On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T <m4rtntns@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 <nick@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