Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets

4 messages, 2 authors, 2002-06-12 · open the first message on its own page

Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets

From: jamal <hidden>
Date: 2002-06-12 12:39:30


On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Lincoln Dale wrote:
At 08:11 AM 12/06/2002 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
quoted
General dislike for adding features of _extremely_ limited (debugging!) use?
i would imagine that every installation of Squid on linux is interested in
having _realistic transaction logs_ of exactly how much data was received
and transmitted on a TCP connection.

i know of many many folk who use transaction logs from HTTP caches for
volume-based billing.
right now, those bills are anywhere between 10% to 25% incorrect.

you call that "extremely limited"?
Surely, you must have better ways to do accounting than this -- otherwise
you deserve to loose money.
of course, i am doing exactly what Dave said to do -- maintaining my own
out-of-kernel patch -- but its a pain, i'm sure it will soon conflict with
stuff and is a damn shame - it isn't much code, but Dave seems pretty
steadfast that he isn't interested.
You havent proven why its needed. And from the looks of it you dont even
need it. If 3 people need it, then i would like to ask we add lawn mower
support that my relatives have been asking for the last 5 years.

cheers,
jamal

Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets

From: Lincoln Dale <hidden>
Date: 2002-06-12 12:44:44

At 08:33 AM 12/06/2002 -0400, jamal wrote:
quoted
i know of many many folk who use transaction logs from HTTP caches for
volume-based billing.
right now, those bills are anywhere between 10% to 25% incorrect.

you call that "extremely limited"?
Surely, you must have better ways to do accounting than this -- otherwise
you deserve to loose money.
many people don't have better ways to do accounting than this.

in the case of Squid and Linux, they're typically using it because its 
open-source and "free".

they want to use HTTP Caching to save bandwidth (and therefore save money), 
but they also live in a regime of volume-based billing.  (not everywhere on 
the planet is fixed-$/month for DSL).

the unfortunate solution is to use HTTP Transaction logs, which count 
payload at layer-7, not payload+headers+retransmissions at layer-3.
quoted
of course, i am doing exactly what Dave said to do -- maintaining my own
out-of-kernel patch -- but its a pain, i'm sure it will soon conflict with
stuff and is a damn shame - it isn't much code, but Dave seems pretty
steadfast that he isn't interested.
You havent proven why its needed. And from the looks of it you dont even
need it.
i don't need it because i already have it in my kernel.
but thats where it ends -- its destined to forever be a private patch.
If 3 people need it, then i would like to ask we add lawn mower
support that my relatives have been asking for the last 5 years.
lawn-mower support sounds like a userspace application to me.


cheers,

lincoln.

Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets

From: Lincoln Dale <hidden>
Date: 2002-06-12 12:44:44

At 08:33 AM 12/06/2002 -0400, jamal wrote:
quoted
i know of many many folk who use transaction logs from HTTP caches for
volume-based billing.
right now, those bills are anywhere between 10% to 25% incorrect.

you call that "extremely limited"?
Surely, you must have better ways to do accounting than this -- otherwise
you deserve to loose money.
many people don't have better ways to do accounting than this.

in the case of Squid and Linux, they're typically using it because its 
open-source and "free".

they want to use HTTP Caching to save bandwidth (and therefore save money), 
but they also live in a regime of volume-based billing.  (not everywhere on 
the planet is fixed-$/month for DSL).

the unfortunate solution is to use HTTP Transaction logs, which count 
payload at layer-7, not payload+headers+retransmissions at layer-3.
quoted
of course, i am doing exactly what Dave said to do -- maintaining my own
out-of-kernel patch -- but its a pain, i'm sure it will soon conflict with
stuff and is a damn shame - it isn't much code, but Dave seems pretty
steadfast that he isn't interested.
You havent proven why its needed. And from the looks of it you dont even
need it.
i don't need it because i already have it in my kernel.
but thats where it ends -- its destined to forever be a private patch.
If 3 people need it, then i would like to ask we add lawn mower
support that my relatives have been asking for the last 5 years.
lawn-mower support sounds like a userspace application to me.


cheers,

lincoln.

Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets

From: Lincoln Dale <hidden>
Date: 2002-06-12 12:44:44

At 08:33 AM 12/06/2002 -0400, jamal wrote:
quoted
i know of many many folk who use transaction logs from HTTP caches for
volume-based billing.
right now, those bills are anywhere between 10% to 25% incorrect.

you call that "extremely limited"?
Surely, you must have better ways to do accounting than this -- otherwise
you deserve to loose money.
many people don't have better ways to do accounting than this.

in the case of Squid and Linux, they're typically using it because its 
open-source and "free".

they want to use HTTP Caching to save bandwidth (and therefore save money), 
but they also live in a regime of volume-based billing.  (not everywhere on 
the planet is fixed-$/month for DSL).

the unfortunate solution is to use HTTP Transaction logs, which count 
payload at layer-7, not payload+headers+retransmissions at layer-3.
quoted
of course, i am doing exactly what Dave said to do -- maintaining my own
out-of-kernel patch -- but its a pain, i'm sure it will soon conflict with
stuff and is a damn shame - it isn't much code, but Dave seems pretty
steadfast that he isn't interested.
You havent proven why its needed. And from the looks of it you dont even
need it.
i don't need it because i already have it in my kernel.
but thats where it ends -- its destined to forever be a private patch.
If 3 people need it, then i would like to ask we add lawn mower
support that my relatives have been asking for the last 5 years.
lawn-mower support sounds like a userspace application to me.


cheers,

lincoln.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help