Re: 209.197.123.153 Down

About 18 hours after your OP ...

I logged into www.perlmonks.org (my usual URL) without any problems; no discernible slowness apparent. I ran a ping on that and arbitrarily killed it (Ctrl-C) midway through the 10th packet (causing received packet loss).

$ ping www.perlmonks.org
PING perlmonks.org (216.92.34.251): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=212.209 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=212.273 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=212.477 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=212.021 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=211.900 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=212.400 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=212.252 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=212.024 ms
64 bytes from 216.92.34.251: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=211.775 ms
--- perlmonks.org ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 10% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 211.775/212.148/212.477/0.220 ms
[download]

209.197.123.153 still down:

$ ping 209.197.123.153
PING 209.197.123.153 (209.197.123.153): 56 data bytes
--- 209.197.123.153 ping statistics ---
34 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
[download]

66.39.54.27 seems fine, as you noted:

$ ping 66.39.54.27
PING 66.39.54.27 (66.39.54.27): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=212.172 ms
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=212.808 ms
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=212.115 ms
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=211.972 ms
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=212.381 ms
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=214.007 ms
64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=213.073 ms
--- 66.39.54.27 ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 211.972/212.647/214.007/0.665 ms
[download]

Again, killed this with Ctrl-C but with better timing in this instance.

— Ken

Comment on Re: 209.197.123.153 Down Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: 209.197.123.153 Down by hippo (Archbishop) on Jan 24, 2024 at 15:01 UTC
I ran a ping on that and arbitrarily killed it (Ctrl-C) midway through the 10th packet (causing received packet loss). Most (all?) variants of `ping` take the `-c` flag which lets you specify in advance how many packets to send. Adjust the value to suit your own patience level. eg: $ ping -n -c 5 66.39.54.27 PING 66.39.54.27 (66.39.54.27) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=92.0 ms 64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=92.5 ms 64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=92.8 ms 64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=91.5 ms 64 bytes from 66.39.54.27: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=91.8 ms --- 66.39.54.27 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 91.522/92.123/92.783/0.465 ms $ [download] 🦛	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: 209.197.123.153 Down by kcott (Archbishop) on Jan 24, 2024 at 15:18 UTC
++ Thanks. I was aware that such a flag existed but couldn't remember what it was. At 2am I was too lazy to type `man ping` for what was intended as a quick check. As is often the case, this short-cut became a long-cut: typing an explanation for Ctrl-C turned out to be more work. `😳` — Ken	[reply] [d/l]