From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lincoln Dale Subject: Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:44:44 +1000 Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020612221925.0283fb18@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Horst von Brand , "David S. Miller" , Ben Greear , , Return-path: To: jamal In-Reply-To: List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org At 08:33 AM 12/06/2002 -0400, jamal wrote: > > i know of many many folk who use transaction logs from HTTP caches for > > volume-based billing. > > right now, those bills are anywhere between 10% to 25% incorrect. > > > > you call that "extremely limited"? > >Surely, you must have better ways to do accounting than this -- otherwise >you deserve to loose money. many people don't have better ways to do accounting than this. in the case of Squid and Linux, they're typically using it because its open-source and "free". they want to use HTTP Caching to save bandwidth (and therefore save money), but they also live in a regime of volume-based billing. (not everywhere on the planet is fixed-$/month for DSL). the unfortunate solution is to use HTTP Transaction logs, which count payload at layer-7, not payload+headers+retransmissions at layer-3. > > of course, i am doing exactly what Dave said to do -- maintaining my own > > out-of-kernel patch -- but its a pain, i'm sure it will soon conflict with > > stuff and is a damn shame - it isn't much code, but Dave seems pretty > > steadfast that he isn't interested. > >You havent proven why its needed. And from the looks of it you dont even >need it. i don't need it because i already have it in my kernel. but thats where it ends -- its destined to forever be a private patch. >If 3 people need it, then i would like to ask we add lawn mower >support that my relatives have been asking for the last 5 years. lawn-mower support sounds like a userspace application to me. cheers, lincoln.