[email protected] wrote: > On Thursday, February 09, 2017 07:36:50 AM Dan Purgert wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >> > 2. I'm sure that I'm looking at the download flows from my ISP as the >> > ratio of the octets / bytes between the two flows is generally >> > something like 10 to 1. I'm sure that I am not uploading 10 times >> > (or even the same number) of bytes as I am downloading. (For >> > example, I rarely upload anything, and rarely have attachments to >> > emails...) >> >> I don't quite follow this one. Do you mean that you're seeing something >> like > > Well, the first time I read your post (the one this responded to, I > got the (mistaken, I think) impression that you thought I had the in > and out directions backwards, so I was trying to clarify.
Not "backwards" per se, but yeah I was trying to confirm that we were on the same page. > > If I'm not mistaken again, I believe we both agree that: > > Downloads from Earthlink: WAN in / LAN out > Uploads to Earthlink: WAN out / LAN in > >> > - "Downloading" (WAN_IN / LAN_OUT) == 10 bytes >> > - "Uploading" (LAN_IN / WAN_OUT) == 100 bytes > > Yes we definitely agree. > > By talking about the 10 to 1 ratio, I was trying to confirm that I had > the directions correct, in other words, using your example, my > situation is: > > - "Downloading" (WAN_IN / LAN_OUT) == 100 bytes > - "Uploading" (LAN_IN / WAN_OUT) == 10 bytes That is perfectly fine and normal then. > >> If you (or anyone in the house) play games, then the traffic (at least >> for the game) will be about equal. > > My son does play one online game, "Words with Friends" [...] Eh, I was thinking more stuff like Minecraft, Space Engineers, or other "real time" multiplayer games, where there is a fair bit of communication between the client and server. > [...] > Thanks, I will send it to you, by attaching it to another copy of this > response sent to your address, only... Got the thing, just didn't have any time to look yesterday. Perhaps I'll have some time this afternoon. > > Note that the counters on the Westell apparently rollover at 2^32, so the > formulas in my spreadsheet have to take that into account. Some times > I have to manually adjust (once so far, and I did it by a slight > one-time revision to the formula in the given cell). Odd that they'd be using a 32-bit int in any devices these days, but meh. However, that rollover will play all kinds of havoc with the numbers, unless you're resetting the counters every day. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
