From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 18:51:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3725616A4CE; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.fud.org.nz (203-79-110-29.cable.paradise.net.nz [203.79.110.29]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB02143D1F; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:51:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andy@fud.org.nz) Received: by smtp.fud.org.nz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 239C21705A; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:51:16 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:51:16 +1300 From: Andrew Thompson To: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <20040316025116.GA32550@kate.fud.org.nz> References: <2650.192.168.0.200.1079393908.squirrel@192.168.0.1> <20040316000544.GA33122@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040316022337.GA44429@ns1.xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040316022337.GA44429@ns1.xcllnt.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Mike Jakubik cc: net@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Byte counters reset at ~4GB X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:51:18 -0000 On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:23:37PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at > > > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to > > > see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have > > > this, as 4 GB is just not that much anymore. I know this is a 32bit > > > limitation of the variable, but that's just bad coding in my opinion (no > > > offence intended), I mean there must be some way around this. > > > > I think in the past it's been pointed out changing to a 64-bit > > variable would slow down the code on non-64-bit architectures like the > > venerable i386. > > Is there a particular reason I don't know about as to why we cannot > introduce a MD typedef for counters like this (or even just "long")? > I mean, if people make the statement that widening counters is not an > option because it slows down some platforms, I must be missing the > reason for it to be an all or none kind of issue. > It seems it already is. u_long ifi_ibytes; /* total number of octets received */ u_long ifi_obytes; /* total number of octets sent */