CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 I have recently had reason to use the Tracert command due to slow connection problems (that have now sorted themselves out) as I was asked by someone to run the command and post the results.Firstly, how do people copy and paste the results into threads without having to use ImageShack?I know that I can use the file attachment feature here but not all forums offer this feature.Copy and paste doesn't work while in the CMD command box so how is it done like for example in the link below?In my attachment I have run the tracert command on the WF server as an example but I have edited parts of both my IP address and WF's server for the sake of privacy.What is the significance of the second and third columns?By reading http://www.wurd.com/misc_tracert.php I know that the first column is the hop number, which is the Time-To-Live (TTL) value set in the packet and the fourth column is the host name (if it was resolved) and IP address of the responding system but in the article no mention is made of what the second and third columns actually do.It is only by understanding this that I will ever be able to make sense of future tracert results.I didn't post this in the Networking board as it isn't actually a network problem only a query!Any help would be most appreciated :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Here you go: http://www.wurd.com/misc_tracert.phpAs for the copy/paste: - Right-click the command window - Select "Mark" - Highlight, using the mouse, everything you want to copy - Press "Enter"It is now copied. To paste copied information from the clipboard to the command window, right-click :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Thanks scuzzman :) I will have a read of the article and I have tried the copy and paste operation and it works!Finally would I be right in assuming that the total time in milli seconds is comparable?For example if I have 2 tracert logs and after they have completed one has a 60 ms route and the other has a 30 ms route, then can they be directly compared or are there other factors to take into consideration?In computing, I have discovered that everything isn't always black and white.Edit:I just realised that your link is the same as the one I posted so I am still none the wiser :huh: Never mind, I will have another Google search! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Didn't realize I had posted the same link :lol:But right here it is:Each of the next three columns contains the round-trip times in milliseconds for an attempt to reach the destination with the TTL value.Basically, that's how long the packet takes to get to the server/router. Other factors can be at work here, including slow computers in either side, overall network congestion, or a hardware failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Each of the next three columns contains the round-trip times in milliseconds for an attempt to reach the destination with the TTL value.Basically, that's how long the packet takes to get to the server/router.Thanks again scuzzman.So from this final hop of the tracert log that I just carried out, are you saying that 3 attempts are made to contact the destination?To find an average time taken for the data to reach the destination, are the numbers added up and then divided by 3 to find the average time?14 128 ms 129 ms 129 ms earth.neoplanet-hosting.comi.e. 128 + 129 + 129 = 386 / 3 = 128.6 or rounded off to 128 ms ?Also from a full tracert log where would the total amount of time taken be displayed?It's very confusing but interesting :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Yes, your formula and theory are correct (AFAIK). As for finding the total time, it is more appropriate to use "ping". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Tracing route to windowsforum.org [xx.xx.xx.xx]over a maximum of 30 hops: 1. 25 ms 29 ms 29 ms rt-lostf01.dial.aol.com [xx.xx.xx.xx] - This I assume is my IP address? 2. * 24 ms * iptfarmlf-los-ve3.proxy.aol.com [195.93.17.190] 3. * 29 ms 29 ms 172.17.169.91 4. 34 ms 29 ms 29 ms pop1-loh-S0-2-0.atdn.net [66.185.136.229] 5. 23 ms 29 ms 29 ms bb1-loh-S1-0-0.atdn.net [66.185.136.236] 6. 23 ms 29 ms 29 ms pop2-loh-S0-0-0.atdn.net [66.185.136.241] 7. 43 ms 33 ms 28 ms so-6-0-0.gar2.London1.Level3.net [66.185.143.90] 8. 28 ms 29 ms 29 ms ae-0-52.bbr2.London1.Level3.net [4.68.116.34] 9. 122 ms 129 ms 129 ms as-1-0.mp1.Miami1.Level3.net [64.159.0.1] 10. 131 ms 144 ms 124 ms as-0-0.mp2.Tampa1.Level3.net [209.247.11.198] 11. 125 ms 129 ms 129 ms ae-23-52.car3.Tampa1.Level3.net [4.68.104.43] 12. 129 ms 129 ms * 4.71.0.6 13. 124 ms 138 ms 131 ms 69.46.31.90 14. 