Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time
Simon Hobson <dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk> Wed, 28 September 2016 11:21 UTC
Return-Path: <dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E969E12B43E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ti9SAwUkaxZ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [81.174.135.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8DC12B43A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (lan.furness.net [84.9.59.220]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B76321BC77 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:21:14 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Simon Hobson <dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1475051400.2256.62.camel@biplane.com.au>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:21:14 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E15D3367-B8CE-4D55-A5F8-A6578A4B097F@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <CAMpwFvo-J1CMVvDK16L034dPquqBeKq=5LAMgw0ZNCrF8pQMzQ@mail.gmail.com> <1475051400.2256.62.camel@biplane.com.au>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/UNOT6r1TtFT-Vol4BtS4wyXWcPU>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:21:29 -0000
Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote: > Not quite sure what you mean, but there would seem to be four obvious > methods to look at the protocol and compare before and after: > > 1: Turn on verbose logging on whatever server you are using and inspect > the logs > > 2: Run Wireshark on the client and inspect the traffic in real time ... I can't help thinking that the overhead of handling just one extra option would be completely lost in the natural variation in timing. I'd have thought that just the variation in disk access times (for updating the leases file) could run into 10's of milliseconds - vs (I'd have thought) some small fraction of a millisecond for processing the extra option.
- [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Hans Christian Silaban
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Karl Auer
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Simon Hobson
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Karl Auer
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time sthaug