Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:37:20 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Michael Widerkrantz <mc@hack.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lenovo X60 em Message-ID: <20070118183704.A3165@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <86lkk1jp3u.fsf@tim.hack.org> References: <45ACF404.20700@ide.resurscentrum.se> <2a41acea0701160958m27c3537ctb25e5420e7a46891@mail.gmail.com> <45AD3C4E.1050608@ide.resurscentrum.se> <86lkk1jp3u.fsf@tim.hack.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Michael Widerkrantz wrote: > I can verify that. I tried pinging the laptop from another machine > (10.0.0.2) in my small home LAN. > With smaller packets: > > tim# ping -D -s 64 brain.internal > PING brain.internal.hack.org (10.0.0.20): 64 data bytes > 72 bytes from 10.0.0.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.450 ms > 72 bytes from 10.0.0.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=53.031 ms > 72 bytes from 10.0.0.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=48.112 ms > ... > Note what happens after the first packet. > > The other way, /from/ the laptop, seems fine, though: > > brain# ping -D -s 64 tim.internal > PING tim.internal.hack.org (10.0.0.2): 64 data bytes > 72 bytes from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.762 ms > 72 bytes from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.565 ms I've been working on reducing network latency, and now only consider latency 10 times smaller than 0.565 mS to be fine for a home LAN :-). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070118183704.A3165>