Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:54:33 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: "James E. Housley" <jeh@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>, Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 64 bit counters again Message-ID: <20020114115433.D8955@nexus.root.com> In-Reply-To: <3C4338EA.1D698EF1@FreeBSD.org>; from jeh@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 03:00:42PM -0500 References: <3C41F3FD.4ECC8CD@mindspring.com> <20020113231459.GA30349@voi.aagh.net> <3C42390A.F9E9F533@mindspring.com> <3C42E899.CB21BD0A@FreeBSD.org> <20020114105859.A24635@technokratis.com> <3C4305E5.65BB32A6@FreeBSD.org> <20020114114911.A24990@technokratis.com> <20020114094738.A8955@nexus.root.com> <3C4334A1.6601C5ED@mindspring.com> <3C4338EA.1D698EF1@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>That sounds reasonable. 1024 might be a problem becuase of smaller ACK >or setup packets, but the concept is reasonable. I would like to know >the amount of data transmitted and received because that is what we are >billed on. And at that datarate, to the bit accuracy is crazy. But the >results should be close enough to reality to be able to trust it with a >small fudge fact for saftey. It's not reasonable because most packets are either small (40 bytes) or MTU sized. The distribution of sizes is not random and keeping only 1K internal precision would not result in anything near accurate in terms of bps. -DG David Greenman Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com President, Download Technologies, Inc. - http://www.downloadtech.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020114115433.D8955>