Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu!boote
From: boote@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: How fast?
Message-ID: <8398@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 6 Sep 90 18:56:56 GMT
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Reply-To: boote@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Lines: 68

From: boote@iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote)
Path: iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu!boote
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: How fast?
Expires: 
References: 
Sender: 
Reply-To: boote@ncar.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Keywords: ping

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.

Jeff W. Boote 
NCAR/SCD
boote@ncar.ucar.edu
From: boote@iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote)
Path: iron_nipple.scd.ucar.edu!boote
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: How fast?
Expires: 
References: 
Sender: 
Reply-To: boote@ncar.ucar.edu (Jeff W. Boote)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Keywords: ping

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.

Jeff W. Boote 
NCAR/SCD
boote@ncar.ucar.edu