Latency increases dramatically, fixed by reboot
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:48 pm
I am noticing a problem that seems to happen at random on our switches. On occasions, they are reported as "down" by our network monitoring system, but in fact, the switch is not really down, just that latencies have increased significantly. Here is a continuous-running ping, with a reboot. You can see the pings go from random and high values, to sub-5ms which is what we see in our entire network when operating correctly:
Any ideas?
- Code: Select all
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=26.1 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=139 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=854 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=853 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=1003 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=575 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=343 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=5.80 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=23.6 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=630 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=590 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=373 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=193 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=809 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=309 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=3.85 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=30 ttl=63 time=523 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=31 ttl=63 time=718 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=32 ttl=63 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=33 ttl=63 time=703 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=34 ttl=63 time=16.7 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=60 ttl=63 time=8.64 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=61 ttl=63 time=3.91 ms <- AFTER REBOOT
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=62 ttl=63 time=2.66 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=63 ttl=63 time=2.66 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=64 ttl=63 time=4.26 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=65 ttl=63 time=3.50 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=66 ttl=63 time=3.20 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=67 ttl=63 time=3.84 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=68 ttl=63 time=3.88 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=69 ttl=63 time=3.86 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=70 ttl=63 time=2.22 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=71 ttl=63 time=3.36 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=72 ttl=63 time=2.99 ms
64 bytes from 172.16.255.151: icmp_seq=73 ttl=63 time=2.82 ms
Any ideas?