|
The question was asked how I determined what was happening in my case. I determined what was occurring by the results I saw with a default wait interval (1 second) and an increased wait interval (10 seconds). With the default wait interval, every other ping was responding, and in all cases ping 1 was never verified. And pings 2, 4, 6 etc.. were all reported as under 1000ms (one second). With the 10 second wait interval, all pings were responding, and in all cases were over 1000ms. The only explanation was that the 10second wait interval was showing the real ping and pong times as it was waiting for the response and all were responded to. So the default wait time of 1 second was reporting incorrect responses. And since the pongs were always taking longer than 1 second, than the reported pongs must be from the previous ping. This was ran in NT 4.0 workstation. Nowhere did I see a duplicate pong message. Now, I could be totally wrong, but this is the simplest explanation that matches the data. Regards, Jim Langston I have but yet begun to type! Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:36:15 -0400 From: Neil Palmer <neilp@dpslink.com> Subject: Ping/etc. Problems When you get a reply after the wait interval (default 1 second) the 400 will identify them as (Duplicate) as in this example: ping someplace Verifying connection to host system someplace at address 999.999.0.240. No response from host within 1 seconds for connection verification 1. No response from host within 1 seconds for connection verification 1. No response from host within 1 seconds for connection verification 2. PING reply 1 from 999.999.0.240 took 2142 ms. 256 bytes. TTL 236. (Duplicate) <SNIP> thomas@inorbit.com Sent by: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com 2001/07/13 17:04 Please respond to MIDRANGE-L To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com cc: Subject: Re: MIDRANGE-L Digest V4 #735 Jim: <SNIP> Although I've seen timing issues as you describe, I've never seen the behavior that you saw. I had somewhere gotten the understanding that each ping packet had a unique (sequential?) identifier to ensure that ping 2 would not respond to the pong from ping 1. But your experience calls that into question. How did you determine what was happening in your case? Tom Liotta On Thu, 12 July 2001, Jim Langston wrote: > <SNIP> > So why did I initially see every other ping? The timing. Pings wait 1 second as > the default before timing out. So, it would send a ping, wait one second for a > response, state it timed out, send the second ping, wait... and receive the > response from the first ping! It would report this as the second ping, then it > would send the third ping, time out, send the 4th ping, and receive the response > to the third ping... +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.