Rick Jones wrote:
>...
>where I may desire a step value of one second for the octet, packet,
>error and discard counters, I probably don't care for that small a
>granularity for index, type, speed, direction and status. not that ntop
>makes distinctions there when it creates rrds, but then it doe
> Having said that, as I'm getting farther in my own little "store away
> the sFlow counters" program I've realized that I may not want the same
> step value for each of the values returned for an interface. for
> example, out of the generic counters returned by sFlow:
>
> typedef struct sflow_gen
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 15:54 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:28 +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
> > Rick Jones wrote:
> > Where there is a likelyhood of the number of datasets changing then
> > you are better off with separate files. An example of that would be
> > monitoring disk s
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:28 +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
> Where there is a likelyhood of the number of datasets changing then
> you are better off with separate files. An example of that would be
> monitoring disk space where you may add or remove a filesystem. In
> that case
Rick Jones wrote:
>First a "style" question I suppose. Let's say for the sake of argument
>I decided to write my own "take sFlow counters and shove them into an
>RRD" program. Each interface has a number of counters. One can specify
>more than one DS per RRD but it seems that ntop for example ha
