Re: [LUG] irc

In the short time I've been on the list, both ircds have failed in turn, leaving me billy-no-mates on one until some kind soul came to find me.

Outages have persisted for weeks.

Freenode's have never failed in that time other than the occasional disconnect, which could be anywhere along my route. Using icmp is not a reliable guide for performance, especially for someone who's historically been the target of ddos's and may drop pings while still providing service. I'm surprised you wave those pastes around like they're proof of anything. Did you try connection to the server during those ping outages?

I don't like being ungrateful, but sometimes what's best for the group is more important than risking upsetting a couple. So please don't change just because I think it's a good idea (not that my influence is so great anyway), but because others also think it's a good idea. IRC is important to me and my first or second line of communication to several groups and friends, but it's not the end of the world and few others have a client set up to idle as often as me so I will happily concede majority view - just expect me to whine next time it breaks again... :)

On 3 April 2013 17:25, Neil Stone <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/03/13 12:41, Simon Avery wrote:
> For some reason (Historical?) DCLUG has its own irc network spread
> over two servers. So far this year it's been quite unreliable, with
> one or the other server being down.
>
> Currently it's split, which means the link between the two isn't
> in sync, so you can have two groups of people, one on each server,
> which can't see or talk to each other.
>
> I would recommend using freenode as the irc host. I see Neil has
> already registered #dclug there previously and owns the channel.
>
> Freenode is reliable and hosting lug channels is part of its stated
> aims.

OK, reliability check...

neil@vhost:~$ ping chat.freenode.net -c 5
PING chat.freenode.net (128.237.157.136) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from HUBBARD.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (128.237.157.136): icmp_req=1
ttl=49 time=88.9 ms
64 bytes from HUBBARD.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (128.237.157.136): icmp_req=2
ttl=49 time=88.4 ms
64 bytes from HUBBARD.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (128.237.157.136): icmp_req=3
ttl=49 time=88.5 ms
64 bytes from HUBBARD.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (128.237.157.136): icmp_req=4
ttl=49 time=88.6 ms
64 bytes from HUBBARD.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (128.237.157.136): icmp_req=5
ttl=49 time=88.9 ms

- --- chat.freenode.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 88.486/88.719/88.991/0.333 ms

neil@vhost:~$ ping chat.freenode.net -c 5
PING chat.freenode.net (140.211.167.106) 56(84) bytes of data.

- --- chat.freenode.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 4030ms

neil@vhost:~$ ping chat.freenode.net -c 5
PING chat.freenode.net (130.239.18.172) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from leguin.acc.umu.se (130.239.18.172): icmp_req=1 ttl=50
time=43.1 ms
64 bytes from leguin.acc.umu.se (130.239.18.172): icmp_req=2 ttl=50
time=41.4 ms
64 bytes from leguin.acc.umu.se (130.239.18.172): icmp_req=3 ttl=50
time=41.6 ms
64 bytes from leguin.acc.umu.se (130.239.18.172): icmp_req=4 ttl=50
time=41.4 ms
64 bytes from leguin.acc.umu.se (130.239.18.172): icmp_req=5 ttl=50
time=42.6 ms

- --- chat.freenode.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 41.483/42.075/43.111/0.732 ms

neil@vhost:~$ ping chat.freenode.net -c 5
PING chat.freenode.net (140.211.167.105) 56(84) bytes of data.
- From corv-car1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.177) icmp_seq=3 Packet filtered
- From corv-car1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.177) icmp_seq=4 Packet filtered

- --- chat.freenode.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 received, +2 errors, 100% packet loss, time
4001ms

neil@vhost:~$ ping chat.freenode.net -c 5
PING chat.freenode.net (213.92.8.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from calvino.freenode.net (213.92.8.4): icmp_req=1 ttl=52
time=34.7 ms
64 bytes from calvino.freenode.net (213.92.8.4): icmp_req=2 ttl=52
time=27.8 ms
64 bytes from calvino.freenode.net (213.92.8.4): icmp_req=3 ttl=52
time=28.6 ms
64 bytes from calvino.freenode.net (213.92.8.4): icmp_req=4 ttl=52
time=27.7 ms
64 bytes from calvino.freenode.net (213.92.8.4): icmp_req=5 ttl=52
time=28.9 ms

- --- chat.freenode.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4006ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 27.795/29.619/34.782/2.628 ms

As we can see, freenode servers are NOT as reliable as some may think...

What's the general concencus ? Would everyone else prefer I kill the
IRCd and we run from Freenode instead ?

Though, I would LOVE to see how you're going to get me to fix a small
netsplit when their links go AWOL...

Over to you...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRXFfnAAoJEMGETyvV8P/Iw+cIAI+z/ijEBcXJj3hvxJ+98F5K
9cqf800+qSeZb3SLCmzzypXsS+O5y+rg/WVYpvJDXP6TNW4AUMlXzVZEFV/V4cET
KRTVsRTpBhTxYbYJRdnAIEYRaGqx3XQXxkCPPaVlz5l7idbge266UbeBoHfDOPtq
wZTbAdJKDy2q7dyD5lJOi7XOTYWDDTaglWGJExyAhYc6o4ecGVk5E9Adzul5Jvh9
ev1fAnDv3bNKEw8SWOEymlJVwFzHiJfv+fqUlHKDVDCdtbCGmTNJEKr3TgwRbMce
60jBnAboymZ/qbSGdhbchVcUaM7VAr+hUHCOQjjYxTsHEG6b9+9D1Tn3f44YB2U=
=MraN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq