One possibility is that the server is configured not to respond to pings
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
50549 readers
707 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is most likely the issue. Maybe just measure HTTP response times instead?
what advantages can derive from this?
Adding to the other answers, there isa bunch of server software that comes preconfigured to ignore ICMP.
Prevents some types of port scanning normally. Don't know about other advantages
ICMP is one vector of a distributed denial of service attack. Also, even if not denying the service, it puts load on the network interfaces / routers of that server - everything behind the first firewall / router layer that would otherwise block the ICMP requests.
ping nowadays is overrated anyway. If a server responds to ICMP and how fast it does it does not really say much about "how fast" a website is. It only tells you that a) ICMP requests and responses are not blocked and b) how fast ICMP requests get answered.
That's it. It may not even tell you that a website is online because a load balancer may be responding to the ICMP request while the hosts behind it are offline.
People value ping responses way too highly.
httping may be a better tool to measure "how fast" a website is responding.
Also every major browser has a tool for timing and seing how long a site and it's components load. You could test it with that but even then; load times will vary slightly depending on what the instances have to load.
But probably a better way than pings ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Correct, especially with all the dynamic loading and rendering websites nowadays do measuring in a web browser is waaay better than doing ICMP/ping requests or even httping requests.
It depends on what you are trying to measure ofc but ICMP/ping does not tell you almost anything about how fast a website is.
People value ping responses way too highly.
I beg to differ. Not everyone's use of the internet is limited to http(s) - ping is an invaluable tool to determine round trip times of the underlying network infrastructure & therefore assess e.g. the potential throughput of TCP based protocols for given window sizes. Also, to assess delay in UDP based communication.
httping may be a better tool to measure “how fast” a website is responding.
this works well, thank you! the results are similar to the ones obtained with ping, but vlemmy.net and other instances that ping couldn't reach are correctly measured. seems that lemm.ee is the fastest for me
The server's firewall could be blocking them?
If it's a VPS, most providers' firewalls will block everything by default, and you have to specifically choose what ports to open or transmission protocols to allow.
I personally have all my VPS's set up to drop pings from any unauthorised IP addresses
ICMP echo requests/responses may be blocked - usually by a remote endpoint firewall.
There's a firewall blocking ICMP echo-reply requests on the other end. It's totally normal for servers to block ping requests.
In case someone googled the same words as title:
https://dnstools.ws/ can do ping, nslookup, whois, traceroute ....., supports both IPv4 and IPv6, and has dozens of servers around the world.
view more: next ›