On 10 Oct 2002 20:29:32 -0700 Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack,
Guess I've been quiet on this list for too long and don't recognize all
the names; worse, not all new members know me... oh well... :>
First chill out... my intent was to get the "me too'ers" to back off from
using bing cuz it's a "cool tool"...
> On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 19:46, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> <snip>
> > <flame>
> >
> > Folks,
^^^^^ == NOT targeted at an individual
The MAIN issue I was addressing was that people see some "neat _tool_",
rush out and get a copy, then proceed to ADD to the problem(s) someone
else is trying to resolve -- the equivalent of Internet
"rubber-neckers"...
> First, you assume that I don't know the current user or bandwidth load
> of the circuit, when in fact I know both and am working with my ISP to
> troubleshoot a problem.
"working with my ISP" is NOT clear proof that either or both parties
understand the symptoms, the effects, etc... worse, _altering_ the
problem by injecting additional traffic which changes what is being
analyzed. Increasing traffic this way will only move you closer to the
"avalanche" mode quicker -- it will not help you figure out the problem
(unless you are looking for a one in which all-0s or all-1s is impacting
the link).
> <snip>
> > "Tools" like this are unscientific and in an indirect way a DDoS
> > attack on the network.
>
> And second, you assume that bing is in the same class as rape.c. From
> the highly edifying man page:
> DESCRIPTION
> Bing determines bandwidth on a point-to-point link by
> sending ICMP ECHO_REQUEST packets and measuring their
> roundtrip times for different packet sizes on each end of
> the link.
>
> The actual packet stream used to measure bandwidth on the DS-3 was 3.6
> kbps.
So, can you tell me why it would even be necessary to measure this
link...? A DS-3 is (rounded) 45Mbps. If this is a *fractional* DS-3, I
could see the interest in finding the speed; but I'd simply *ask* the ISP
who **should** know how it's deployed -- especially when "working with my
ISP"
Besides, since you haven't found & fixed the problem, you can't say that
the link is not just 2kb from avalanching...
Do you know the characteristics of all the components involved in "round
trip times"...?
Here's a *partial* list:
- available memory (sender, routers, target)
- queue sizes (tx & rx)
- buffer availability (tx & rx)
- prioritization (sender, routers, target)
- queue position ( " )
- traffic already on wire
- bit transit time
- bit insertion (gapped clock): time on wire is longer than packet size
- packet size (changes RTT -- duh)
- packet loss
- retransmission
- "avalanching"
- accuracy of analysis "tool"
- etc....
Generally, over the years, I've found this type of "tool" to be more of a
hindrance in finding the root cause of problems... I can't recall the
number of times I've found the "tools" to be bogus...
> Thanks for playing!
When it come to problems, I don't play... usually, I end up being called
upon because there's more than one cause which the average troubleshooter
can't figure out... I don't know what's going on in your case; but I'd
bet you that bing will just delay finding the real cause(s)...
Tell us your problem(s)** and maybe we can help... Sorry, I didn't follow
this entire thread -- IIRC, the original poster wanted to know how to
determine 10 vs 100 Mbps ethernet... Using tools like bing on a locally
attached, personal link is one thing; using it on shared 'net resources is
an abuse, IMO -- and the reason for my flame.
** just the facts... can't begin to tell you the number of problems where
I've had to debug the reporter's analysis/interpretation *before* I could
begin to debug the actual problem...
Hope this makes sense... I just woke up and am still groggy... :^)
Enjoy,
Pierre
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
