[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] TCP/IP stats (bits/s) limited to 100M
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] TCP/IP stats (bits/s) limited to 100M
- From: henrik (at) hswn.dk (Henrik Stoerner)
- Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:23:57 +0200
- References: <E2B7C293059E7146B7EB8029362BB6040125803E@PTPEVS101BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it> <20060628110913.GB7766@hswn.dk> <20060628102526.8F1E.WXXX333@gmail.com> <7D4B3C3D-6DB8-4764-82F5-E5DA90AF4EB6@unikservice.com> <20060709161813.GA337@hswn.dk> <A820D0AB-221A-4885-A8D5-AEA98F6DE349@PacketPushers.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Hi Scott,
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 04:02:32PM -0400, Scott Walters wrote:
> >The question then
> >becomes "what's a suitable max" for these data ? Should I
> >assume they are 32-bit counters ? I know some of them are not
> >(e.g. Solaris has 64-bit counters for bytes in/out per interface).
>
> exactly, and it is even more complicated than that . . . see below
[snip explanation]
> And Henrik, the net result to you will be answering an endless stream
> of emails regarding why every COUNTER RRD has spikes . . . I've been
> there, done that ;) I am almost 100% positive there is not *one*
> counter RRD in the larrd stuff, all DERIVE. It's not impossible
> rrdtool has changed to alleviate some of this, but from what I have
> read of your email streams it I haven't seen anything to support that.
Your experience certainly carries a lot of weight. Since I've never
used any COUNTER datasets I haven't seen this problem (you're right:
all the LARRD DS definitions use DERIVE - I copied those just about
verbatim into Hobbit).
So - I've undone the change. Back to DERIVE with MIN=0, and we'll
see how much trouble that gives us. So far, only one person has
noticed bad effects from this.
Thanks,
Henrik