1Answer

MTR Report Analysis

6.1k Views
  • 5
name

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined index: userid

Filename: views/question.php

Line Number: 191

Backtrace:

File: /home/prodcxja/public_html/questions/application/views/question.php
Line: 191
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/prodcxja/public_html/questions/application/controllers/Questions.php
Line: 433
Function: view

File: /home/prodcxja/public_html/questions/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

name Punditsdkoslkdosdkoskdo

MTR Report Analysis

We have two different routes to a server.

  • One has this latency of 20000+ ms latency. The other does not have it.
  • The latency happens exactly in the same route and in the same node.
  • The users complains about internet performance when they are reaching the server through this route.

My question, is this latency is actually causing this issue or do we have to look in to other factors.

Note: We have a a good bandwidth monitoring system and we know if there is any bandwidth abuse from any of our workstation.

Day 1 Route

Start: Sun Oct  8 13:52:18 2017
HOST: gw131                       Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- gateway                    3.3%    30    0.2   0.3   0.2   0.9   0.0
  2.|-- 172.16.65.97               0.0%    30    0.5   0.5   0.4   1.2   0.0
  3.|-- 202.53.163.113             0.0%    30    0.4   0.5   0.4   1.0   0.0
  4.|-- 103.12.172.217             0.0%    30    1.1   0.8   0.5   5.9   1.0
  5.|-- 103.12.172.237             0.0%    30    0.8   0.8   0.5   4.6   0.7
  6.|-- ix-ge-2-0-1-0.tcore3.MLV-  3.3%    30   87.4  87.6  87.3  90.6   0.6
  7.|-- if-ae-4-2.tcore1.MLV-Mumb  0.0%    30  185.0 185.7 184.9 190.6   1.2
  8.|-- if-ae-9-5.tcore1.WYN-Mars  0.0%    30  204.3 203.9 203.6 205.8   0.5
  9.|-- if-ae-8-1600.tcore1.PYE-P  0.0%    30  184.7 185.8 184.5 204.9   3.8
 10.|-- if-ae-11-2.tcore1.PVU-Par  0.0%    30  203.2 203.1 202.8 206.4   0.6
 11.|-- 80.231.153.66              0.0%    30  185.2 185.9 185.2 196.7   2.1
 12.|-- ae-2-3601.ear2.Washington 70.0%    30  24311 23996 23078 24311 412.9
 13.|-- SUNGARD-NET.ear2.Washingt  0.0%    30  263.0 262.4 260.8 293.2   5.8
 14.|-- phl3cr1-te-0-0-1-2.sgns.n  0.0%    30  282.5 282.5 282.1 285.6   0.6
 15.|-- smy1cr1-te-0-0-0-2.sgns.n  3.3%    30  277.8 278.3 277.6 286.4   1.5
 16.|-- dal2cr1-te-0-1-0-2.sgns.n  6.7%    30  281.5 281.8 281.5 284.7   0.5
 17.|-- 66.179.229.126             0.0%    30  284.7 284.7 284.2 291.5   1.3
 18.|-- ???                       100.0    30    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0

Day 2 Route:

Start: Mon Oct  9 21:32:07 2017
HOST: gw131                       Loss% Javg  Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- gateway                    0.0%  0.7   0.2   0.6   0.1   4.9   1.0
  2.|-- 172.16.65.97               0.0%  1.3   0.5   1.1   0.3   9.4   1.8
  3.|-- 202.53.163.113             0.0%  3.1   0.8   2.1   0.4  37.1   6.7
  4.|-- 103.12.172.217             0.0%  1.7   0.5   1.5   0.5   6.1   1.7
  5.|-- 103.12.172.249             0.0%  1.7   0.6   1.7   0.5   8.1   1.9
  6.|-- 103-16-155-89-noc.bsccl.c  0.0%  1.4   1.1   1.8   1.0   9.1   1.8
  7.|-- 103-16-152-30-noc.bsccl.c  0.0%  1.7   1.2   2.2   1.0  10.3   2.1
  8.|-- 103-16-152-34-noc.bsccl.c  0.0%  1.5   5.9   6.5   5.5  14.5   1.8
  9.|-- 116.51.31.233              0.0%  0.9  58.0  58.8  58.0  60.9   0.5
 10.|-- ae-17.a00.sngpsi05.sg.bb.  0.0%  2.3  58.1  59.6  57.7  66.8   2.3
 11.|-- ae-0.level3.sngpsi05.sg.b 16.7% 3391 7458. 3324.  73.2 7738. 3008.0
 12.|-- ae-2-3601.ear2.Washington 63.3% 271. 23772 23481 22938 24086 373.8
 13.|-- SUNGARD-NET.ear2.Washingt  0.0% 16.4 309.7 304.5 288.8 353.5  16.1
 14.|-- phl3cr1-te-0-0-1-2.sgns.n  0.0%  9.2 310.4 324.5 310.4 340.9  10.7
 15.|-- smy1cr1-te-0-0-0-2.sgns.n  0.0% 11.1 328.1 317.0 305.9 335.9   9.6
 16.|-- dal2cr1-te-0-1-0-2.sgns.n  0.0%  9.4 310.3 321.1 310.2 334.2   9.2
 17.|-- 66.179.229.126             0.0% 10.0 312.3 323.6 312.3 342.3  10.1
 18.|-- 95-216.205.157.appsitehos  0.0% 15.2 335.8 342.6 325.9 391.6  17.3

