"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.google.com" lately

Internet access discussion, including Fusion, IP Broadband, and Gigabit Fiber!
66 posts Page 6 of 7
by ankh » Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:40 pm
PS for Andrew -- here's one typical source on how semiconductors can be "wounded" and experience intermittent failures. We usually don't notice intermittents or understand there's a problem until a catastrophic failure develops.
... two types of failure modes: catastrophic and latent. Catastrophic is the easy one, leaving the part completely nonfunctional. The other can be much more serious. Latent damage may allow the problem component to work for hours, days or even months after the initial damage before catastrophic failure. Many times these parts are referred to as “walking wounded” since they are working but bad....
This is one reason so many uninformed young repair techs claim they've never needed to use ESD protection and never seen a problem from that lack of precautions.

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbo ... discharge/
by ankh » Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:16 am
Just for the record, I left a long ping running and I think the failures would be the intermittent problem I'e been chasing. I'll post excerpts from that in the next response. The ... ellipses are long strings of good ping responses. All I'm posting is the deviations from normal that I think are the intermittent failures.
by ankh » Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:19 am
Long ping series, excerpted to show only the intermittent events:

pinging sonic.net

64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=998 ttl=52 time=10.353 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=999 ttl=52 time=8.347 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1000 ttl=52 time=11.494 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1001 ttl=52 time=8.372 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1002 ttl=52 time=16.454 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1003 ttl=52 time=7.645 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1004 ttl=52 time=7.170 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1005 ttl=52 time=8.680 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1006 ttl=52 time=8.613 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1063 ttl=52 time=6.837 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1064 ttl=52 time=66.451 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1065 ttl=52 time=7.972 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1066 ttl=52 time=37.744 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1067 ttl=52 time=7.989 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1068 ttl=52 time=80.132 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1069 ttl=52 time=8.235 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1070 ttl=52 time=21.371 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1071 ttl=52 time=7.453 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1650 ttl=52 time=7.280 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1651 ttl=52 time=7.447 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1652 ttl=52 time=13.648 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1653
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1654
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1655
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1656
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1657
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1658 ttl=52 time=8.081 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1659 ttl=52 time=135.749 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1660 ttl=52 time=7.359 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1661 ttl=52 time=7.052 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1698 ttl=52 time=8.407 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1699 ttl=52 time=7.393 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1700
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1701
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1702
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1703
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1704
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1705 ttl=52 time=21.573 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1706 ttl=52 time=6.995 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1707 ttl=52 time=8.527 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1708 ttl=52 time=7.130 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1709 ttl=52 time=127.642 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1710 ttl=52 time=6.404 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1711 ttl=52 time=118.832 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1712 ttl=52 time=6.527 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1713 ttl=52 time=7.505 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1748 ttl=52 time=6.608 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1749 ttl=52 time=7.240 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1750 ttl=52 time=7.743 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1751
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1752
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1753
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1754
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1755
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1756 ttl=52 time=51.955 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1757 ttl=52 time=6.904 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1797 ttl=52 time=7.670 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1798 ttl=52 time=7.366 ms
ping: sendto: Network is down
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1799
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1800
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1801
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1802
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1803
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1804 ttl=52 time=6.651 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1805 ttl=52 time=30.536 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1806 ttl=52 time=46.075 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1807 ttl=52 time=6.759 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1808 ttl=52 time=116.808 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1809 ttl=52 time=146.458 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1810 ttl=52 time=7.342 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1811 ttl=52 time=6.881 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1848 ttl=52 time=7.146 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1849 ttl=52 time=7.930 ms
ping: sendto: Network is down
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1850
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1851
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1852
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1853
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1854
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1855 ttl=52 time=15.955 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1856 ttl=52 time=68.142 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1857 ttl=52 time=12.589 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1858 ttl=52 time=74.255 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1900 ttl=52 time=7.459 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1901 ttl=52 time=7.847 ms
ping: sendto: Network is down
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1902
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1903
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1904
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1905
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1906
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1907
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1908
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1909
ping: sendto: No route to host
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1910
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1911
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1912 ttl=52 time=71.765 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1913 ttl=52 time=7.454 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1914 ttl=52 time=11.824 ms
...
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1976 ttl=52 time=7.163 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1977 ttl=52 time=125.049 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1978 ttl=52 time=117.596 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1979 ttl=52 time=6.837 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1980 ttl=52 time=7.838 ms
...
--- sonic.net ping statistics ---
2015 packets transmitted, 1980 packets received, 1.7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 6.363/9.142/146.458/9.614 ms
by ankh » Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:55 am
Oh, for whatever it's worth:
Your results are in!

Your download speed is 116.79 Mbps
Your upload speed is 116.03 Mbps

UPS put off delivering the replacement rent-a-modem until maybe Saturday (it was scheduled for Thursday). I'll check in again once I have the new modem in place. Sign me puzzled ....
by ankh » Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:41 pm
OK, got the new rent-a-router in place and working.

