Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:11:13 -0500 From: Jason Morgan <jwm-freebsd@sentinelchicken.net> To: Frank.Reppin@boerde.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: monitoring traffic with IPFW - good idea? Message-ID: <20030125171113.GB7778@sentinelchicken.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301251734180.795-100000@relay.boerde.de> References: <20030125160751.GB7622@sentinelchicken.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301251734180.795-100000@relay.boerde.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. Jason On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 05:46:28PM +0100, Frank Reppin wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Jason Morgan wrote: > > Hi, > > yes - why not. I do the same here on our net with IPFW count > rules. In this way I divided those rules to monitor different > subnets, protocols and I also monitor the bandwidth usage > for some services. All this informations gets then piped > through MRTG (www.mrtg.org) and produces some nice graphs - showing > the used bandwidth. > On the other hand it might be enough for you, if you only see > what actually happened by watching the rules manually - in other > words - get the output mailed from time to time. > > Maybe someone has a clue, if a lot of count rules (I mean really lots > of them) have any 'bad' side effects on performance. So far I don't > see problems with around 80 rules on PII400/128MB counting traffic > from/to upstream (2.3Mbit/s) via 100MBit/s interfaces in this box. > I think of doing accounting here for a /22 net (atm this is done > by a linux box with ipac). > > Best regards, > > Frank Reppin > > -- > Heidestr. 15 > 39112 Magdeburg > Germany > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030125171113.GB7778>