From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751216AbWGQWeZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:34:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751158AbWGQWeZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:34:25 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:33582 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751096AbWGQWeY (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:34:24 -0400 Date: 17 Jul 2006 18:34:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20060717223423.24205.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: linux@horizon.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> I have deployed two nearly identical servers in Florida (I live in >> Washington state) but one difference: one uses ext3 and the other >> reiser4. The ping time of the reiser4 server is (on average) 20ms faster >> than the ext3 server. > > OK, I'll bite. What *POSSIBLE* reason is there for the choice of filesystem > to matter to an ICMP Echo Request/Reply? I'm suspecting something else, > like the ext3 server needs to re-ARP before sending the Echo Reply, or some > such. Er... I was assuming that was an application-level ping, e.g. "fetch database-generated web page", and not an ICMP-level ping. If this *is* talking about ICMP-level ping, I agree completely; that makes no sense. Either there is a dire bug in Linux networking, or the networks aren't the same. Assuming the two machines are located together (if they're not, there's your problem right there), is the same 20 ms visible when you ping them from each other?