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