I didn't realize when I asked for how people handled a mathematical function for billing purposes, that the results would be more interesting to a socialogist than a network provider. I figured How do you (not how do I)... would be pretty specific, but apparently I underestimated the interesting ways that would be misread. 7 people wrote me with exactly the answers to the questions I asked. Nice. 7 people wrote to tell me how to calculate 95th percentile, but didn't include answers to any of the questions I asked. * On reply/request 5 of them did eventually answer the questions 4 people wrote to tell me how to calculate 95th percentile, but did remember to answer the questions I asked. 2 people wrote to tell me I was doing it wrong, and that I didn't understand what 95th percentile was. * Both of them eventually admitted that they don't work in a place which calculates 95th percentile for their customers. The remainder of my 20 samples were offlist queries/conversations with other providers. Some rough statistics from an admittedly small sample: 1/3 of the nanog repliers understood the question and knew how to answer it. Hmmm. Nanog clue level is definitely improving. All but three of the people who tried to teach me how to calculate 95th percentile were polite and clueful when I reminded them that I wanted the math, not a tutorial. A couple of misunderstanding actually wandered off into statistical analysis ramblings which was an amusing offset to the next set. Only three of the people insisted on telling me I was doing it wrong (never posted how we were doing it in the first place, so this was amusing) and tried to clue by four me into their approach. 2 did the math wrong in their long rants sent back to me ;-) 1 tried to convince me that modern equipment can't handle being sampled more often than every 5 minutes. And all three that tried to argue with me showed in their analysis that they don't deal with anything approaching 100Mb peering, nevermind 1g or 10g. And for those of you who can count, yes, one of the people who tried to teach me how to calculate 95th percentile didn't respond back either positively or negatively when I tried to remind him of the questions asked, and one was rude. (I don't blame him, after the 10th or so reply I was too) For statistical analysis: 2 women responded. Unfortunately one of them disagreed with a male counterpart from the same company and when I asked them to clarify it turns out the guy was right. (the girl's math was excellent, but based on an incorrect assumption. stereotype reversal in action) -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
All but three of the people who tried to teach me how to calculate 95th percentile were polite and clueful when I reminded them that I wanted the math, not a tutorial. A couple of misunderstanding actually wandered off into statistical analysis ramblings which was an amusing offset to the next set.
Only three of the people insisted on telling me I was doing it wrong (never posted how we were doing it in the first place, so this was amusing) and tried to clue by four me into their approach.
What? Blanket assumptions of 'You are wrong because you are not $self'? Crazy talk. That never happens.
1 tried to convince me that modern equipment can't handle being sampled more often than every 5 minutes.
I hope you disabused him/her of this notion. Generally, it's not modern equipment that can't handle it, it's usually a (literally, not 'in my opinion') stupid polling mechanism that isn't designed (or tuned!) to be friendly or intelligent in its efforts. Many tools do bulk table gets (friendlier, but still overkill, depending on the platform and port density) or full table walks (Unga! You give me data now!), The general non-availability of efficient bulk delivery methods on a universal basis usually means people are implementing full walks. Having a poller that does one poll an hour/day to inventory administratively active interfaces (and keeping unused interfaces disabled), and consequently only polling active interfaces for counter increments, is probably the single most intelligent piece of logic you could implement in a poller to gaurantee the least amount of wasted CPU on your network hardware, especially since CPU time on an x86 database is cheaper than router CPU. This is also handy for reconciling ifIndex shifts where persistance is not available or feasible (storing ifIndex as a property of ifName, not vice versa.) Also, classifying your interface with externally applied data (Peer? Edge? Vlan logical interface? Customer? Infrastructure?) can help you pare down how much polling you really need to be doing, and at what interval. I'm a big advocate of network inventory databases, for this reason. An example of this would include using a Vlan's aggregated traffic counter instead of the 50 individual ports that comprise it, if you don't need it for your billing model (Unless you're taxing the customer for non-routed netbios chatter across your backplane, which I'm fine with.) Standardized interface naming or network discovery toolsets support automating this, as well as encouraging engineers to keep the network tidy and labelled. This little gem of a practice is usually the core of network management standards. Based on the active interface volume and CPU impact incurred by the SNMP agent on the network device, you should be able to poll platforms on a fairly constant basis and use sliding intervals in your averaging processes, as requirements and router impact demand. Taking the time to benchmark the effects of your polling at different intervals is an engineering step that will keep your operational impact low as you scale. As always, your mileage may vary. Note: If you're small enough that you're still using MRTG, you can likely just ignore everything I just wrote.
And for those of you who can count, yes, one of the people who tried to teach me how to calculate 95th percentile didn't respond back either positively or negatively when I tried to remind him of the questions asked, and one was rude. (I don't blame him, after the 10th or so reply I was too)
My process for self-filtering posts to nanog: 1. Read post in thread. 2. Is post by a known windbag? If yes, delete and continue. 3. Draft response. 4. Suspend response in outbox for at least half an hour. 5. Ask, 'Does this post add anything constructive/funny to the thread?' If no, delete and continue. 6. Ask, 'Will this post likely trigger hits on my procmail filter by the aforementioned windbags?' If yes, flip a coin, because anything posted with an opinion will likely cause that. (Yes, Martin, it's there, before you respond to check.) 7. Ask, 'Was I pissed off when I wrote this?' If yes, let sit for another hour, goto 5. This entire process used to be prefaced with '0. Subscribe to posting list.' This was usually enough to deter a post until something annoyed me sufficiently to get through the whole process. ;) - billn
1 tried to convince me that modern equipment can't handle being sampled more often than every 5 minutes.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:45:18PM -0500, Bill Nash wrote:
I hope you disabused him/her of this notion.
I didn't try to disabuse anyone of any notion - other than the fact that I didn't need help implementing 95th percentile - in hopes that they would answer the survey. Even without trying to answer I ended up in far too many conversations :-(
Note: If you're small enough that you're still using MRTG, you can likely just ignore everything I just wrote.
Er... MRTG out of the box. Some people have extended MRTG/rrdtool usage extensively. You can get a lot of use out of RRDTool if you are willing to write your own tools to (ab)use it. But yes, generally true ;-) -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
participants (2)
-
Bill Nash -
Jo Rhett