"Balaji is correct- there is no bad latency here."
Laugh, ah, but are you sure?
"I was working on different platform that was providing output in units of .001 seconds. I didn't realize that this device was using 1 millisecond as unit."
Okay, that's fine, but let's look at those milli-second values, from (about) half a millisecond to (about) 1.5 milliseconds.
(Interestingly, the Nexus [?] is measuring ping times down to thousandths of a millisecond, i.e. microseconds.)
Assuming you're ping minimum size packets are 64 bytes, and the two devices are really physical close (?), and transmission rate is gig, and link is lightly loaded, what's (about) the minimum latency that might be expected?
So, a 64 byte packet comprises 512 bits, which divided by 1,000,000,000 bps should take 0.000000512 seconds, or 0.000512 milliseconds, or 0.512 microseconds. Latency is two way, so if we double that, we have about 1 microsecond latency!
If you want to account for electrical propagation delay, is (about) 5 ns per meter (for copper [using copper as I recall its slower than fiber {of course, cannot go as far, either}]) so, figure up to .5 us for 100 m, or 1 us for round-trip.
So, assuming my math is correct, minimum latency should be about, up to, 2 microseconds, a lot, lot less than your measured ping times.
Oh my gosh, your measured latency is horrible!!!
I really doubt that it is, for some of the reasons described in my earlier post, and including things like how accurately times are recorded for ping transmissions and their replies. Likely, ping program is grabbing the system time when packets are sent or received, but we don't know how well that's sync'ed with actual packet transmissions and receptions (or whether transmission times are more accurately recorded than reception times [if you think they should be the same, that would be nice, but don't count on it])?
BTW, the forgoing is why I didn't, also, just figure the latency is okay because they are about 1 ms. However, for the reasons in this and my prior posting, I don't believe there is a latency issue, either.
As an aside, as Ethernet went to 100 Mbps and gig, cut through switching fell to the side, as the time deltas became so small between using it or not. However, packet buffering latency, becomes more as packet size increases (think jumbo Ethernet), and some folk (automated stock trades [or possibly some USAF "apps"]), find saving a microsecond or two, important.
