From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 16:07:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5643B16A4CE; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:07:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342A243D46; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:07:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (be9cf6046ce87221346a7cc128646689@adsl-67-119-53-203.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.119.53.203])i2G07CXY029267; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:07:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A1FF51BFB; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:05:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:05:44 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Mike Jakubik Message-ID: <20040316000544.GA33122@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <2650.192.168.0.200.1079393908.squirrel@192.168.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2650.192.168.0.200.1079393908.squirrel@192.168.0.1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: current@freebsd.org cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Byte counters reset at ~4GB X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:07:13 -0000 --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Hello, >=20 > 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. Kris --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAVkTXWry0BWjoQKURAiioAJ9GLDXfuUtl9wHJu+Mp15sos+0UAACeIIAC wYv9WWX6bGQPhfbTgjxBqsQ= =DdDC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO--