Adam,

This looks like it will work quite well! So far with some tests I've found
100% success, which is the foundation for some good test results.


Example from a VM through a couple Juniper switches to a MikroTik:
# ping 10.11.1.3 -i 0.001 -f -c 10000
PING 10.11.1.3 (10.11.1.3) 56(84) bytes of data.

 --- 10.11.1.3 ping statistics ---
10000 packets transmitted, 10000 received, 0% packet loss, time 10000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.111/0.122/2.160/0.037 ms, ipg/ewma 1.000/0.118 ms


I'll calculate just like you described + the average ping time to account
for ping replies lost at the beginning of the failure.

I'm not looking to do this everywhere on everything (which would be a
reason to re-consider where my time should be spent), I'm doing testing on
the existing failover methods I've been using. If I find anything is really
not as good as I thought (or much better), then I can use that to guide
future design decisions.

Thank you for your help, Chris


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote:

> It also occurred to me just now that you might want to add -c 10000 or
> similar to end the ping command after a certain point.
> When you kill it with ctrl+c you can have a false drop reported because
> you might have killed it in between a request and reply.
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: 1/29/2018 12:25:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>
> Maybe it's obvious, but this method ought to be fairly accurate IF the
> time from one ping to another is very consistent.  I don't know the
> specific cause of the cases where the command is unable to satisfy the
> request for 1 ping per .001 second.  Obviously if that cause leads to
> variance from one ping to another then the accuracy suffers.
>
>
> Even if you don't get 1 ping per ms, you might be able to estimate as:
> (pings transmitted / time = time per ping)
> and
> (failover time = time per ping * (pings transmitted - pings received))
>
>
>

Reply via email to