Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:50:57 -0800 From: Kevin Stevens <kevin_stevens@pursued-with.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suffering from poor network performance... Message-ID: <38E6743A-3044-11D8-B24B-000A959CEE6A@pursued-with.net> In-Reply-To: <DB9B6109-3030-11D8-AB9B-003065ABFD92@mac.com> References: <2B766ABB-3027-11D8-A624-000A95775140@battleface.com> <DB9B6109-3030-11D8-AB9B-003065ABFD92@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 16, 2003, at 17:32, Charles Swiger wrote: > On Dec 16, 2003, at 7:22 PM, Alex (ander Sendzimir) wrote: > [ ... ] > > First, Barney was correct: using "ping -f" will run into the ICMP > response limitation. Try using "ping -i 0.01 _hostname_", instead, > and you may find out that you don't have a problem with packet loss at > all at this lower speed. I wish I had a FreeBSD box to check this on, but from an OS X G5 to an Athlon WinXP box (both at 100% CPU from distribfolding client: > babelfish:~ root# ping -f -c 10000 denizen > PING denizen.pursued-with.net (192.168.168.1): 56 data bytes > . > --- denizen.pursued-with.net ping statistics --- > 10000 packets transmitted, 10000 packets received, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max = 0.079/0.112/1.01 ms > babelfish:~ root# That's through a cheap Gb switch. Just a data point. KeS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38E6743A-3044-11D8-B24B-000A959CEE6A>