Article View: demon.ip.support.nt
Article #124Re: Why does windows2000 ping have a resolution of 10ms?
From: Simon
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:16
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:16
42 lines
3063 bytes
3063 bytes
* Bob Cousins <bob@$nospam$lintilla.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
>>Nigel Kendrick <""@nkendrick.?> wrote
>>>
>>>NIC drivers?
>>
>>Mines a D-link DFE-530TX and I get the 10ms granularity. Maybe someone
>>with 1ms can tell us with what NIC?
>
> I can't imagine why the NIC would make a difference, surely the ping
> application is responsible for the timing?
My results seem to suggest that the ping application isn't responsible for the
timing. My results go from ping times accurate to 1 decimal place in
netkit-base-0.10 to almost accurate to 10ms in netkit-base-0.17 (apart from
the first ping):
An Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 on Linux 2.4.5 using ping from netkit-base-0.17:
64 octets from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=155.4 ms
64 octets from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=140.0 ms
64 octets from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=150.0 ms
...results carry on accurate to 10ms until the ping is stopped
A 3com 905b on Linux 2.4.17 using ping from netkit-base-0.10:
64 bytes from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=150.9 ms
64 bytes from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=151.5 ms
64 bytes from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=151.3 ms
A 3com 3C574-TX on FreeBSD 4.3, looks to be using ping version 1.52.2.2:
64 bytes from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=178.932 ms
64 bytes from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=186.622 ms
64 bytes from 158.152.1.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=156.533 ms
--
Simon <simon@sis-domain.demon.co.uk> **** PGP: 099977D0
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
- Douglas Adams
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<b3ud6a.qc.ln@sis-domain.demon.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.176.220.129!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!sis-domain.demon.co.uk!simonReferences:
<EuZLqJATKJh8EwS3@little.demon.co.uk> <MPG.16efdfd3d98514899896d0@news-central.giganews.com> <tfob8u08b1ki0aj37odct94f5naflt5vt1@4ax.com> <1015457895.3495.1.nnrp-10.c2de3c6e@news.demon.co.uk> <goUi7KAqufi8Ewut@little.demon.co.uk> <k7dk8uso968031p0mqd3olu1uopc46lt6e@4ax.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 112d46,aed7066cfaab3934
X-Google-Attributes: gid112d46,public
X-Google-Thread: 100788,aed7066cfaab3934
X-Google-Attributes: gid100788,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-09 13:17:05 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.176.220.129!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!sis-domain.demon.co.uk!simon
From: Simon <usenet@sis-domain.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: demon.ip.support.nt,demon.service.isdn
Subject: Re: Why does windows2000 ping have a resolution of 10ms?
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 21:16:27 +0000
Message-ID: <b3ud6a.qc.ln@sis-domain.demon.co.uk>
References: <EuZLqJATKJh8EwS3@little.demon.co.uk> <MPG.16efdfd3d98514899896d0@news-central.giganews.com> <tfob8u08b1ki0aj37odct94f5naflt5vt1@4ax.com> <1015457895.3495.1.nnrp-10.c2de3c6e@news.demon.co.uk> <goUi7KAqufi8Ewut@little.demon.co.uk> <k7dk8uso968031p0mqd3olu1uopc46lt6e@4ax.com>
Reply-To: simon@sis-domain.demon.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sis-domain.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: sis-domain.demon.co.uk:194.222.148.82
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1015708590 nnrp-08:8170 NO-IDENT sis-domain.demon.co.uk:194.222.148.82
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.5 (i686))
Originator: simon@sis-domain.demon.co.uk
Lines: 42