124 ms 129 ms 129 ms earth.neoplanet-hosting.com [xx.xx.xx.xx.] - This I assume is the WF server?A couple of queries if I could?On line 2, the 1st and 3rd attempt are timed out with the AOL proxy server.Is this right?If so on almost every tracert log I run I get the same thing happening so is this likely to be a problem?I have only just started using the tracert command so perhaps it is supposed to be like this I don't know?This is the thing that is puzzling me and out of all the timings above (excluding the time outs (*) of course) which is the total amount of time that is needed to connect my PC to the WF server?Would I be right in thinking that line 14 holds the answer?124 ms is the quickest time with 129 ms being the slowest?If this is right then I may have worked out why some other destinations have slower timings like in the second entry in line 13 at 138 ms.If this is right then there may be some congestion on that particular hop as it has taken longer (138 ms) to get to that destination than to get to the final destination i.e. the WF server?Is this right or have I got it all wrong?Sorry for the longwinded answer but I'm a newbie to all of this :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 As for finding the total time, it is more appropriate to use "ping".Sorry I didn't realise that our posts had crossed over!Pinging windowsforum.org [xx.xx.xx.xx] with 32 bytes of data:Reply from xx.xx.xx.xx: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=48Reply from xx.xx.xx.xx: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=48Reply from xx.xx.xx.xx: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=48Reply from xx.xx.xx.xx: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=48Ping statistics for xx.xx.xx.xx: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 127ms, Maximum = 132ms, Average = 129msSo in the above ping test there have been 4 attempts to ping the WF server then?I now understand that a ping is used to time how fast the connection is between your PC and the destination server.Would I also be right in thinking that the tracert command is used to try and locate where your connection is getting congested if you are getting a slow internet connection?If you are wondering why I am bothering with all this it is because if in the future I have a slow connection then I can ping or tracert the website to see what is happening to my connection.Besides I find it quite interesting B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 So in the above ping test there have been 4 attempts to ping the WF server then?Yup.Would I also be right in thinking that the tracert command is used to try and locate where your connection is getting congested if you are getting a slow internet connection?Well done :flowers:It can be very interesting stuff :) And TBH, "Why is he wondering this?" never crossed my mind :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Thanks scuzzman for all your help :flowers: I will close this thread now as it is resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why are you XXing WF's IP? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why are you XXing WF's IP? ;)Nothing sinister as I was just using the WF server as an example to illustrate what I was trying to say.I replaced the WF IP address with XX for privacy reasons. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 :P Umm not sure how to tell you this, but if we kept the IP of WF private, no one one be able to join :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Umm not sure how to tell you this, but if we kept the IP of WF private, no one one be able to join :lol:I don't see how as you don't need to know the forum IP address when you register, at least I didn't know it when I first registered :rolleyes: Unless I'm missing something :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 69.46.16.95 is the same as windowsforum.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 69.46.16.95 is the same as windowsforum.org.Yes but what my point is that it isn't essential to know this in order to register :P As you know, most people enter URL's into search engines not IP addresses ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Yes, so why xx the IP address? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Yes, so why xx the IP address? :lol:Security reasons?On another forum I posted a ping log and I was requested to hide the IP address of the hosting site.I didn't want to repeat the same mistake here ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Thanks for the concern, but anyone can ping a site and ascertain the IP (not to mention thousands (literally) of other ways). The likely reason you were requested on that other forum to censor the IP is that they don't allow any IPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Not all sites allow ping requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Not all sites respond to them, but you can still resolve the dns thus acquiring the IP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Thanks guys.So now I know that if I ever have to post a tracert or ping log over here in the future then I don't need to conceal the IP address.I wasn't sure before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuzzman Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 So long as it follows the IP Posting Guidelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted March 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 So long as it follows the IP Posting GuidelinesI have read that particular thread (in fact I've even replied to it) but I will have another read of it now to jog my memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts