Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately
Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 07:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 01/29/07 22:01, s. keeling wrote:
>> > Greg Folkert <greg@gregfolkert.net>:
>> >> Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that
>> >> are typically used (MITs and the other usual candidates) are
>> >> responding terribly, horrifically slow. If they respond at all,
>> >> timing out is becoming more and more frequent.
>> >
>> > Nope:
>> >
>> > (0) heretic /home/keeling_ time gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net
>> > --recv-keys AC94E4B7 gpg: requesting key AC94E4B7 from hkp server
>> > subkeys.pgp.net gpg: key AC94E4B7: "s. keeling (21Dec2003)
>> > <keeling@spots.ab.ca>" not changed gpg: Total number processed: 1
>> > gpg: unchanged: 1
>> > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys AC94E4B7
>> > 0.03s user 0.01s system 5% cpu 0.605 total
>>
>> Your test was possibly not valid. Note the difference in speeds
>> between when I, moments apart, fetched your keys.
>>
>> $ time gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys AC94E4B7
>> gpg: requesting key AC94E4B7 from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net
>> gpg: key AC94E4B7: "s. keeling (21Dec2003) <keeling@spots.ab.ca>"
>> not changed
>> gpg: Total number processed: 1
>> gpg: unchanged: 1
>>
>> real 0m17.315s
>> user 0m0.018s
>> sys 0m0.007s
>>
>> $ time gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys AC94E4B7
>> gpg: requesting key AC94E4B7 from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net
>> gpg: key AC94E4B7: "s. keeling (21Dec2003) <keeling@spots.ab.ca>"
>> not changed
>> gpg: Total number processed: 1
>> gpg: unchanged: 1
>>
>> real 0m0.374s
>> user 0m0.018s
>> sys 0m0.004s
>>
>> > Who's your provider?
>>
>> Cox, which is fast enough that on good nights I get 700KBps download
>> speeds from kernel.org.
>
> I get that every once in a while now. But it is FAR better than I was
> getting with my other key servers I was using. I was getting - near 2
> minute response time or even timeouts. I can deal with a few 10+ second
> response times.
>
> I have Comcastic! Meh... crappy. I only get 1100KB/sec from kernel.org
> and giganews.com.
Only? Heh, I get more bandwidth now than I did for free as an @Home
employee back in the day on Comcast. I'd have to go FiOS if I wanted to go
faster, but who the hell wants to deal with Verizon if they don't have to?
I'm lucky if I get a dialtone 80% of the time with those robber barons.
They actually make me pine for Ma Bell to crush them.
> For all the BAD things about Comcast, I can say that, when it is working
> well it _DOES_ in fact work quite well. Though, DNS is nearly always
> SCREWED.
Therein lies the rub of any ISP. ISPs suck at doing anything beyond getting
you a connection. This includes, but is not limited to, "value added"
services such as email, newsgroups, DNS, web proxying, or web hosting. You
should be prepared to do all those for yourself if you don't want to pay
someone to get it done proper.
Reply to: