 - Last login: 3 hours agoVousDeux
- the one you were warned you about is a 44 year old guy from Cadillac, Michigan, USA.
- Likes 817 pages, 1 video, 3 photos • 189 fans • Received 52 reviews
- Member since Sep 18, 2003
I'm just a busy guy who occasionally has something I want to say. Now, whether anyone is interested or not may be another story (while viewing this blog, you may want to make certain that you have selected the "Entire Blog," or "His Blog" setting.)
Favorites » His Blog
-
-
Okay, so nobody else seems to have it well documented anywhere, but it may be worth mentioning that the ping utility in Windows 2000 has a typo in it. The response that says "<10ms" should say "<1ms".
While <10ms is technically not a bad response, the difference did arouse my curiosity.
This was brought to my attention when a vendor suggested that a problem with their software might be the result of a slow network response from a SQL server. They argued that we should move their software to Windows XP because the ping response was faster.
To test this I first connected a Windows XP machine and a comparable Windows 2000 machine directly to the same Gigabit network switch as the SQL server in question. All three machines were attached at 1-Gbps. While the Windows XP machine consistantly returned ping times of <1ms, the Windows 2000 machine was reporting <10ms.
I also tried several other machines, the responses were all similar.
Next, I downloaded a third party ping utility (hrPING) and installed it on the same Windows 2000 machine from the first test. This third party utility fairly consistantly reported round-trip times that were below 1 ms.
To test even further, I pinged localhost on the Windows 2000 machine. The response was still reported as <10ms.
I also noticed that while most of the Windows 2000 responses were <10ms there were also several other responses such as: 1ms, 3ms, and 9ms. My thought here is that since these other responses are also below 10ms, why would they be reported seperately from the bulk of the <10ms responses?
Additionally, I allowed the ping to run in excess of 50 responses. While the majority of responses were reporting <10ms, the summary said that the average was 0ms. This would suggest that the bulk of the responses were indeed <1ms.
Okay, so who cares...right?
|
Add him as a friend >
VousDeux's blog