|
Re: Possible Bug in VMNG300 firmware?
heh I did another and I just about hung onto 10ms average.
Pinging 194.168.4.100 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Ping statistics for 194.168.4.100:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 5ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 8ms
here is some from earlier tho in afternoon. I used to be able to get like this in the evenings also only 2 or so weeks ago. I think VM have dumped some users on my port with some rebalancing.
Pinging 194.168.4.100 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Ping statistics for 194.168.4.100:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 10ms, Average = 7ms
|