From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 16 07:57:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0517216A41C for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:57:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr (postfix3-2.free.fr [213.228.0.169]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA34B43D49 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:57:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2738FC074; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 498FC407E; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:57:43 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20050616075743.GE2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20050615231823.GB2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050615.212446.29494502.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050616070445.GD2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050616.012302.48201645.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050616.012302.48201645.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, jeremie@le-hen.org Subject: Re: incorrect ping(8) interval with powerd(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:57:31 -0000 > : May you delve into this a little bit more please ? The ping(8) manual > : page states that the -i flags makes ping(8) to wait a given couple of > : seconds. If I use the flags "-i 1", I expect ECHO Requests to be sent > : with one second between each, whatever the AC line status is. > : (Note that I didn't explicitely specified "-i 1" in the above example, > : but this doesn't change the behaviour.) > > Well, the rount trip times went way up (3x longer). That's normal for > a 200MHz CPU... My 333MHz EISA machine can't do much better than > that. > > But the 2.252s run time is a little longish. Do you see this > consistantly? If you ran it a second time would you get identical > results. I've seen ARP take a while... What else do you have running > on the system? Maybe a daemon that takes almost no time at 1.7GHz > takes a lot longer at 200Mhz and that's starving the ping process... > Or some driver has gone insane... Yes, I ran this test multiple times, and I almost get always this same result although I got 2.208s sometimes, but I don't think this is significant. FYI, my powerd(8) is configured to tastes AC-line four times per seconds. I tried reducing it's freqency from 4 to 1, but it doesn't change anything. ARP is not the culprit, the MAC address is already in cache. My kernel is compiled with INVARIANTS, but I don't have WITNESS. My network interface uses the bge(4) driver. No firewall rule or complex network setup. Anyway this doesn't hurt much. Thanks for lightening me. Best regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >