Re: TNSPING VS. REGULAR PING..! WHY SUCH A DIFFERENCE

[Tanel Poder]

I agree that this difference might be only because sqlnet is much more "fat" that ICMP.   But anyway, could some overhead be added be because the failover & load balancing clauses that require extra work? Also, if listener logs every connection, this might add some extra IO time as well (if writes for log file aren't write buffered).   Tanel.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Murali Vallath To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:29 AM Subject: TNSPING VS. REGULAR PING..! WHY SUCH A DIFFERENCE I have recently noticed in this one situation that there is a great difference between a tnsping vs a regular ping to the same server.   for example  this tnsping took about 270 ms which is strange and its consistent Used TNSNAMES adapter to resolve the alias Attempting to contact (DESCRIPTION = (ADD RESS_LIST = (load_balance = on) (failover = on) (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST  = myhost1.com)(PORT = 1521)) (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = myhost2.com)( PORT = 1521))) (CONNECT_DATA = (SERVICE_NAME = xyzdb) (FAILOVER_MODE = (TYPE  = SELECT) (METHOD = BASIC) (RETRIES = 20) (DELAY = 15)))) OK (270 msec)   and a ping to the same host Ping statistics for x.x.x.x:     Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:     Minimum = 61ms, Maximum =  70ms, Average =  67ms Why could there be such a difference?         Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square