Vladim�r Trebick� wrote:
>I use ESFQ and it's stable and functional ;-) Really. Read my article about
>not setting perturb too small.
>
>
Yes, I saw that; its a good hint for SFQ as well (and it fixed some neat
oddities too).
Anyone else seen this one?
ping -n {remote host}
{ 6 second delay }
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=6sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=5sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=4sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=3sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=2sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=1sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=242usec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=250usec
...
--
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
