boote@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) (09/07/90)
From: boote@iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) Path: iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu!boote Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: How fast? Expires: References: Sender: Reply-To: boote@ncar.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Keywords: ping I got some really interesting results when pinging a 6000 at it self: <sunset:/u/boote[31]> ping sunset <PING sunset: (128.117.8.71): 56 data bytes <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=0. time=-3. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=1. time=1. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=2. time=1. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=3. time=1. ms <^C <----sunset PING Statistics---- <4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss <round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = -3/0/1 While the idea of a machine that can average 0ms is appealing it doesn't hardly seem possible. Notice it took -3ms for the first packet. Has anyone else seen this? It's not a real big deal but it makes you wonder what other bugs are just waiting to show themselves. Jeff W. Boote NCAR/SCD boote@ncar.ucar.edu From: boote@iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) Path: iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu!boote Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: How fast? Expires: References: Sender: Reply-To: boote@ncar.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Keywords: ping I got some really interesting results when pinging a 6000 at it self: <sunset:/u/boote[31]> ping sunset <PING sunset: (128.117.8.71): 56 data bytes <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=0. time=-3. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=1. time=1. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=2. time=1. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=3. time=1. ms <^C <----sunset PING Statistics---- <4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss <round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = -3/0/1 While the idea of a machine that can average 0ms is appealing it doesn't hardly seem possible. Notice it took -3ms for the first packet. Has anyone else seen this? It's not a real big deal but it makes you wonder what other bugs are just waiting to show themselves. Jeff W. Boote NCAR/SCD boote@ncar.ucar.edu
boote@iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) (09/07/90)
I got some really interesting results when pinging a 6000 at it self: <sunset:/u/boote[31]> ping sunset <PING sunset: (128.117.8.71): 56 data bytes <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=0. time=-3. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=1. time=1. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=2. time=1. ms <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=3. time=1. ms <^C <----sunset PING Statistics---- <4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss <round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = -3/0/1 While the idea of a machine that can average 0ms is appealing it doesn't hardly seem possible. Notice it took -3ms for the first packet. Has anyone else seen this? It's not a real big deal but it makes you wonder what other bugs are just waiting to show themselves. Jeff W. Boote NCAR/SCD boote@ncar.ucar.edu
skidrow@ceres.ucsc.edu (Gary M. Lin) (09/08/90)
boote@iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) writes: >I got some really interesting results when pinging a 6000 at it self: > <sunset:/u/boote[31]> ping sunset > <PING sunset: (128.117.8.71): 56 data bytes > <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=0. time=-3. ms > <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=1. time=1. ms > <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=2. time=1. ms > <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=3. time=1. ms > <^C > <----sunset PING Statistics---- > <4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss > <round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = -3/0/1 >While the idea of a machine that can average 0ms is appealing it doesn't >hardly seem possible. Notice it took -3ms for the first packet. Has >anyone else seen this? It's not a real big deal but it makes you wonder >what other bugs are just waiting to show themselves. PING ceres.ucsc.edu: (128.114.130.24): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=0. time=2. ms 64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=1. time=2. ms 64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=2. time=2. ms 64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=3. time=2. ms ----ceres.ucsc.edu PING Statistics---- 4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 20% packet loss round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 2/2/2 Well evidently that doesn't clarify the situation either. I like the "20% packet loss" statistic. - Gary M. Lin -------- (SC)2, University of California INTERNET: skidrow@ceres.ucsc.edu Santa Cruz, CA 95064 UUCP: !ucbvax!ucscc!ceres!skidrow But I wouldn't try that personally, our RS/6000's mail daemon is bwain-damaged.