[38301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Sun Jun 3 00:43:33 2001
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:40:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>,
"Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
Timothy Brown <tcb@ga.prestige.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010602233756.M9538@reptiles.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.33.0106030037360.1596-100000@neon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> i gave up on per-customer interface accounting, didn't scale for me.
Thats a very bold statement. A what point (what metric?) did you feel that
this method didn't scale?
NAC is no super-duper tier-1 (I had to throw that in), but we do monitor
>1400 interfaces every 5 minutes, 100 or so at more than 105 mb/s (that
magic number for 32 bit counter rollover in 5 minutes, and yes, we use 64
bit counters), shove them all in a nice SQL table, and we've not seen any
reason for non-scalibilty, at least for a while (at least 5000 more
interfaces before will have to rewrite the collection engine).
> we've since moved to cisco, and, well, now i have cache flow stats which
> are parsed into customer subnets.
Eeek. Relying on flow-stats? Yikes.
