[OT] Windows 2003 vs Knoppix

[Alma J Wetzker]

Man-wai Chang wrote:
> pinging from windows 2003 to the server:
> 
> C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping server
> 
> Pinging server.donkeyware.org [192.168.1.2] with 32 bytes of data:
> 
> Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
> Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=64
> Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=64
> Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=64
> 
> 
> ping from knoppix linux to the same server:
> 
> root at Knoppix:/ # ping server
> PING server.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from server.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64
> time=0.492ms
> 64 bytes from smtp.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64
> time=0.524 ms
> 64 bytes from news.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64
> time=0.549 ms
> 64 bytes from www.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64
> time=0.541 ms
> 64 bytes from pop.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64
> time=0.548 ms
> 64 bytes from ftp.donkeyware.org (192.168.1.2): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64
> time=0.538 ms
> 
> 0.6 ms vs 20ms. Why is there such a big difference? What the hell was 
> the Windows 2003 doing behind the scene?

Be Careful.  I think the MicroSchlock EULA prohibits any type of 
published benchmarking without written permission from M$. <g>

You could try using the IP address directly to determine if it is a 
stack issue or a DNS issue.  I think I remember reading that the 
overhead is establishing a TCP connection, Once that is up, things are 
much faster.

     -- Alma