------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
This morning I attempted to load a number of photos using PIP but could not because the program indicated it could not locate the server.
Has anyone else has had this issue using PIP?
Thanks
If it was working previously and you haven't made any changes on your end, it is almost always a DNS problem on your end (or your provider's end) , as The Ogre's link states. Dunno why, dns just sometimes just goes flakey. 'cannot find server" Happens to me sometimes, then I go back and try again a little later and it works perfectly.
DNS on the whole is not stable and regularly coughs up a lung for hours or longer. Why? You need to know basics of DNS even to begin the topic but... Many layers must work and just 1 part fails then you can't see just 1 server/service, part of internet or even whole internet by name. Only the IP # if you know.
If you think DNS problems then try google, opendns, etc.
Just using either does not require to sign up... IPv4 OpenDNS are 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220 Goolge DNS are 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 IPv6 then look at whatever... example: https://developers.google.c...ed/public-dns/?hl=en
If DNS servers go down, whoever is running them is a toolbag. If my servers went down I'd get fired. Or I'd fire someone else. Someone would get fired for sure. If your ISP's DNS servers can't stay up, switch ISPs or use someone else's.
[This message has been edited by thesameguy (edited 11-21-2015).]
Originally posted by thesameguy: If DNS servers go down, whoever is running them is a toolbag. If my servers went down I'd get fired. Or I'd fire someone else. Someone would get fired for sure. If your ISP's DNS servers can't stay up, switch ISPs or use someone else's.
I agree, in general, but I have 18 total DNS servers at multiple locations, with different ISPs. I took 6 offline for 2 hours for replacement, and no one noticed, although my remaining DNS servers had to handle a lot of requests. It was an experiment in fail testing. If enough ISPs failed, or 17 DNS servers failed, or power was out for long enough and I didn't put fuel in the generators, mine could fail.
DNS is like a phone book of names and numbers, only it's domain names & IPs. DNS has a cache, on each workstation, and on each DNS server across the internet. Simplistically, when you make a request for a name, say fiero.nl, the name must be resolved to an IP. To do this, your computer first checks its local DNS cache. Failing resolution there, it checks its defined DNS server(s). Note that you should always have at least 2. I prefer to use DNS servers from different providers (open DNS & google, for example), rather than my ISP's DNS servers. The defined DNS servers check their records & cache. Failing resolution there, the DNS servers have several options: they can (if configured correctly) check with a list of ”root” servers, they can pass the buck to their own defined DNS servers, or they can return a fail. DNS has a timeout, which means that, if you have 2 servers, and the first one can't resolve within a few seconds, the second one can't resolve within a few seconds, you get nothing. Depending on DNS server configuration and cache, a given DNS server could take a few hops to many hops until it either gets a timeout or returns an IP. Ultimately, for a new request, DNS requests must return to the authoritative or defining DNS server. As the DNS request makes its way back, each DNS server along the way and your local workstation cache the IP. The cache size and expiration should allow a theoretical downtime of the authoritative DNS servers without impact to anyone whose cache is current. Your workstation then makes a new request with both the name and the IP, and the request must hop its way to the fiero.nl server, the domain must be recognized by the server, the server serve up a reply, and the content must find its way back to your workstation, which must then present the content to the end user (you).
The problem may not even be DNS at all. Sometimes there are routing issues, which is a different complex thing. Your internet could also be too slow, your DNS servers could be overloaded, your DNS servers could be out of the loop, your stack could be infected, winsock could be messed up, etc. Sometimes, the issue is the configuration on the authoritative DNS server. If you have Centurylink (Centurytel or whatever), their DNS servers frequently have cache issues. You could have malware that is making a lot of DNS requests and getting you banned, or your local network could be overloaded. Heck, it would be far more likely that the PIP server was overloaded that that DNS is down.
I believe no2pencil reported a while back on a similar thread how to test DNS.
I didn't want to start a new thread on this topic, so I found an existing one that would suffice.
Is anyone who normally uses PIP having any kind of a problem the last couple of days trying to upload images?
Except for a few minor glitches, I've been using PIP basically trouble-free ever since Cliff introduced it. However, when I currently try to upload an image with PIP, it seems to go through the proper motions for a few seconds, and then it stops and displays the following message...
Same error here, nothing changed on my end. Used it a couple weeks ago, but now won't work. From what I can see it sends 8192 bytes then stops with the error. no matter how small the pic is.
[This message has been edited by wgpierce (edited 03-04-2017).]
Yes. I have been using PIP for years with no issues.
Okay, sounds like we're indeed having the same problem then.
quote
Originally posted by wgpierce:
From what I can see it sends 8192 bytes then stops with the error. no matter how small the pic is.
Yes, after a much longer than usual delay, I can see the upload progress bar start to move... and then I get the message that I reported in my first post. Happens every time.
Looks like it's an actual issue with the PIP server then, and not something wrong at our end. Thanks for the feedback guys.
Same error here, nothing changed on my end. Used it a couple weeks ago, but now won't work. From what I can see it sends 8192 bytes then stops with the error. no matter how small the pic is.
Same here. After the 8192 byte upload level is reached, an error message appears. "Unknown Error! 1230- (something) FTPUploadFile: internet write..."
If I continue to try, then I eventually get a 'connection was reset by host, or 'connection timed out' error. Here's what the initial errors look like:
I've linked this problem in a PM to Cliff. I suspect he will look in to it when he gets time.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-05-2017).]
