, it literally shows that for this, I don’t need someone with your credentials because despite your credentials, you still haven’t and can’t explain why I am seeing what you said I won’t see.
- “Yes do that. Because several of us on this thread were testing extensively during and after the outage. You can get those ping times now, and in one hour the whole connection fails. Then switch to another server that seems good, and within a few hours those servers started lagging behind with 300+ms.”
I’ve ran the ping test now for over 18,000 seconds (5 hours and change) and you can see the statistics below:
TWO of the servers have an average ping time over 16705 packets and 18442 packets respectively where the average ping times is < 60 ms. NONE of the servers that were tested over the past 5 hours have an average ping time > 253 ms.
The standard deviation in some cases are quite high with respect to the mean, and when you take the max into consideration, the statistics tells us that there are some statistical outliers in the data, which increases the standard deviation, but otherwise, it’s possible that the data is within +/-10 to 20% about the mean.
But, here’s the thing (since you wrote about reading comprehension) - the statistical outliers WASN’T what you wrote about though.
What you ACTUALLY wrote was:
“you won’t see a ping under 80ms from ANY server at any given time”
(which I have already proven this statement is false and the data shows that and it’s a really simple question to you: You said “you won’t see a ping under 80ms. The data shows that the average ping time to two of the six of the servers as being < 80ms. According to you, I shouldn’t see that, but I am and I do. How come?” You have been asked to explain your statement of what you said I can’t see before already and so far, you have completely and utterly FAILED to provide ANY sort of explanation as to why I am able to see ping times less than what you said I won’t see. (Min ping time across any of the six servers, by the way, was 14.718 ms. According to you, I shouldn’t see a ping time < 80 ms and yet my min is quite a lot lower than what you said I should see for the min would/should be. How come?" The question about comprehension LITERALLY boils down to this and you have FAILED to provide an answer. You have done everything BUT provide an answer to that super simple question.)
- “Why r u here debating obviously bad ping times that everyone else is having”
Because your response is evidently crap.
You: “You won’t see a ping under 80ms”
Me: runs ping, see an average of 20 ms the first time (with a short run). Sees an minimum average of 25.743 ms on a 5 hour run of ping.
Me (asking you): According to you, ‘you won’t see a ping under 80ms’. How do you explain an average ping of 20 ms (from the first time that I asked you this question).
You: You have reading comprehension problems. “Why r u here debating obviously bad ping times that everyone else is having”
Me: Because your data is evidently crap. And so is your explanation. And despite your credentials and your profession (and your lack of professionalism), you have failed to be able to explain and account for what you said I won’t see.
If this is what you do, you clearly suck at your job so much so that someone who DOESN’T work in IT can run a simple test and is able to collect data that so clearly and evidently disproves your statement. And rather than taking responsibility for your statement, you instead, go on to blame others.
Your credentials are literally worthless given your lack of professionalism and the fact that even an idiot such as myself can just run a basic ping and show the results from that simple ping test that your statement about “you won’t see a ping under 80ms” as being categorically and empirically false.
And you just literally can’t deal with this data.
Rather than taking responsiblity for yourself, you instead, blame others.
Instead of being like “oh damn. Maybe you CAN see ping times under 80ms” and instead of asking “how did you manage to do that?” you instead, go on and bitch about my lack of reading comprehension (which, if you are going to bitch about being off topic or why am I here, you might ask yourself what in the world does reading comprehension have to do with ping tests?).
-
“There are dozens of other users here who confirmed my findings.”
So, you abide by confirmation bias. No wonder why you suck at your job (apparently).
-
“You’re trying to be smart and looking like a total fool.”
BWAHAHAHA…
Says the person who’s like “I’ve been doing this since 1998. IT is what I do. I know how to run a network test.”
And yet, you can’t even run a simple ping test or answer why I am able to get < 80 ms ping times to at least TWO of the seven HiveOn servers.
The fact that you have to tell people your credentials as opposed to letting your credentials speak for themselves is the sign of a con man.
A con man has to try and convince other people that they know what they’re doing.
Someone who ACTUALLY knows what they’re doing NEVER has to tell other people that they know what they’re doing because their results will speak for themselves.
I have NEVER claimed to be smart.
YOU, however, claimed to have these credentials (of working in IT since 1998 and IT is what you do, and you know how to run network tests). And yet, literally, all it takes is an idiot such as myself to come by, run a basic ping test, post the screenshot from the console/command window, show that my min is 16 ms and my average is 20 ms respectively and ask you, point blank, “I thought you said that I won’t see this. So why I am seeing it (at all)? According to you, I won’t see it, and yet, here we are, seeing it. How come?”
You: silence
You LITERALLY have no answer to that.
This is how even an idiot such as myself am able to prove that you’re a con man.
I have never declared that I know what I am doing.
I have never declared that I am smart.
In fact, I am the biggest and the stupidest idiot that I know.
- “I don’t need to run trace routes. I RUN MY OWN RECURSIVE RESOLVER!!!”
And yet, you still can’t explain why I am seeing what you’ve said that I won’t be able to see.
Yeah…all the good THAT does for you.
Here’s a lesson for you kids: There is no point in running your own recursive resolver if you can’t answer SIMPLE, BASIC questions about your network and how data packet from one of your system is getting from your system to its intended destination.
If you can’t figure out where the additional latency is coming from, it is irrelevant and useless that you can’t identify nor troubleshoot the source of your latency problem.
If IT is what you do (since 1998) and you can’t run a basic traceroute to figure out where and why you are seeing/experiencing additional latencies, then your credentials are worthless if you can’t answer/perform BASIC, simple troubleshooting of your own network that even an idiot such as myself can perform in order to try and figure out where does the problem, on the surface, begin to manifest?
It such a simple troubleshooting/diagnostic test to run and yet you can’t even come up with SIMPLE troubleshooting suggestions of things to run like that in order to try and figure out where the problem lies.
" traceroute tracks the route packets taken from an IP network on their way to a given host. It utilizes the IP protocol’s time to live (TTL) field and attempts to elicit an ICMP TIME_EXCEEDED response from each gateway along the path to the host."
Therefore; the fact that you run a recursive resolver is wholly and entirely irrelevant here.
If IT is what you do, then I feel bad for any of the companies that hire you when your answer to the suggestion of running traceroute is “I don’t need to run trace routes. I RUN MY OWN RECURSIVE RESOLVER!!!”
Your problem is unlikely to be the result of your recursive domain name resolver. DNS is NOT the same as “tracks the route packets takes from an IP network on their way to a given host”.
For someone who claims that you’ve been doing IT since 1998, and your response to “run traceroute” is “I don’t need to run trace routes. I RUN MY OWN RECURSIVE RESOLVER!!!” - that’s clearly a stupid response.
- “I will no longer respond to you cause I’m losing brain cells having this convo with you.”
BWAHAHAHA…
It is clearly evident that you never had brain cells to begin with, so I’m sure that you’re not going to miss them as they sure as heck aren’t going to miss you. Can’t miss what you’ve never had before.
- "EDIT: What’s cuter is the idea of you Googling what’s a Recursive Resolver. Now that’s cute. "
Unlike you, I can admit when I don’t know something, which means that I am capable of growth and learning.
You can’t even explain something so simple as to why your minimum ping times are at least FIVE TIMES greater than my minimum ping times.
#epicfail
And I don’t even work in IT.
That’s just sad that someone who doesn’t even work in IT can out-IT someone who’s been working in IT for the past 23 years, with commands so simple that even an idiot such as myself can run (and produce data which clearly disproves your statement) LOL…
Your credentials are worthless.
Why would anybody want to or need to hire you if you can’t answer this BASIC type of question.
(ooh…this would make a really good interview question. You test the ping from your company’s systems and you get a minimum of 80 ms. Someone else pings the same IP destination and they see a minimum of 16 ms. How would you go about trying to figure out why the company’s minimum ping time is FIVE TIMES greater than the minimum ping time that someone else is able to produce? This would be an EXCELLENT interview question.)
(And as you’ve already demonstrated, you would have FAILED this interview question.)
