User talk:Jonathan

From Armagetron
Revision as of 09:32, 6 November 2006 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Nope, not MTU.)

Armadillo Aerospace found when they arrived for the xprize that they were getting something like 90% packet loss from their laptop to the transmitter (or whatever. There was a cabled connection between the controlling computer and the rocket itself). They changed the ethernet cable and it went back to normal. Turns out the first cable got pinched in the van on the way down. --Lucifer 17:23, 4 November 2006 (CST)

I don't have much control here, so all I can do is report. My observations so far, in case anyone is interested:

Larger packets are lost more often.
Corrupted underway?
I can reach the local router with no loss.
LAN is fine.
Packets get lost before the next hop.
Now we know roughly where it is caused.
I don't always get loss. Either it works fine, or I get crazy loss, and changes aren't gradual. I can't relate it to anything.
No idea. Maybe a variable noise source near a cable?

Jonathan 07:39, 5 November 2006 (CST)

Try this page, and see if you get all the images ;) http://www.elifulkerson.com/projects/downloads/mtu-eyechart/index.html

If you can't see the last images with the larger numbers, set your MTU to the highest value shown. If you're using DSL and you've got a router that does not automatically reject packets that are too big (for the connection to your ISP) then you'll get random packet loss if the request or packet send is too big. ... see here: http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/N100603.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_transmission_unit --Joda 03:53, 6 November 2006 (CST)

No, that's not it. The fact that 1500 byte packets get 89% loss (not 100%, BTW) doesn't mean that 84 byte packets don't get 18%. And yes, I can see everything on that page. I experimented with lowering the MTU to improve reliability before your message, but I found that I can't get practical performance out of it either way, and that it's better to leave it at 1500 so it works well when it works at all. --Jonathan 07:32, 6 November 2006 (CST)