> > Here's a ping on my friend's machine (Mac ping, sorry for lack of precision):
> >
> > Packets out/in/bad/%loss = 64/64/0/0.0
> > Round Trip Time (ms) min/avg/max = 14/24/59
> >
> > My box should be fine cpu-wise, it's a Celeron/300, and isn't doing
> > anything else. The card PPPoE is runnin
On 3 Jul 2001 01:12:18 -0400, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote:
>>
>>Same difference, ppp is implemented as a userland process, nearly the
>>same amount of work must be done for either natd or ppp.
>
>Well, I certainly can't get around needing NAT. Would it really add
On my 486 gateway, I
At 8:56 AM -0700 7/3/01, Julian Elischer wrote:
>you may be a good test case for us..
>we have heard of this negraph latency for a while but have never had a good
>test case.. if I send you test code can you run it for me?
Absolutely.
Bryan
--
Bryan Fullerton http://bryanfullerton
At 12:15 AM -0500 7/3/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>A boatload. :) ISA is _really_ slow. :)
Ok, I swapped in the PCI card, which turns out to be an fxp (Intel
Pro 10/100B/100+ Ethernet, according to dmesg), not 3com as I'd
thought.
I also removed an extra ISA card which wasn't doing anything,
At 2:31 AM +0200 7/4/01, Jesper Skriver wrote:
>You can't use that for measurement, on many router products the
>process of replying to ICMP echo's (and generating other ICMP
>messages) is a VERY low priority task, so if it's CPU is loaded
>with other tasks, you will see a excessive latency in pin
At 9:14 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>Well in the above instance I am the provider and I get different
>ping times at the different locations. [Just bringing this all up
>and only got one running late Wednesay night]. If you provider is
>not the lowest link in the chain, eg the telco
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:02:22AM -0400, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
> At 12:43 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> >Since the first link to the DSL is not your system but the box
> >above it, I really suspect that is the problem.
>
> The pings that I provided were to the first hop, ie my ga
Bryan Fullerton wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
> implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
> are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
> router boxes (ie Linksys) on the same DSL provider.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:02:22AM -0400, Bryan Fullerton thus sprach:
> At 12:43 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> >The only way to be sure it is OS related [and I suspect it is not]
> >is to take your machine to their location. DSL can vary in speed
> >from location to location.
> Ah -
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
> >Since the first link to the DSL is not your system but the box
> >above it, I really suspect that is the problem.
>
> The pings that I provided were to the first hop, ie my gateway at the
> other end of the connection. It could be latency in my provid
At 12:15 AM -0500 7/3/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010703 00:12] wrote:
> > Ok, I'll try that tomorrow then. Perhaps the varying cruft levels in
>> ed(4) vs xl(4), or ISA vs PCI architecture, will help. :)
>
>A boatload. :) ISA is _really_ slow. :)
Hmm, k
* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010703 00:12] wrote:
> At 11:54 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > If you really think switching to a better ethernet card will help, I
> > > have a 3C905B sitting here that I can try.
> >
> >It may.
>
> Ok, I'll try that tomorrow then. Perhaps
At 11:54 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > If you really think switching to a better ethernet card will help, I
> > have a 3C905B sitting here that I can try.
>
>It may.
Ok, I'll try that tomorrow then. Perhaps the varying cruft levels in
ed(4) vs xl(4), or ISA vs PCI architecture,
At 12:43 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>The only way to be sure it is OS related [and I suspect it is not]
>is to take your machine to their location. DSL can vary in speed
>from location to location.
Ah - here I should mention that I had similar ping times with this
same provider whe
* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010702 23:50] wrote:
> At 11:36 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> >Without a real idea of what's in the dedicated equipment it's hard
> >to say. A couple things about your configuration really say
> >"low-end" equipment, especially the NIC being
At 11:36 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>Without a real idea of what's in the dedicated equipment it's hard
>to say. A couple things about your configuration really say
>"low-end" equipment, especially the NIC being used.
It's absolutely not high-end stuff, but this is only a residen
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:09:14AM -0400, Bryan Fullerton thus sprach:
> I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
> implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
> are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
> router boxes (
* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010702 23:11] wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
> implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
> are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
> router boxe
Howdy,
I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
router boxes (ie Linksys) on the same DSL provider.
Here's what I'm seeing to the ot
19 matches
Mail list logo
