Re: c'est pire la nuit !!!
J'ai enlevé la limite de ping, pas de changement.
Comme Annie le conseiller dans sa réponse, j'ai pingé le premier routeur
que je traverse et le ping est bon, pas de perte.
bart:/var/log# traceroute ns1.free.Fr
traceroute to dial-ns1-2.free.Fr (213.228.0.168), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
1 192.168.254.254 (192.168.254.254) 41.100 ms 39.061 ms 39.876 ms
2 vlq-6k-2.routers.proxad.net (212.27.37.61) 39.133 ms 37.825 ms
38.891 ms
3 vlq-6k-1-a6.routers.proxad.net (213.228.3.1) 40.840 ms 40.066 ms
39.560 ms
4 dnscache1-l.proxad.net (213.228.0.168) 40.174 ms 40.112 ms 39.869 ms
bart:/var/log# ping -c 20 192.168.254.254
PING 192.168.254.254 (192.168.254.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=43.4 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=41.4 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=41.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=43.2 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=41.2 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=42.5 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=43.2 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=41.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=255 time=43.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=255 time=40.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=11 ttl=255 time=41.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=12 ttl=255 time=42.1 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=13 ttl=255 time=41.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=14 ttl=255 time=41.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=15 ttl=255 time=42.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=16 ttl=255 time=40.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=17 ttl=255 time=41.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=18 ttl=255 time=42.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=19 ttl=255 time=40.5 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.254.254: icmp_seq=20 ttl=255 time=41.7 ms
--- 192.168.254.254 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19016ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 40.399/41.933/43.459/0.952 ms
J'ai également vérifier mes logs pppd, et j'ai une quantité
impressionnante de ces messages :
pppoe: Timeout waiting for PADO packets
PADS: System-Error: No resources
J'ai lu sur un forum que si la modem était connecté en ethernet, il
était préférable que la carte réseau soit en half-duplex. Est ce vrai ??
Merci
Thomas Labourdette wrote:
Le Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 12:33:12PM +0200, TRISTRAM Herve écrivait:
En entrée, je limite les ping a 4/s aprés la premiere seconde.
J'ai essayé des ping d'une de mes machines du lan et comme tu peux le
voir, c'est pas brillant.
bart:~# ping -c 20 cisco.com
PING cisco.com (198.133.219.25) 56(84) bytes of data.
20 packets transmitted, 14 received, 30% packet loss, time 62002ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 187.573/242.683/315.356/39.817 ms
Et en enlevant la limite de 4 ping /seconde, ça donne quoi ?
@+
Reply to: