On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T <m4rtn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for all the replies! > > > Nick, > > counting traffic on inter-switch links is kind of cheating, isn't it? > I mean if "input bytes" and "output bytes" on all the ports facing the > IX members are already counted, then counting traffic on links between > the switches in fabric will count some of the traffic multiple times. > > > > Patrick, > > how does smaller sampling period help to show more traffic volume on > switch fabric? Or do you mean that in case of shorter sampling periods > the traffic peaks are not averaged out and thus peak in and peak out > traffic levels remain higher?
The graph has a bigger peak, and DE-CIX has claimed "see, we are bigger" using such graphs. Not only did they not caveat the fact they were using a non-standard sampling method, they have refused to change when confronted or even say what their traffic would be with a 300 second timer. -- TTFN, patrick > On 9/17/13, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: >> On 17/09/2013 14:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> And yes, DE-CIX is more than well aware everyone thinks this is .. uh .. >>> let's just call it "silly" for now, although most would use far more >>> disparaging words. Which is probably why no serious IXP does it. >> >> It's not silly - it's just not what everyone else does, so it's not >> possible to directly compare stats with other ixps. I'm all in favour of >> using short (but technically sensible) sampling intervals for internal >> monitoring, but there are good reasons to use 300s / ingress sum for >> prettypics intended for public consumption. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
