From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 18:23:38 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 934F316A4CE; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C8543D48; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:23:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2G2NbBL044556; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:23:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2G2NbWK044555; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:23:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:23:37 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20040316022337.GA44429@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <2650.192.168.0.200.1079393908.squirrel@192.168.0.1> <20040316000544.GA33122@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040316000544.GA33122@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: Mike Jakubik 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 02:23:38 -0000 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. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net