Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-04-19 13:46, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Isengard:~ # while sleep 1 ; do DATE=`date --iso=s` ; echo -n "$DATE " ; fping -c 20 --period=100 --quiet 2a02:...80d4 ; done
2023-04-19T10:11:07+02:00 2a02:...:80d4 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 20/16/20%, min/avg/max = 0.45/0.53/0.69 2023-04-19T10:11:10+02:00 2a02:...:80d4 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 20/0/100% 2023-04-19T10:11:13+02:00 2a02:...:80d4 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 20/11/45%, min/avg/max = 0.47/1.09/5.45
What do you make of 100%& loss?
Even at 10 pings/second, that is surely not right. Some questions are -
a) do the echo requests reach your router?
AFAIK, yes.
Once I connected the laptop to the switch_1, with everything mirrored to that port, running ethereal. AFAIK there were pings coming from upstairs that were not answered.
b) does your router respond with echo replies?
Not all.
c) does isengard receive the echo reply?
Those that are sent, yes, AFAIK.
I meant "some questions you need to ask in order to diagnose the issue" :-) a) it isn't easy to tell, but yes, with port mirroring it's doable. b) at a rate 1/sec, that is certainly unusual. c) "as far as I know" is not good enough ...
10% unanswered pings still seems pretty high, even at 10/sec, but way better. What is the difference between isengard and telcontar?
They were not running the exact same command at time. For that, I have to leave the commands running while, telcontar is not running a constant ping.
Given how different the results were, there has to be more than "not running the exact same command". I mean, their connections, maybe some hardware, cabling? [snip]
They look similar to me. A bit higher in Isengard, perhaps.
Yes, now they look quite similar. What changed? what happened to the 100% loss ? you also changed the ping interval back to 1/sec.
Both are machine upstairs, same switch. Telcontar is the desktop machine, AMD, powerful. Isengard is the mini server, Intel, MSI Cubi N MiniPC.
isengard showed much worse results, despite being connected in exactly the same way, that is where I would start looking.
I could also download same file from Isengard down to a laptop on sw1 and run a capture.
I see five elements in this test - isengard, telcontar, sw1, sw2 and router. sofar, in your ping-test isengard has shown the worst results. Does isengard also exhibit the slow loading website problem? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (12.5°C) Member, openSUSE Heroes (2016 - present) We're hiring - https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Heroes