Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by George E. Herrer » Thu, 08 May 1997 04:00:00



- I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
via ethernet.
- I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
- I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
- There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.

Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

I've heard somewhere that NFS is pretty bad and I'm starting
to get a little concerned about Linux.

Please, any clues will be gratefully appreciated.  Thanks!

-G

 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by William R. Matti » Fri, 09 May 1997 04:00:00



> - I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
> via ethernet.
> - I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
> - I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
> - There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.

> Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
> why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
> 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

> I've heard somewhere that NFS is pretty bad and I'm starting
> to get a little concerned about Linux.

> Please, any clues will be gratefully appreciated.  Thanks!

> -G

When posting a question such as this it would help everyone if you would
give a little more information. Such as: Release # Distribution # etc.
I'd be suprised if you got any replies at all with such minimal
infomation. Not to mention, win 95 :^(....... Anyway, this question has
been asked before, at least 10 times, and I'd be willing to bet that
your trying to run some kind of DNS and its timing out, or maybe, you
have a local "wire" problem ( kinda vague but I really have *no*
information to go on :^) ) This much I can tell you. I have 8 Linux
boxes, from a lousy 486 to dual pentium pros, and all of them telnet all
over the place every ( coast to coast even ) day and it is not slow.
Also, there is *not* any trouble with NFS either. Works fine.

HTH
Bill

--
William R. Mattil

(972) 256-3219

 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by Mathew E. Kirsc » Fri, 09 May 1997 04:00:00



> - I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
> via ethernet.
> - I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
> - I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
> - There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.

> Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
> why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
> 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

The delays are resulting from a bad DNS resolution setup. Your Linux box is
trying to resolve the names of both systems any time a connection is made. Since
you obviously don't have a name server set up for these two systems, and since
there is no Internet name server to tell the Linux box that it doesn't know
anything about the systems, it just sits there waiting until the DNS resolution
times out, then it refers to your /etc/hosts for the name resolution.

I believe that you need to edit your /etc/host.conf (maybe it's
/etc/nsswitch.conf on some), to change the order in which name resolution
resources are used to find the name of a system.

My /etc/host.conf:
order hosts, bind
multi on

Yours probably looks like this:
order bind, hosts
multi on

Quote:> I've heard somewhere that NFS is pretty bad and I'm starting
> to get a little concerned about Linux.

NFS is in the process of being rewritten. It isn't so bad that it's unusable,
else something would have been done a long time ago. What I heard was that
performance wasn't all that great.

--
Mathew E. Kirsch, CLSE (Certifiable Linux Systems Engineer)
*Opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of my employer.

"If you don't have time to read the FAQ, I don't have time to read it to you."

 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by Olivie » Sun, 11 May 1997 04:00:00



> - I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
> via ethernet.
> - I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
> - I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
> - There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.
> Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
> why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
> 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

I discovered that's mainly a win95 problem.. My linux box sees my win95
box within a second, but it takes the win95 machine a minute before it
sees the linux box. When I reboot the win95 machine, and boot DOS/win3
there's no problem (also within the second), when I use winNT it's also
within the second and using Linux is also within the second..

cu,
        Olivier

 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by Jerry Mye » Mon, 12 May 1997 04:00:00




: > why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
: > 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

: The delays are resulting from a bad DNS resolution setup. Your Linux box is

Special thanks to Mathew and everyone who gave me some clues.  It *was* a
bad DNS setup.  Works great now.

Regards,

-G

 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by Darren Warn » Wed, 14 May 1997 04:00:00


On Sat, 10 May 1997 12:17:11 +0200, Olivier



>> - I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
>> via ethernet.
>> - I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
>> - I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
>> - There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.

>> Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
>> why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
>> 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

As far as getting the login prompt, try adding the Win95 IP address to
the /etc/hosts file. I had the same problem and the reason was that
Linux tries doing a reverse DNS lookup when you try to connect -
timing out after 2mins when it can't figure out who you are.

Quote:>I've heard somewhere that NFS is pretty bad and I'm starting
>to get a little concerned about Linux.

NFS is pretty bad as far as security goes - but that's NFS not Linux.
I had a few problems setting it up (Using InterDrive 95) - mainly
because the timeout was set to 30 secs, but once I'd mapped some
drives etc. everything seemed to settle down.

