On 06/15/13 00:50, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > Uh, you should throw away your GigE switch. Example: > > # ping 192.168.83.1 > PING 192.168.83.1 (192.168.83.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.310 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.199 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.115 ms What is the make and model of your GigE switch? I get: 114 packets transmitted, 114 received, 0% packet loss, time 113165ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.350/0.380/0.608/0.027 ms On a not loaded WS-C3560X-48. Though it might not be the switch. It could be the NIC on either side of the ping, Or anything up through the kernel, where the ping response is generated. Granted, my numbers are at home, between an Atom 330 and an AMD G-T56N, both with RealTek on motherboard NICs. AMD G-T56N <=> RealTek <=> WS-C3560X-48 <=> RealTek <=> Atom 330 So, now data from work: 48 packets transmitted, 48 received, 0% packet loss, time 47828ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.110/0.158/0.187/0.022 ms That is through a WS-C6513-E with a 2T supp card, then through the TOR WS-C3560X-48. So, I have lower latency with the ADDITION of the 6513 (not replacement, extra switch hop). Which means my NICs and up to Layer 7 (kernel) are the major players here. Work ping is between two identical HP DL360s (Xeon E5649, with Broadcom NetXtreme II GigE) Xeon E5649 <=> Broadcom <=> WS-C6513-E <=> WS-C3560X-48 <=> Broadcom <=> Xeon E5649 -- Mr. Flibble King of the Potato People
