If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
I noticed my routing table had about 30 entries and the network was slow.
After googling, and finding most of the suggested commands don't fix it (like "netsh interface ip delete destinationcache") I wiped it out by pulling the network cable and running as admin "route /f" and rebooting. Then I added back the gateway which about halved the number of entries. Accidentally, I noticed that this made file creation FASTER. And it made almost everything faster. WTF? Before I cleaned up the routing table, every time I created something Right Click - New - Folder Right Click - New - File it took forever (a minute or two) before the file or folder showed up. Now, after I cleared the routing table of garbage, it shows up fast. Now, after clearing the routing table, even sending this post is faster. Maybe it's related. Maybe just the reboot fixed it. I don't know. What I want to try is TEST if the routing table had any effect. So now I want to CREATE a routing table that is "kind of slow". How can I create a routing table that will slow down the network? (Is there another way to artificially slow down the network for testing?) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:56:06 -0600, Jean Fredette
wrote: I noticed my routing table had about 30 entries and the network was slow. After googling, and finding most of the suggested commands don't fix it (like "netsh interface ip delete destinationcache") I wiped it out by pulling the network cable and running as admin "route /f" and rebooting. Then I added back the gateway which about halved the number of entries. The number of routing table entries isn't a red flag (30 isn't a large number), but if "route /f" removed half of them it would be very interesting to see the output of "route print" from before you ran "route /f". You'll have a default gateway, but what other gateways had you configured, and why? Were one or more of them 127.0.0.1? I'm wondering if you had a keylogger installed that captured your keystrokes and sent them to a remote system somewhere, but good keyloggers are supposed to be asynchronous so that they don't affect the user experience and thus draw attention to themselves. Accidentally, I noticed that this made file creation FASTER. And it made almost everything faster. WTF? Without additional evidence, I'd say the reboot did the most good. What I want to try is TEST if the routing table had any effect. So now I want to CREATE a routing table that is "kind of slow". How can I create a routing table that will slow down the network? (Is there another way to artificially slow down the network for testing?) Slow down which aspect of "the network"? -- Char Jackson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:56:06 -0600, Jean Fredette wrote:
(Is there another way to artificially slow down the network for testing?) Check out a software called Bandwidth Limiter. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
Char Jackson posted:
The number of routing table entries isn't a red flag (30 isn't a large number), but if "route /f" removed half of them it would be very interesting to see the output of "route print" from before you ran "route /f". You'll have a default gateway, but what other gateways had you configured, and why? Were one or more of them 127.0.0.1? I'm wondering if you had a keylogger installed that captured your keystrokes and sent them to a remote system somewhere, but good keyloggers are supposed to be asynchronous so that they don't affect the user experience and thus draw attention to themselves. I wish I knew what a normal routing table is supposed to look like. Every time I google for them, I get different routing tables. There must be a standard normal routing table, isn't there? To answer your question, I saved all the routing tables from all the commands, which is how I know the only command (other than route delete and route add of course) that made any difference was "route -f" and "route /f" (both worked the same). Here's the original routing table of 28 lines. 192.168.1.1 is my router 192.168.1.2 is the desktop with the network problem 255.255.255.0 is the netmask 127.0.0.1 is the localhost I don't really know what all the rest are although some are likely stale VPN sessions of some sort, and others are related to the openvpn client being installed which installs something called "tap" (I think) which is sort of a fake ethernet (I think). ================================================== ========================= IPv4 Route Table ================================================== ========================= Active Routes: _Network_Destination________Netmask__________Gatew ay_______Interface__Metric __________0.0.0.0__________0.0.0.0______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______36 ____122.223.87.21__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 ____126.117.19.46__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 ________127.0.0.0________255.0.0.0_________On-link_______127.0.0.1______331 ________127.0.0.1__255.255.255.255_________On-link_______127.0.0.1______331 __127.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_______127.0.0.1______331 ___153.208.18.158__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 ______192.168.1.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link_____192.168.1.2______291 ____192.168.1.2____255.255.255.255_________On-link_____192.168.1.2______291 ____192.168.1.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_____192.168.1.2______291 _____192.168.56.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link____192.168.56.1______281 _____192.168.56.1__255.255.255.255_________On-link____192.168.56.1______281 ___192.168.56.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link____192.168.56.1______281 _____192.168.67.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link____192.168.67.2______281 _____192.168.67.2__255.255.255.255_________On-link____192.168.67.2______281 ___192.168.67.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link____192.168.67.2______281 ___218.133.94.236__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 __218.238.169.159__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 __221.189.116.139__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 ___221.241.169.43__255.255.255.255______192.168.1. 1____192.168.1.2_______35 ________224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link_______127.0.0.1______331 ________224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link____192.168.56.1______281 ________224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link____192.168.67.2______281 ________224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link_____192.168.1.2______291 __255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_______127.0.0.1______331 __255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link____192.168.56.1______281 __255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link____192.168.67.2______281 __255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_____192.168.1.2______291 _================================================= ========================== |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
