From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rajesh Srivastava" Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:30:20 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Difference between tc reported rate and IPTraf Rate MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C349F2.ED013B20" Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: To: lartc@vger.kernel.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C349F2.ED013B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [LARTC] Difference between tc reported rate and IPTraf RateTrevor, Thanks for pointing out one of the possible reasons for the difference. However, in this case I have also tried using the local display and got = similar results ( though the difference reduces a bit). Thanks, Rajesh >Hey pal, >What about the overhead part to create the display that flows between >the internet gateway(Machine you are monitoring) and your machine???. >Trevor On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 14:35, Rajesh Srivastava wrote: > I am using HTB+IMQ on an Ethernet bridge and tc for statistics > reporting. > =20 > I am finding that tc reported rate is about 5-10% less than that > reported by IPTraf for the same traffic. > =20 > Has anyone observed this before? Which is more accurate? > =20 > Rajesh=20 --=20 ( >- LINUX, It's all about CHOICE -< ) /~\ __ twarren@redhat.com __ /~\ | \) / Pre Sales Consultant - Red Hat \ (/ | |_|_ \ 9820349221(M) | 22881326(O) / _|_| \___________________________________/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- a.. Previous message: [LARTC] Difference between tc reported rate = and IPTraf Rate=20 b.. Next message: [Re: [LARTC] marking in OUTPUT --mangle; locally = generated packets and route lookup - broken?]=20 c.. Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C349F2.ED013B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [LARTC] Difference between tc reported rate and = IPTraf Rate
Trevor,
 
Thanks for pointing out one of the = possible reasons=20 for the difference.
 
However, in this case I have also tried = using the=20 local display and got similar results ( though the difference reduces a=20 bit).
 
Thanks,
 
Rajesh
 
 
>Hey pal,

>What about the overhead part to create the = display=20 that flows between
>the internet gateway(Machine you are = monitoring) and=20 your machine???.

>Trevor

On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 14:35, = Rajesh=20 Srivastava wrote:
> I am using HTB+IMQ on an Ethernet bridge = and tc for=20 statistics
> reporting.
>  =
> I am=20 finding that tc reported rate is about 5-10% less than = that
>=20 reported by IPTraf for the same traffic.
>  =
>=20 Has anyone observed this before? Which is more = accurate?
> =20
> Rajesh
--
(=20 >-        LINUX, It's all about=20 CHOICE      -< )
/~\   =20 __        twarren@redhat.com  &nbs= p;   =20 __   /~\
|  \) /  Pre Sales Consultant - Red=20 Hat     \ (/ |
|_|_  = \   =20 9820349221(M) | 22881326(O)      /=20 _|_|
      =20 \___________________________________/


------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C349F2.ED013B20-- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/