[163283] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Headscratcher of the week
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Dunlap)
Sat Jun 1 00:19:53 2013
In-Reply-To: <51A9430C.9010502@NEEBU.Net>
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:18:51 -0500
To: Jake Khuon <khuon@neebu.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I agree with previous poster, table size progression and corresponding
increase in search delay, probably related directly to the monitoring
itself, or at least a connection state of some kind.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jake Khuon <khuon@neebu.net> wrote:
> On 31/05/13 17:30, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>
> How can you possibly have consistent increase in latency like
>>> that?
>>> I'd love to hear theories (or offers of beer, your choice!).
>>>
>>
> Variation of the buffer filling theory is that there's some
> QoS/traffic-shaping going on which is causing your ping packets to get
> classed and policed into an ever depleting buffer pool.
>
> I wonder what would happen to the pattern if you reset the interface. |8^)
>
>
> --
> /*=================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]=================+
> | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | -------- |
> | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS |
> +=============================**==============================**=======*/
>
>