Once again I'm seeing "can't open the page "Sonic.net" because the server unexpectedly dropped the connection" messages from Safari -- got in here with Firefox.

Here's a ping while that Safari error is up, does this look unexpected?
PING sonic.net (209.204.190.64): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=7.479 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=6.733 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=22.725 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=6.479 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=121.525 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=7.122 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=7.609 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=88.284 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=6.825 ms
64 bytes from 209.204.190.64: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=7.456 ms
well, I can live with occasional slowdowns, we'll see how my spouse does working from home tomorrow and I'll call Support if it appears wonky.
by ankh » Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:03 pm
Alas, after all this time, the answer is in.

Our computers are too old to take full advantage of fiber speeds, though they're set up properly.

A Sonic tech came out, checked the light level, checked the rent-a-router, checked the optical-to-router device, found no problems, then had me drag my Ethernet cable out to the porch where he put his own laptop on my Ethernet cable (which has been giving around 250 mbps on my 2010 iMac and my spouse's vintage Lenovo Windows box) and showed me his computer was able to receive at full gigabit speed.

Conclusion -- 2010-11 Macs and Windows machine are simply unable to accept full fiber speed.

Dagnabbit.
by chris.w » Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:43 pm
ankh wrote:Alas, after all this time, the answer is in.

Our computers are too old to take full advantage of fiber speeds, though they're set up properly.

A Sonic tech came out, checked the light level, checked the rent-a-router, checked the optical-to-router device, found no problems, then had me drag my Ethernet cable out to the porch where he put his own laptop on my Ethernet cable (which has been giving around 250 mbps on my 2010 iMac and my spouse's vintage Lenovo Windows box) and showed me his computer was able to receive at full gigabit speed.

Conclusion -- 2010-11 Macs and Windows machine are simply unable to accept full fiber speed.

Dagnabbit.
I suspect something other than just obsolescence is going on here, at least with regard to your iMac. I recently ran a series of speed tests on my 2009 iMac using the Speedtest app. The iMac is located at my home in Berkeley and connected to the Internet through native Sonic fiber.

The results:

WiFi (802.11n), computer near the router: 198/169 Mbps Down/Up
Ethernet to the router:                835/910 Mbps Down/Up
Ethernet to the ONT:                 939/909 Mbps Down/Up

The WiFi speeds are about what I’d expect from equipment of this era, and the Ethernet speeds are consistent with the computer’s Ethernet specifications. I’d expect your 2010 iMac to perform similarly. I don’t know why you’re only seeing ~250 Mbps over Ethernet, rather than something in the 800-900 range.
by ankh » Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:51 pm
Thanks, Chris.

Drat. I don't know where to turn now.

Sonic's phone tech said to suspect the ONT if i was only seeing around 500 when directly connected -- but that's what I get with the Macs, whereas the visiting Sonic tech got the full gigabit speed.

Maybe I need to format a hard drive, reinstall the OS and a browser, and see what I get.

Sigh. When I can't even tell if it's a hardware or a software problem, it's nasty.
by chris.w » Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:59 pm
ankh wrote:Thanks, Chris.

Drat. I don't know where to turn now.

Sonic's phone tech said to suspect the ONT if i was only seeing around 500 when directly connected -- but that's what I get with the Macs, whereas the visiting Sonic tech got the full gigabit speed.

Maybe I need to format a hard drive, reinstall the OS and a browser, and see what I get.

Sigh. When I can't even tell if it's a hardware or a software problem, it's nasty.
Let’s not be hasty. I’d try replacing Ethernet cables if you haven’t already done so. You might also gently clean off the computer’s Ethernet connector with a Q Tip and rubbing alcohol to make sure that all the contacts are clean. Also, consider using the Speedtest app (free from the Mac App Store), rather than going through a browser. The browser overhead may be affecting the results.

No guarantees for any of these, but they’re quick, cheap, and easy, and they may make a difference.
by ankh » Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:30 pm
Well, the Internet went away again. We repeated some of the tests to no avail.
Sonic support decided to go with swapping in Eero hardware, due in a couple of days.

Then after a while, we had Internet again. Go figure.

For the record, using the same Cat6 long Ethernet cable that gave a full gigabit speed test result to the Sonic tech's Dell out on the front porch, I get around 250 speed up and down with a 2010 imac. By contrast I get around 500 up and down with a 2011 Mac Mini. Swapped several Ethernet cables in and out, makes no difference. So Apple may have been making incremental improvements year on year. I dunno.

And my wife's 2020 Dell gets 800ish on a hundred foot Ethernet cable.

All the computers go dead at the same time, when we get one of our intermittent outage.

Maybe Eero will save us.
66 posts Page 6 of 7

Who is online

In total there are 12 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests