From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bernhard Bitsch <Bernhard.Bitsch@gmx.de>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Aw: Re: [PATCH] vnstat: Update to 1.18
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:39:29 +0100
Message-ID:
 <trinity-608dd9fd-edbe-4fc9-ae64-0624640fe3cc-1521808769881@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
In-Reply-To:
 <trinity-57660a8c-7e59-4ed6-b024-7c803e7bb812-1521660604280@3c-app-gmx-bs30>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0793827138123253300=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============0793827138123253300==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. M=C3=A4rz 2018 um 20:30 Uhr
> Von: "Bernhard Bitsch" <Bernhard.Bitsch(a)gmx.de>
> An: "Matthias Fischer" <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org>
> Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" <development(a)lists.ipfire.org>
> Betreff: Aw: Re: [PATCH] vnstat: Update to 1.18
>
>=20
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. M=C3=A4rz 2018 um 18:38 Uhr
> > Von: "Matthias Fischer" <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org>=20
> > An: "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>, "IPFire: Development-=
List" <development(a)lists.ipfire.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [PATCH] vnstat: Update to 1.18
> >
> > >=20
> > > P.S. I did not appreciate that comment of that forum user about this bu=
g. Bugs
> > > happen. If he doesn't like it, he can take lots of =E2=82=AC=E2=82=AC=
=E2=82=AC=E2=82=AC into his hand and pay
> > > other people to get their bugs.
> >=20
> > Me too. But I tried to be patient, took a deep breath and tried to keep
> > calm and ~professional. Wasn't easy. Besides, I don't think this is
> > really a "bug". 'vnstat' can handle his speed and download rates with no
> > problems. It just happened that they were a bit too much for the
> > standard config - in *his* case.
> >=20
> > Best,
> > Matthias
> >=20
> >=20
> Hi,
>=20
> just my opinion ( I've investigated now a bit about this "problem" ;) )
> The "solution" isn't really that. The changed parameter is only used by vns=
tatd, which isn't used in IPFire. I can't imagine what did the remedy.
> We don't know exactly his configuration. Therefore I gave him some hints to=
 help clarifying the case.
> If he doesn't answer, just forget his unqualified comment.
>=20
> Best,
> Bernhard
>=20

News about the vnstat problem.
Intensive PMs with Zonediver showed that the effect is caused by 32 bit byte =
counters of the NIC. ( vnstat reads /proc/net/dev )
He changed the fcrontab period for makegraphs to 3 minutes now. Amount of byt=
es received in this period is less than 2^32.

Remain two questions:=20
- Is this a normal behaviour for the combination of i210-T1 NIC and associate=
d driver or is this specific to his system?
- Can we use the vnstatd daemon? This would allow to increase the vnstat upda=
te frequency independent from makegraphs.

I've found a thumb rule for the maximal update period for a given bandwidth. =
I've documented this in the forum thread.

Best,
Bernhard


--===============0793827138123253300==--