How fast?

[Gary M. Lin]

boote at iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote) writes:
>I got some really interesting results when pinging a 6000 at it self:

>   <sunset:/u/boote[31]> ping sunset
>   <PING sunset: (128.117.8.71): 56 data bytes
>   <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=0. time=-3. ms
>   <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=1. time=1. ms
>   <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=2. time=1. ms
>   <64 bytes from 128.117.8.71: icmp_seq=3. time=1. ms
>   <^C
>   <----sunset PING Statistics----
>   <4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
>   <round-trip (ms)  min/avg/max = -3/0/1

>While the idea of a machine that can average 0ms is appealing it doesn't
>hardly seem possible.  Notice it took -3ms for the first packet.  Has
>anyone else seen this?  It's not a real big deal but it makes you wonder
>what other bugs are just waiting to show themselves.

	PING ceres.ucsc.edu: (128.114.130.24): 56 data bytes
	64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=0. time=2. ms
	64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=1. time=2. ms
	64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=2. time=2. ms
	64 bytes from 128.114.130.24: icmp_seq=3. time=2. ms

	----ceres.ucsc.edu PING Statistics----
	4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 20% packet loss
	round-trip (ms)  min/avg/max = 2/2/2

Well evidently that doesn't clarify the situation either.  I like the
"20% packet loss" statistic.

					- Gary M. Lin
--------
(SC)2, University of California		INTERNET: skidrow at ceres.ucsc.edu
Santa Cruz, CA 95064			UUCP: !ucbvax!ucscc!ceres!skidrow

But I wouldn't try that personally, our RS/6000's mail daemon is bwain-damaged.