You might try doing a trace route from a DOS prompt:

tracert ip-address

this will tell you how many hops you are taking and the ip's of each hop.
also there could be congestion on the UK site(s).  Have someone in the UK
do a ping (dos prompt) and a tracert then compare the two against yours.

"Paveza, Gary" wrote:

> Just throwing this out.  Probably not it, but who knows.  Are you taking
> into account the transatlantic cable that was cut near Australia?  This was
> the major internet backbone cable in the area.  To compensate they had to
> reroute traffic.  If you were on the backbone then you would be affected,
> but even if you weren't, it is possible the additional traffic of the
> reroute is affecting you?  This supposed caused all kinds of problems.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary L. Paveza, Jr.
> Technical Services Manager
> (302) 761-3173 - voice
> (877) 720-2970 - pager
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Simpkins, Terry [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>         Sent:   Wednesday, November 29, 2000 11:28 AM
>         To:     [log in to unmask]
>         Subject:        [HP3000-L] FW: FW: Serious Netowrk problems
>
>         We posted this a couple of days ago, but haven't gotten much
> response.
>         I thought I'd post it again and see if any of you data comm experts
> would
>         care to contribute some "insight/ideas/brilliance", etc.  We are
> stumped,
>         and so is our services provider.  Meantime I have some VERY unhappy
> users.
>
>         ***************************************
>         Terry W. Simpkins
>         Schaevitz Sensors Division
>         Measurement Specialties
>         [log in to unmask]
>         757-766-4278
>         ***************************************
>
>         We are having performance problems for some remote users on our
> HP3000.
>         All of our users are network connections (no Terminals).
>         All remote sites (3 in UK, 4 in USA) connect via Frame Relay.
>         The UK sites all share a single transatlantic PVC.  All of the sites
> in
>         the UK are experiencing SEVERE performance problems.  Noone in the
> USA
>         is having these problems.  Our first place to look was the
> transatlantic
>         PVC, since that is the obvious common thread.  We transferred the
>         transatlantic PVC to a VPN with signifianctly more available
> bandwidth.
>         While the PING times reported from the HP3000 to the remote site
> routers
>         decreased by 50% (now running about 250ms),
>         the response time as measured at the users PC (running Minisoft) say
> no
>         change. Why would PING times show a circuit that is fine, but still
>         response times at the "terminal" be so slow as to be unusable?
>         Ths problem seems to have appeared about 3 weeks ago.  Obvious
> question,
>         "what changed?".
>         The latest patches were applied Oct 22nd which were the General
> Fixes FTP
>         for 6.0 PUSH ("F" patch), and the General Fixes for TELNET ARPA
> Services
>         on 6.0 ("I" Patch).
>         Can anyone:
>         - provide any ideas on what would cause this?
>         - where we should be looking?
>         - the name of someone we can get to assist?
>         - should we remove the patches?
>
>         This problem has become so bad, the remote sites are sending people
> home
>         becuase they can't do their jobs.
>         Sessions get aborted (connection lost), spoolers are dropped, you
> get the
>         idea.
>         I have used SOS to monitor system load and see no problems, this is
>         reinforced by USA based users not seeing these problems at all.  We
> have
>         now changed the transatlantic link to a VPN, so we have removed that
> from
>         the list of possible culprits.  I have asked the provider to help us
> check
>         response time at each step of the way (each router).  They say this
> is a
>         very difficult thing to do because of routing tables, and are
> reluctant
>         since the PING time shows that there isn't a "capacity" problem.
> The
>         question we don't understand is "what is the difference between a
> PING
>         packet and an NS/VT packet that could account for this?"  I ran PING
> from
>         the HP3000 specifying a packet size of 1514 bytes and the average
> response
>         time went from 250ms to 850ms ith 25% lost packets.  This tells me
> that
>         maybe things aren't so great on the frame relay circuit, correct?
> The
>         250ms times were using the default 64byte packet sizes.

--
Larry Barnes
Director of I.T.
Mitek Corp.
602-438-4545 x1366
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Check Us Out !
http://www.mitekcorp.com