JJ posted:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:56:06 -0600, Jean Fredette wrote: (Is there another way to artificially slow down the network for testing?) Check out a software called Bandwidth Limiter. Googling I saw net limiter https://www.netlimiter.com/products/nl4 & TMeter http://www.tmeter.ru/en/ & net balancer https://netbalancer.com Tmeter is the only free one of those I think where it is limited to 4 applications but maybe it will help me FIND the application that is slowing empty file and empty folder creation down without affecting the CPU performance at all. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
Jean Fredette posted:
TMeter tells me what two of the addresses are in the router table. 192.168.56.1 is listed as "VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter" as is 192.168.67.2 listed as "VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter #2" It's going to take time to figure out how to filter TMeter captures which seem as confusing as wireshark captures are to me. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:02:44 -0600, Jean Fredette
wrote: JJ posted: On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:56:06 -0600, Jean Fredette wrote: (Is there another way to artificially slow down the network for testing?) Check out a software called Bandwidth Limiter. Googling I saw net limiter https://www.netlimiter.com/products/nl4 & TMeter http://www.tmeter.ru/en/ & net balancer https://netbalancer.com Tmeter is the only free one of those I think where it is limited to 4 applications but maybe it will help me FIND the application that is slowing empty file and empty folder creation down without affecting the CPU performance at all. If you're thinking there's something about your network that's slowing down local file & folder creation, I expect that you'll be disappointed. If those operations are indeed slower than they should be, something else is going on. I'll try to look at your routing table when I get some additional time, but I don't expect any relation to what you're describing above. As a test, disconnect your network cable and create some local folders and/or files. If it's slow, it has nothing to do with the network. -- Char Jackson |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:51:38 -0600, Jean Fredette
wrote: Char Jackson posted: The number of routing table entries isn't a red flag (30 isn't a large number), but if "route /f" removed half of them it would be very interesting to see the output of "route print" from before you ran "route /f". You'll have a default gateway, but what other gateways had you configured, and why? Were one or more of them 127.0.0.1? I'm wondering if you had a keylogger installed that captured your keystrokes and sent them to a remote system somewhere, but good keyloggers are supposed to be asynchronous so that they don't affect the user experience and thus draw attention to themselves. I wish I knew what a normal routing table is supposed to look like. Every time I google for them, I get different routing tables. There must be a standard normal routing table, isn't there? No, not at all. Routing tables are "built" based on local variables and are thus different for nearly everyone. You couldn't use my routing tables any more than I could use yours. -- Char Jackson |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Create slow route loop on purpose
Here is what I get when I run a pull out the ethernet cord and "route /f"
and then I reboot with the ethernet still disconnected (there is no Wi-Fi). ================================================== ========================= Network_Destination________Netmask__________Gatewa y_______Interface__Metric _______127.0.0.0________255.0.0.0_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _______127.0.0.1__255.255.255.255_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _127.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 ____192.168.56.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 ____192.168.56.1__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 __192.168.56.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 ____192.168.67.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 ____192.168.67.2__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 __192.168.67.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 ================================================== ========================= 127.0.0.1 is the localhost 192.168.56.1 is "VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter" 192.168.67.2 is "VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter #2" When I reconnect the ethernet cable & reboot, I get this routing table. ================================================== ========================= Active Routes: Network_Destination________Netmask__________Gatewa y_______Interface__Metric _________0.0.0.0__________0.0.0.0______192.168.1.1 ______192.168.1.2_____36 _______127.0.0.0________255.0.0.0_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _______127.0.0.1__255.255.255.255_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _127.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _____192.168.1.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link_______192.168.1.2____291 _____192.168.1.2__255.255.255.255_________On-link_______192.168.1.2____291 ___192.168.1.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_______192.168.1.2____291 ____192.168.56.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 ____192.168.56.1__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 __192.168.56.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 ____192.168.67.0____255.255.255.0_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 ____192.168.67.2__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 __192.168.67.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 _______224.0.0.0________240.0.0.0_________On-link_______192.168.1.2____291 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_________127.0.0.1____331 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.56.1____281 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link______192.168.67.2____281 _255.255.255.255__255.255.255.255_________On-link_______192.168.1.2____291 ================================================== ========================= 192.168.1.1 is the router 192.168.1.2 is the Windows desktop 127.0.0.1 is the localhost which is the Windows desktop 192.168.56.1 is a "VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter" 192.168.67.2 is another "VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter #2" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|