What is the logic in reducing the interval anyway , ratio will be same. I tried the same thing from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:$uname -a Darwin Anuj-Singhs-Computer.local 8.11.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.11.1: Wed Oct 10 18:23:28 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.25.20~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:$ping -c20 google.com PING google.com (64.233.167.99): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=2088.135 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=333.660 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=331.874 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=242 time=331.037 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=4 ttl=242 time=334.124 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=5 ttl=242 time=334.087 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=6 ttl=242 time=339.796 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=7 ttl=242 time=333.628 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=8 ttl=242 time=334.978 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=9 ttl=242 time=333.271 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=10 ttl=242 time=334.863 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=11 ttl=242 time=333.573 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=12 ttl=242 time=334.270 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=13 ttl=242 time=333.450 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=14 ttl=242 time=333.656 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=15 ttl=242 time=333.285 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=16 ttl=242 time=334.688 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=17 ttl=242 time=333.940 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=18 ttl=242 time=330.925 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=19 ttl=242 time=332.868 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 330.925/421.505/2088.135/382.355 ms And uname -a Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 SMP Fri Jan 26 14:15:21 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# ping -c20 google.com PING google.com (72.14.207.99) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=1 ttl=240 time=343 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=2 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=3 ttl=240 time=343 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=5 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=8 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=9 ttl=240 time=344 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=10 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=11 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=12 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=13 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=14 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=15 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=16 ttl=240 time=343 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=17 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=18 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=19 ttl=240 time=342 ms 64 bytes from eh-in-f99.google.com (72.14.207.99): icmp_seq=20 ttl=240 time=342 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 17 received, 15% packet loss, time 20828ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 342.261/342.912/344.429/0.937 ms From [EMAIL PROTECTED] uname -a Linux redhat.dingdong.com 2.6.23.8-63.fc8 #1 SMP Wed Nov 21 18:51:08 EST 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping -c 20 64.233.167.99 PING 64.233.167.99 (64.233.167.99) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=238 time=148 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=238 time=151 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=4 ttl=238 time=147 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=6 ttl=238 time=147 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=8 ttl=238 time=154 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=11 ttl=238 time=148 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=12 ttl=238 time=145 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=13 ttl=238 time=154 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=14 ttl=238 time=149 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=15 ttl=238 time=146 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=16 ttl=238 time=144 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=17 ttl=238 time=146 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=18 ttl=238 time=164 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=19 ttl=238 time=149 ms 64 bytes from 64.233.167.99: icmp_seq=20 ttl=238 time=145 ms --- 64.233.167.99 ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 15 received, 25% packet loss, time 19072ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 144.388/149.593/164.024/4.810 ms It is with particular machine only pointed at py-in-f99.google.com (64.233.167.99). Which is either dropping icmp packets or has some hardware problem. anuj. On Dec 30, 2007 10:09 AM, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21:39:22 Dec 28, Siju George wrote: > > > Thanks Ashish, > > So it is not a problem with my firewall :-) > > > > May be Arun sharma knows how to get in touch with google about this. > > You guys are on the wrong track. > > # uname -a > > OpenBSD siva.gayatri-hitech.com 4.2 GENERIC#2 i386 > > # ping -i 0.02 -c 20 google.com > PING google.com (64.233.187.99): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=278.921 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=280.434 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=279.201 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=242 time=278.709 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=4 ttl=242 time=279.748 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=5 ttl=242 time=280.315 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=6 ttl=242 time=280.609 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=7 ttl=242 time=280.410 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=8 ttl=242 time=278.823 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=9 ttl=242 time=281.250 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=10 ttl=242 time=283.874 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=11 ttl=242 time=280.639 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=12 ttl=242 time=279.737 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=13 ttl=242 time=279.808 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=14 ttl=242 time=281.076 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=15 ttl=242 time=278.680 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=16 ttl=242 time=277.742 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=17 ttl=242 time=277.546 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=18 ttl=242 time=281.282 ms > 64 bytes from 64.233.187.99: icmp_seq=19 ttl=242 time=279.506 ms > --- google.com ping statistics --- > 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 277.546/279.915/283.874/1.486 ms > > When I reduce the interval all packets are going thro'. > > Looks like it is some intermediate router dropping packets or something > or that simply the server farm in google is having trouble responding > ping packets. > > If you try google.co.in, there is no problem of course. > > -Girish > > _______________________________________________ > bsd-india mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.bsd-india.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-india > _______________________________________________ bsd-india mailing list [email protected] http://www.bsd-india.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-india