Day 3 Route:

gw131 (0.0.0.0)                                                                           Tue Oct 10 14:36:21 2017
Resolver: Received error response 2. (server failure)er of fields   quit
                                                                            Packets               Pings
 Host                                                                     Loss% Javg  Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 202.53.167.129                                                         0.0%  0.4   0.2   0.4   0.1   6.8   0.7
 2. 172.16.65.97                                                           0.0%  0.5   0.5   0.7   0.4   5.4   0.7
 3. 202.53.163.113                                                         0.0%  2.0   2.1   1.9   0.4  22.6   4.2
 4. 103.12.172.217                                                         0.0%  0.7   0.6   0.9   0.5   9.1   1.2
 5. 103.12.172.249                                                         0.0%  0.6   0.7   1.0   0.5   7.7   0.8
 6. 103-16-155-89-noc.bsccl.com                                            0.0%  1.0   1.3   1.7   1.0   9.3   1.3
 7. 103-16-152-30-noc.bsccl.com                                            0.0% 23.1   1.5  12.9   1.1 1002. 105.5
 8. 103-16-152-34-noc.bsccl.com                                            0.0%  0.7   5.8   6.1   5.5  13.6   1.1
 9. 116.51.31.233                                                          0.0% 23.3  58.4  70.0  57.9 1063. 105.9
10. ae-17.a00.sngpsi05.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net                                   0.0%  2.4  58.0  59.4  57.6  77.7   3.2
11. ae-0.level3.sngpsi05.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net                                15.6% 4179 7084. 3128.  69.5 7247. 2939.
12. ae-2-3601.ear2.Washington1.Level3.net                                 26.7% 748. 23577 23876 17859 27371 1073.
    103-16-155-89-noc.bsccl.com
13. SUNGARD-NET.ear2.Washington1.Level3.net                                0.0%  8.1 312.6 305.7 288.8 335.4  10.6
14. phl3cr1-te-0-0-1-2.sgns.net                                            0.0%  8.8 311.1 327.1 309.8 344.1   9.1
15. smy1cr1-te-0-0-0-2.sgns.net                                            0.0%  8.0 327.6 322.1 305.3 344.3   9.7
16. dal2cr1-te-0-1-0-2.sgns.net                                            0.0%  8.2 332.2 328.0 309.4 356.0   9.5
17. 66.179.229.126                                                         0.0% 10.7 334.8 329.5 311.9 359.7  10.2
18. 95-216.205.157.appsitehosting.com                                      0.0% 38.0 331.8 352.5 311.3 1329. 106.2

20 seconds latency on any network would be a performance disaster for any kind of interactive work, if you had it. But you don't.

You experience high latency (and packet losses) in getting traceroute responses from one hop on your journey to a remote host. This is not uncommon, especially if you're using ICMP-based traceroute, because most network devices prioritise actually routing traffic over sending ICMP ttl-exceededs about random PINGs which have died of old age. As you can see from the hops on the far side of that host (13-17), there are no such delays in your traffic passing through the host. Your biggest single hop-to-hop delay is between hops 6 and 7, which seems to be a point-to-point link inside your ISP, one that's probably saturated. You might consider monitoring that and complaining to your ISP if it remains so for some time (no ISP is going to respond to the complaint that you ran one traceroute and saw link problems, and rightly not).

As for what's causing problems with "internet performance", that is such an unquantified issue that it is impossible to speculate. If you can get a clearer problem statement from the user it may be possible to design experiments to shed light on it.

As an aside, please don't post images of text output; the links rot and the evidence is lost to your question, and they are unsearchable as text would not be. I've put the image into your question (something you lack the rep to do, I suspect, which isn't your fault) - but best practice is to cut-and-paste text into your question instead.

  • 8
Reply Report
    • Overall a good answer. I have a couple of comments though. 1. The difference in performance between forwarding packets and generating ICMP errors might not be prioritization but rather that "real" routers can do packet forwarding in hardware but need to use the CPU for anything more complicated such as generating ICMP responses. 2. Latency of 284ms may simply be due to the speed of light, which the ISP cannot change. 3. The last paragraph would have been better suited as a comment rather than as part of the answer.
    • @kasperd 1. I completely agree, good point. 2 not from Dhaka to Mumbai, or indeed anywhere much else; 258ms is more than once round the planet, with fibre of refractive index n=1.5. 3 I wrote it as a comment first, but since I was posting an answer, thought it best only to write one thing. Feel free to edit it out and post it as a comment yourself!
      • 2
    • The output from traceroute will show roundtrip times not the time it took in just one direction, and the speed of light in fiber is slower than in vacuum. That considered every 100km cost about 1ms. So the 285ms works out to about 28500km. Not all the way around the globe but more than half way. So a direct path wouldn't take that long, but it is not always practical to get fibers to take the absolute shortest path. You can't know for sure which hop adds the latency. For example if MPLS is used it can make latency appear to be at an earlier hop than it really is.
    • I know light goes slower in glass, which is why I quoted a refractive index in my calculation; your point about round-trips, however, is a valid one. It seems, that given, that we're agreeing that adding 285ms with speed of light alone in a single hop is going to be quite unlikely - and since I strongly suspect the hop is from Dhaka to Mumbai, the fibre would have to be very badly laid indeed! Perhaps this is not the best place for this discussion?

Trending Tags