Hobbitses (sorry for the LOTR humor :)
First off, said it before and will say it again. Hobbit Rules!
I am testing a host service through an ssh tunnel.
I have some questions on results I am seeing on the display.
Here is what the bb-hosts file looks like.
127.0.0.1 hobbit.foobar.com # BBDISPLAY BBPAGER BBNET bbd
http://hobbit.foobar.com/ ssh
1.2.3.4 remote.host.com #
127.0.0.1 ssh.remote.host.com # noconn ssh:2222
My /etc/hosts file is:
127.0.0.1 hobbit.foobar.com localhost 1.2.3.4 remote.host.com 127.0.0.1 ssh.remote.host.com
OK. The 1.2.3.4 is measuring the ping time across the net (no tunnel)
The display shows a average ping time of 32.4 ms. Between
hobbit.foobar.com and remote.host.com. Makes sense. The test is
between NY and Boston.
The conn time for hobbit.foobar.com is an average of 9.5 ms. This is
127.0.0.1. (Seems high)
The ssh test time for hobbit.foobar.com is an average of 1.5 ms.
Again 127.0.0.1 (better)
If I ping 127.0.0.1 at a command line on hobbit.foobar.com I get:
ping 127.0.0.1 PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.136 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.103 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.083 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.078 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms ^C --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.078/0.097/0.136/0.018 ms
Now, I test the ssh port 2222 which is going through the tunnel to
remote.host.com.
I get an average TCP connection time of 84.9 us. This does not make
sense.
I know that hobbit is indeed testing the remote ssh daemon
successfully because of the banner response.
The time just does not make sense. Even if hobbit is just giving the
localhost test time, I would
have expected the time to be exactly the same as hobbit.foobar.com.
Am I reading this wrong?
Thanks group,
Lee