From: Raymond C. Bryan (raycomp_at_visi.com)
Date: 2004-03-10 17:53:10
>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:35:12PM +0000, Davison, Lee wrote:
>> The idea was to simulate, as closely as I can, many unsynchronised
>> requests from many places. Flood ping couldn't send two or more
>> simultaneous (or as near as makes no odds) requests and so would
>> never fill the Vic's receive buffer.
>
>True, I didn't think of that. But are the requests unsynchronised enough?
>By default, ping sends ICMP echo request at roughly one-second intervals.
>You would have to run it very long in order to get enough clock drift between
>the ping clients, to make the requests arrive close to each other.
>
>BTW, couldn't you get a better stress test by modifying the TCP/IP stack on
>the sender, to send multiple ICMP echo request packets in a row?
>
>Flood ping would measure a different thing: throughput. I'd be interested in
>the results. I've noticed that Windows machines have hard time
>keeping up with
>flood ping, while Linux loses practically no packets. That is on a 100 Mb/s
>full duplex link, on a several hundred MHz processor. It'd be interesting
>to see how much the Vic-20 can manage using no DMA.
FreeBSD pings from my Amiga are also well handled -- the amiga seems
to tolerate much longer ping-echo times than other hardware does.
(Using Miami and Miamiping)
--Ray
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
|Raymond C. Bryan 651-642-9890 vox | The battle is sometimes |
|Raymond Computer 651-642-9891 fax | to the small for
|
|795 Raymond Ave -email: raycomp | the bigger they are |
|St Paul MN 55114 @visi.com | the harder they fall. |
|USA Amiga - Commodore | -- James Thurber -- |
http://www.raymondcomputer.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.