ever see a ping like this?
-
I was pinging a printer to see if it was online, and noticed something weird. The ping time increments, and then drops back down again cyclically. Other printers of the same model aren't doing that and there are no print jobs going to it. I was pinging it because a print monitor application was suck at "Initial check of printer status..."
PS C:> ping 192.168.2.65 -t
Pinging 192.168.2.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 192.168.2.65: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60Ping statistics for 192.168.2.65:
Packets: Sent = 37, Received = 37, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 8ms, Average = 3ms -
-
It doesn't look any different than any other ping.... am I missing something?
-
on a LAN I always expect them to be <1ms, or on a WLAN maybe 3ms, but it's usually consistent. This ramps up, and then drops back to where it should be.
-
Is this going across a VoIP phone or something that might have be a bottle neck?
-
@DustinB3403 said in ever see a ping like this?:
It doesn't look any different than any other ping.... am I missing something?
Check out the ping times, it climbs from 1ms to 8ms and then drops back down to 1ms.
-
no, it's from a server to a network printer on a LAN.
-
I see that, but . . . it doesn't mean the issue is with the network, it could just be the device.
Or whatever its connected too.
-
Does the printer have a replaceable NIC? The hardware might be starting to crap out.
-
I mean that type of ping time isn't usually too much of an issue for a printer as long as it is receiving print jobs. It isn't like you are sending 100GB to a printer.
I have this gut feeling that your barking up the wrong tree here. Like @DustinB3403 said, I would suspect something is going on at the device level and I am not sure it is the NIC.
-
Ring buffer filling up likely.
-
@IRJ said in ever see a ping like this?:
I mean that type of ping time isn't usually too much of an issue for a printer as long as it is receiving print jobs. It isn't like you are sending 100GB to a printer.
I have this gut feeling that your barking up the wrong tree here. Like @DustinB3403 said, I would suspect something is going on at the device level and I am not sure it is the NIC.
Was he barking? or was he just inquiring to something that seemed like odd behavior?
-
The printer is working. I was just wondering if anyone else had seen that behavior before.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ever see a ping like this?:
Ring buffer filling up likely.
What do you think would be filling the buffer?
-
@Dashrender said in ever see a ping like this?:
@scottalanmiller said in ever see a ping like this?:
Ring buffer filling up likely.
What do you think would be filling the buffer?
Ring buffers are tiny. It would be getting filled with ICMP caching or something of that nature.
-
hmmm... That network has 3 other printers of that same model and none of them act like that, so maybe there is something flaky going on in the hardware of that particular one.
-
@Mike-Davis said in ever see a ping like this?:
hmmm... That network has 3 other printers of that same model and none of them act like that, so maybe there is something flaky going on in the hardware of that particular one.
What brand model?
-
@Mike-Davis said in ever see a ping like this?:
The printer is working. I was just wondering if anyone else had seen that behavior before.
Never seen anything like it - very interesting
Have you run pings to other devices on your network to eliminate some possibilities?
-
I've seen this before. Usually it's latency on the network causing fluctuation in ping times, when it's local. When it's remote, there are so many variables and links in the chain, as it were, it's hard to know where the issues lies exactly. But it could be latency, failing NIC, failing port, old cable in the wall causing issues, EMI, etc.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in ever see a ping like this?:
I've seen this before. Usually it's latency on the network causing fluctuation in ping times, when it's local. When it's remote, there are so many variables and links in the chain, as it were, it's hard to know where the issues lies exactly. But it could be latency, failing NIC, failing port, old cable in the wall causing issues, EMI, etc.
It could be a bad networking cable. Had an AS400 once that had huge problems because of a bad LAN cable.
