Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:51:16 +1300 From: Andrew Thompson <andy@fud.org.nz> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Byte counters reset at ~4GB Message-ID: <20040316025116.GA32550@kate.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <20040316022337.GA44429@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <2650.192.168.0.200.1079393908.squirrel@192.168.0.1> <20040316000544.GA33122@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040316022337.GA44429@ns1.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. <snip if.h> u_long ifi_ibytes; /* total number of octets received */ u_long ifi_obytes; /* total number of octets sent */
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040316025116.GA32550>