Quote:>I discovered that's mainly a win95 problem.. My linux box sees my win95
>box within a second, but it takes the win95 machine a minute before it
>sees the linux box. When I reboot the win95 machine, and boot DOS/win3
>there's no problem (also within the second), when I use winNT it's also
>within the second and using Linux is also within the second..

>cu,
>    Olivier

HTH

Daz

 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by Dan Newcom » Wed, 28 May 1997 04:00:00


[Posted and mailed]

I find this problem on all of our Unix boxes from time to time.
The culprit here is that the box can't get to the nameserver.  When you
connect to your Linux box, it wants to make a log entry, and would prefer
to do that with the hostname instead of ip number so will try to resolve
it.  If it can't find it in /etc/hosts, it'll try to get to the namesever.
If it can't reach the nameserver, it'll take a bit before it realises this
and timesout...and then gives you the login prompt anyway.

You may want to look into that.




>> - I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
>> via ethernet.
>> - I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
>> - I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
>> - There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.

>> Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
>> why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
>> 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

>> I've heard somewhere that NFS is pretty bad and I'm starting
>> to get a little concerned about Linux.

>> Please, any clues will be gratefully appreciated.  Thanks!

>> -G

> When posting a question such as this it would help everyone if you would
> give a little more information. Such as: Release # Distribution # etc.
> I'd be suprised if you got any replies at all with such minimal
> infomation. Not to mention, win 95 :^(....... Anyway, this question has
> been asked before, at least 10 times, and I'd be willing to bet that
> your trying to run some kind of DNS and its timing out, or maybe, you
> have a local "wire" problem ( kinda vague but I really have *no*
> information to go on :^) ) This much I can tell you. I have 8 Linux
> boxes, from a lousy 486 to dual pentium pros, and all of them telnet all
> over the place every ( coast to coast even ) day and it is not slow.
> Also, there is *not* any trouble with NFS either. Works fine.

> HTH
> Bill

--
--

"The fool who escaped from paradise will look over his shoulders and cry...So
I'll hold my peace forever when you wear your bridal gown."   -Marillion
 
 
 

Q: Linux <-> Win95 Why is telnet so *damn* slow? (Sorry, long night...)

Post by Dan Newcom » Wed, 28 May 1997 04:00:00


[Posted and mailed]

I find this problem on all of our Unix boxes from time to time.
The culprit here is that the box can't get to the nameserver.  When you
connect to your Linux box, it wants to make a log entry, and would prefer
to do that with the hostname instead of ip number so will try to resolve
it.  If it can't find it in /etc/hosts, it'll try to get to the namesever.
If it can't reach the nameserver, it'll take a bit before it realises this
and timesout...and then gives you the login prompt anyway.

You may want to look into that.




>> - I have a Linux box and a Windows 95 box hooked together
>> via ethernet.
>> - I ran network card diagnostics and both cards are happy.
>> - I can ping back and forth at less than 1ms.
>> - There are no hardware conflicts under the OSs.

>> Why does it take 2 minutes for me to get a login prompt and
>> why does my telnet program look like its plugged into a
>> 2400 baud modem?  FTP is just as bad.

>> I've heard somewhere that NFS is pretty bad and I'm starting
>> to get a little concerned about Linux.

>> Please, any clues will be gratefully appreciated.  Thanks!

>> -G

> When posting a question such as this it would help everyone if you would
> give a little more information. Such as: Release # Distribution # etc.
> I'd be suprised if you got any replies at all with such minimal
> infomation. Not to mention, win 95 :^(....... Anyway, this question has
> been asked before, at least 10 times, and I'd be willing to bet that
> your trying to run some kind of DNS and its timing out, or maybe, you
> have a local "wire" problem ( kinda vague but I really have *no*
> information to go on :^) ) This much I can tell you. I have 8 Linux
> boxes, from a lousy 486 to dual pentium pros, and all of them telnet all
> over the place every ( coast to coast even ) day and it is not slow.
> Also, there is *not* any trouble with NFS either. Works fine.

> HTH
> Bill

--
--

"The fool who escaped from paradise will look over his shoulders and cry...So
I'll hold my peace forever when you wear your bridal gown."   -Marillion