| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50176 | 2004-10-12 23:57:00 | Working out my traffic from my router | Chilling_Silence (9) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 280667 | 2004-10-12 23:57:00 | Greetings, Just wanting to work out how much traffic Ive done. Im thinking Ive uploaded around 70gb, downloaded around 40. This is what my router says: Bytes Sent / Bytes Received 423231729 / -1731003239 Packets Sent / Packets Received 52632747 48712311 Ideas on how many MB / GB that is?? Cheers Chill. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 280668 | 2004-10-13 00:51:00 | Bytes Sent 423231729 = 0.39416526351124 Gigabytes Bytes Received 1731003239 = 1.61212239321321 Gigabytes From it from here (www.matisse.net) Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 280669 | 2004-10-13 02:24:00 | Hahahaha...... My router lies! What about Packets sent / received? not possible? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 280670 | 2004-10-13 02:29:00 | Packets are of variable size so would be impossible to calculate. You could get a theoretical upper and lower limit from packet size from max/minimum size, what's that 1 bit to ? bits?? Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 280671 | 2004-10-13 02:31:00 | Yeah, I thought that would be the case. I wonder why its lying to me? Ive done a good 30-odd GB downloaded and uploaded probably twice that?! Strange... Perhaps it reset the counters at XYZ Gigs...? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 280672 | 2004-10-13 02:31:00 | I don't think it's that simple. :D The best way will be to check the router numbers before and after a few biggish transfers. The "negative" number for bytes received is a warning that the numbers might be kept in a smallish format. It might be only a 32 bit signed integer. If that's true, you can forget about it as a useful monitor for mutiple gigabytes. ;-) This sort of thing has been a known problem for a long time in numerical methods. When IBM were designing the 360 series they did a big study of the resolution (word length) they needed. They decided on 32 bits even though their research mathematicians warned then that it wasn't enough to handle scientific work. It was a cost decision ... every bit cost money. Even with 48 bits, the Burroughs 5xxx range would run into under/overflow very easily. For "efficiency" quite a few minicomputer compilers allowed you to choose whether you wanted an error raised with integer under or overflow. :_| I suppose some people don't like getting error messages --- they'd sooner get wrong numbers, faster. This is why I don't trust computer output. :D |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 280673 | 2004-10-13 02:36:00 | Well that's of no use to me is it :-( Stupid router......... Ive been downloading constantly for the past few days (Got unlimited speed when my router reconnected on the 8th at abour 5pm!) and Ive done a _LOT_ of transfer since then...All the downloads Ive put off, all the updates for my system, latest distro's etc! Thanks though Chill. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 280674 | 2004-10-13 02:46:00 | It's not the router; it's people . As usual . 32 bits give you +/- 2^31 , that is 2048 "binary millions" . The DecServers (Ethernet --> 8 RS232 lines) had 32 bit counters . . . it was surprising how many characters a few people on 9600 baud terminals could type . :D But it took a while for the counters to wrap around . You might think that someone programming a fast router would know how to use multiple precision arithmetic on a 32 bit processor . Or could read a book . Oh well . ;-) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 1 | |||||