Re: Flood ping

Tim Smith (tzs@tzs.net)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:23:48 -0700 (PDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Kenneth Albanowski: "Re: [Offtopic] FAT filesystem specs and behaviour"
Previous message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: NFS v3 and 2.2.0"
In reply to: Justin A. Kolodziej: "Re: Interesting scheduling times - NOT"

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, david wrote:
> wow. this is bad. 2.1.119 has a 0% packet loss...ok, 2 drops in 64K
> packets. but 2.1.122 has a 97% packet loss.
>
> eww. what broke where?
>
> a very curious part about it is that i count 766 packets received no
> matter how long (2-60 second test) the flood runs. i'm sure this is
> significant.

Same behavior on 2.0.34, except that I get 177 packets received, no
matter how long it runs.

Another one to try is "ping -l some_big_number -c some_small_number -q".
I get "some_small_number" received that way.

--Tim Smith

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Kenneth Albanowski: "Re: [Offtopic] FAT filesystem specs and behaviour"
Previous message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: NFS v3 and 2.2.0"
In reply to: Justin A. Kolodziej: "Re: Interesting scheduling times - NOT"