On Tuesday 08 May 2001 17:41, Andreas Rabus wrote: > >Not only will it not report the size of the http headers, but it won't > > report > > >the TCP and IP frame information and any ICMP messages that may be > > required. > > >What is the problem with automatically sucking the sizes out of webalizer > >files and reporting them in some other format? > > the answer ist simple: Paranoia. :) > Webalizer crashed several times and we lost all statistics (didn't keept > the lof-files so long).
That's bad. No backups? > And i dont't like to mess around in HTML-Code that isn't written by me. Good point. Maybe an addition to webalizer to make it produce a plain text or csv file with such data would be a good idea. If it just appended a line to the file for each run then a crash wouldn't lose anything. > Back to questioning: > recently i did some calculation and find out that webalizer results are > about about 85% of the net-acct results. > Ist that an realistic overhead form http-headers, ICMP (on or to port 80?), > and TCP/IP frame info, etc.? It depends on the type of data. If you are running a mirror of ftp.debian.org and sending it all out by HTTP then 15% overhead sounds a little high. If you have lots of small files (<2K) then you could easily have more than that. > PS: we pay for the traffic "on the cable" and webalizer only gets the > "pay-load" from http. True. But you could just price things accordingly. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
