# extremely slow internet SOLVED

## rompenstein

Hey guys I just reinstalled gentoo after a hard drive failure and now my internet is extremely slow. Like slower than dialup.

In Konqueror it usually says "site contacted" pretty quick, but not always. After that it will sit there for like 10 seconds to a minute before even starting to load. After that It loads very slow. Also I've tried testing download speeds and I often get less than 1Kb/s downloading images and thing. The problem is not just with konqueror b/c it's the same with links and lynx.

I found something about disabling tcp window scaling by putting 0 in the appropriate /proc file but that didn't make any difference. Also I tried switching to a few different public nameservers with no improvement. Makes sense though. I doubt it would be dns because downloads are slow.

I am behind a firewall that I don't have access to (watchguard somethingrather). Before the reinstall my internet was slow but not this slow. I went from 15K/s-60K/s to around 200b/s-2.5K/s

Also here's what ethtool says:

```

gentoo rompenstein # ethtool eth0

Settings for eth0:

        Supported ports: [ MII ]

        Supported link modes:   10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full

                                100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full

        Supports auto-negotiation: Yes

        Advertised link modes:  10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full

                                100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full

        Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes

        Speed: 100Mb/s

        Duplex: Full

        Port: MII

        PHYAD: 1

        Transceiver: external

        Auto-negotiation: on

        Supports Wake-on: g

        Wake-on: d

        Link detected: yes

```

And ifconfig:

```

gentoo rompenstein # ifconfig

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0F:EA:FB:41:88

          inet addr:192.168.10.98  Bcast:192.168.10.255  Mask:255.255.255.0

          inet6 addr: fe80::20f:eaff:fefb:4188/64 Scope:Link

          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1

          RX packets:1072169 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0

          TX packets:822972 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0

          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000

          RX bytes:972064681 (927.0 Mb)  TX bytes:84375930 (80.4 Mb)

          Interrupt:16 Base address:0x2000

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback

          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0

          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host

          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1

          RX packets:90 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0

          TX packets:90 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0

          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0

          RX bytes:5440 (5.3 Kb)  TX bytes:5440 (5.3 Kb)

```

Someone please help! Thanks  :Smile: Last edited by rompenstein on Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

----------

## db_404

First try and see if it is a DNS or connection issue. Trying to debug it from a web browser isn't really going to be possible.

Does it take significantly longer for:

```

ping www.google.com

```

to respond than:

```

ping 64.233.169.103

```

If ping takes a while resolving names, then you have a DNS issue, if not then it is worth digging into potential connection problems further.

----------

## rompenstein

Hey thanks for the reply. Heres what I get:

```

rompenstein@gentoo ~ $ ping -c 15 www.google.com

PING www.l.google.com (64.233.161.147) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- www.l.google.com ping statistics ---

15 packets transmitted, 14 received, 6% packet loss, time 18253ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 87.420/210.071/312.248/61.198 ms

rompenstein@gentoo ~ $ ping -c 15 64.233.161.147

PING 64.233.161.147 (64.233.161.147) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- 64.233.161.147 ping statistics ---

15 packets transmitted, 12 received, 20% packet loss, time 14002ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 89.524/211.091/390.718/100.091 ms

```

Interestingly my ping times don't seem too bad (I don't think), however 20% packet loss seems high to me. Since my last post my connection conditions have been fluctuating. Sometimes my downloads go much quicker, about as quick as they used too. Other times they go so slow they almost aren't going at all (i.e. <1K/s). Regardless of this though, browsing the internet and checking email are always slow.

----------

## db_404

I'm not liking the look of the packet loss you are getting.  What is your connection? Both your connection to the net itself (e.g. DSL) and also your connection internally (e.g. wifi etc.).

For reference this is what I'm seeing off my home DSL connection, from a box with a 100Mbps wired ethernet connection to a WRTG-54L (running OpenWRT) which is acting as my router/firewall.

```

--- www.l.google.com ping statistics ---

68 packets transmitted, 68 received, 0% packet loss, time 67012ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.092/23.922/27.097/0.622 ms

```

----------

## redgsturbo

I agree... you shouldn't have a 20% packet loss... something is jacked up

----------

## barophobia

20% packet loss is high.

Try pinging a computer you have connected to your router to see if the router is screwed up.  Might even be worth power cycling the router to clear up the nat table and stuff.

If all fails connect to your dsl/cable directly to your computer if that doesn't improve call your isp and complain.  They probably will force you to install windows before they even talk to you though.

----------

## rompenstein

Alright well some of those things I can't do. The apartment complex I live in supplies free internet through Time Warner. I just have an ethernet port on the wall that I run a cat5 cable to directly from my computer.

They have some sort of gateway setup. I have to open an applet in a web browser and put in my un/pw and leave that window open or it won't let any traffic through. The applet has the WatchGuard logo on it. The apartments advertise "Free T1 internet" so I'm assuming they have a T1 connection to Time Warner.

if I do a ping broadcast to all the other computers connected in the complex I get this:

```

gentoo rompenstein # ping -b -c 15 192.168.10.0

WARNING: pinging broadcast address

--- 192.168.10.0 ping statistics ---

15 packets transmitted, 15 received, +84 duplicates, 0% packet loss, time 14000ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.157/0.470/0.928/0.202 ms

```

----------

## redgsturbo

do a 'ping 192.168.10.1' and let us know the loss % after 50 packets or so

then do a 'traceroute google.com' and note the IP AFTER the above gateway...

ping that gateway and note the loss rate

this will tell us if it is your apartment complex's router (unless they have more than one... post the traceroute results here too for good measure)

----------

## barophobia

 *rompenstein wrote:*   

> Alright well some of those things I can't do. The apartment complex I live in supplies free internet through Time Warner. I just have an ethernet port on the wall that I run a cat5 cable to directly from my computer.
> 
> 

 

In your case your "ISP" is your apartment complex, and you are not running a router.  Pinging random people in your apartment complex might be taken as HACKING (I know it is stupid) so I won't do it.  Go bug your neighbor and see if it is happening to him too.  If so complain to your ISP, as the problem is not on your end.

----------

## redgsturbo

 *barophobia wrote:*   

>  *rompenstein wrote:*   Alright well some of those things I can't do. The apartment complex I live in supplies free internet through Time Warner. I just have an ethernet port on the wall that I run a cat5 cable to directly from my computer.
> 
>  
> 
> In your case your "ISP" is your apartment complex, and you are not running a router.  Pinging random people in your apartment complex might be taken as HACKING (I know it is stupid) so I won't do it.  Go bug your neighbor and see if it is happening to him too.  If so complain to your ISP, as the problem is not on your end.

 

People can make any accusation they like but that doesn't make it so.   There IS a router and there IS a nat service somewhere.

----------

## barophobia

 *redgsturbo wrote:*   

> People can make any accusation they like but that doesn't make it so.   There IS a router and there IS a nat service somewhere.

 

Of course there is a router and more importantly a NAT somewhere.  But the ISP is whatever organization that provides YOU the internet connection.  Someone provides the ISP a pipe but that someone else is not your ISP, unless of course you are connected directly to the backbone.  My previous advice is the best you can do with out the possibility of getting into serious trouble.

----------

## rompenstein

Ok my gateway is actually 192.168.10.3

I pinged it 50 times and got very fast results (around .2 ms) and 0% packet loss expected. However I also did traceroute google.com and pinged the next IP after the gateway and got fast times and 0% packet loss.

It is interesting to note though that I did not have traceroute installed. I did "emerge traceroute" and portage had to download from 3 different servers. It started with one, got about half way done then timed out, did about another quarter on the next server before timing out, then finished on a third. Also on all 3 servers I got around 2K/s-3K/s download speeds.

I'm baffled...

----------

## redgsturbo

 *barophobia wrote:*   

>  *redgsturbo wrote:*   People can make any accusation they like but that doesn't make it so.   There IS a router and there IS a nat service somewhere. 
> 
> Of course there is a router and more importantly a NAT somewhere.  But the ISP is whatever organization that provides YOU the internet connection.  Someone provides the ISP a pipe but that someone else is not your ISP, unless of course you are connected directly to the backbone.  My previous advice is the best you can do with out the possibility of getting into serious trouble.

 

You can't get in trouble for pinging other machines on the lan

----------

## barophobia

 *redgsturbo wrote:*   

> You can't get in trouble for pinging other machines on the lan

 

That is where you are wrong, some network have user agreements that say you are not allowed to do such things.  Some people think this is a precursor of hacking and will treat it as hacking.  Think collecting info on the network topology before you decide where to attack.  University networks are likely to disallow this.  All this is a stupid rule hey some people think this will give them more protection.

----------

## redgsturbo

 *barophobia wrote:*   

>  *redgsturbo wrote:*   You can't get in trouble for pinging other machines on the lan 
> 
> That is where you are wrong, some network have user agreements that say you are not allowed to do such things.  Some people think this is a precursor of hacking and will treat it as hacking.  Think collecting info on the network topology before you decide where to attack.  University networks are likely to disallow this.  All this is a stupid rule hey some people think this will give them more protection.

 

I've never seen such a user agreement and I work in network security for a living and regularly work in very high security areas full of highly paranoid people.  Nor is it disallowed at the college I went to or the graduate school I'm at now.  Seen plenty of people disallow or otherwise look for port scans, but yet to see one single one have a problem with ping.

----------

## barophobia

 *redgsturbo wrote:*   

> 
> 
> I've never seen such a user agreement and I work in network security for a living and regularly work in very high security areas full of highly paranoid people.  Nor is it disallowed at the college I went to or the graduate school I'm at now.  Seen plenty of people disallow or otherwise look for port scans, but yet to see one single one have a problem with ping.

 

Well the grad school network I am connected to doesn't disallow pinging, at least I don't think.  But my undergrad disallowed it.  Appears that they are stupidly highly paranoid people.  Well port scans, network sniffing, bittorrnet will likely be disallowed but hey such is life, i get a big pipe and i am happy.

----------

## rompenstein

Ok so anyway....

I've been trying to post for like 2 days but my internet is just too dang slow. Luckily I'm having a spurt of decent speed right now.

Last night it was REALLY slow and I tried pinging google.com and yahoo.com, both gave me results around 200ms with 50+% packet loss when sending 50 packets. Right after doing that I tried a ping broadcast to all computers in my complex with 50 packets and got very fast results with 0% packet loss.

Right now my internet is working relatively quick and I tried pinging google.com and got 6% packet loss. Sometimes I can even get 0%. No matter what though I always get 0% when pinging local computers.

Does this mean the problem is beyond my control?

(BTW I wouldn't worry about the pinging thing. I know the apartment managers very well and they are not likely to complain.)

----------

## barophobia

 *rompenstein wrote:*   

> 
> 
> (BTW I wouldn't worry about the pinging thing. I know the apartment managers very well and they are not likely to complain.)

 

In that case talk to them about your problem.  But first you might want to plug in a windows machine and see if it gets the same results.

----------

## redgsturbo

 *rompenstein wrote:*   

> Ok so anyway....
> 
> I've been trying to post for like 2 days but my internet is just too dang slow. Luckily I'm having a spurt of decent speed right now.
> 
> Last night it was REALLY slow and I tried pinging google.com and yahoo.com, both gave me results around 200ms with 50+% packet loss when sending 50 packets. Right after doing that I tried a ping broadcast to all computers in my complex with 50 packets and got very fast results with 0% packet loss.
> ...

 

Ping everything from the inside out using traceroute and ping and then tell them where the problem is (more than likely it is somewhere at the apt complex, or the ISP... obviously it isn't an issue for the rest of us)

----------

## redgsturbo

 *barophobia wrote:*   

>  *redgsturbo wrote:*   
> 
> I've never seen such a user agreement and I work in network security for a living and regularly work in very high security areas full of highly paranoid people.  Nor is it disallowed at the college I went to or the graduate school I'm at now.  Seen plenty of people disallow or otherwise look for port scans, but yet to see one single one have a problem with ping. 
> 
> Well the grad school network I am connected to doesn't disallow pinging, at least I don't think.  But my undergrad disallowed it.  Appears that they are stupidly highly paranoid people.  Well port scans, network sniffing, bittorrnet will likely be disallowed but hey such is life, i get a big pipe and i am happy.

 

i'm not trying to start an argument or anything, just saying that I do this sort of thing for a living and have never seen anyone get in trouble for pinging.  your undergrad school was absurdly paranoid.  port scans, sniffing, and p2p is a whole different ballgame and should be disallowed.. .  ping is the most basic of network tools.

----------

## barophobia

 *redgsturbo wrote:*   

> your undergrad school was absurdly paranoid.

 

Exactly!

----------

## rompenstein

Ok well turned out the problem was with the gateway they have set up. It's some sort of Watchguard firewall/router type thing and the Texas heat was causing ot to overheat. Thanks for the help guys  :Smile: 

----------

