perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Negative Latency Times on MaDDash
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: Mark Feit <>
- To: Michael Reece <>
- Cc: Gene Gerhiser <>, "<>" <>
- Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Negative Latency Times on MaDDash
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:09:29 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: nd.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nd.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=internet2.edu;
Michael Reece writes:
Inaccurate as it is at short range, there may still be value in measuring latency if you’re not too concerned with the absolute figure. Between the laws of physics and the accuracy of your timekeeping, it’s possible come up with a rough number for the
upper end of “normal” behavior for segments on your network with the inaccuracies factored in. (You should be able to correlate that with what you’ve observed previously.) Measurements below that number may not be accurate, but they do tell you that things
are good within some limit of believability. As the actual latency increases, the influence of the timekeeping error becomes smaller, but crossing the line may be a good indicator that things may be headed off the rails.
MaDDash isn’t my area of specialty, but I think Ivan’s comments should get you moving in the right direction.
—Mark
|
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Negative Latency Times on MaDDash, Michael Reece, 04/04/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Negative Latency Times on MaDDash, Michael Reece, 04/04/2016
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Negative Latency Times on MaDDash, Garnizov, Ivan (RRZE), 04/05/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Negative Latency Times on MaDDash, Mark Feit, 04/05/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.