[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071017134249.GD16356@wq.cz>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:42:49 +0200
From: Milan Kocian <milon@...cz>
To: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Difference between device statistics from ifconfig and ip -s l
l
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:01:38AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> >
> > One probably stupid question: Why is not done similar sum in output of 'ip -s l l' ?
>
> "missed" is not really an error. It just means the driver was
> overwhelmed and didnt even get the chance of seeing it whereas an error
> is something the driver processed and saw a problem with it.
>
Thanks for explanation. But if I understand well, the packet is lost anyway, isn't it ?
And when the packet is lost and I want to see all problems, I have to use detailed
(ip -s -s ) stats because non-detailed (ip -s ) stats may hide problems. True ?
If yes then using non-detailed stats lacks sense.
> > Imagine me :), I do 'ifconfig' and see dropped packets and then I do 'ip -s l l'
> > and see zeros. I stare on it like an idiot. Where is bug ? ifconfig ? ip ?
> > (man page of ip and 'ip -s -s l l' with missed packets stats saved me :).
> >
> > IMHO I think that comparable outputs of both programs should be still the same.
>
> I think ifconfig sums them up so the output formatting looks nice, but
> ip is more accurate. These stats are from standard SNMP mibs (off top of
> my head RFC1213 if it hasnt been obsoleted by something) - look at
> InIFxxxx stats.
>
I will try to look at. Thanks!
> cheers,
> jamal
>
regards,
--
Milan Kocian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists