RE: Webalizer and net-acct differences
the client will send them to you upon each request. You might have CGIs and
such that update cookies frequently as well, which would reduce your
efficiency yet more. There are a lot of factors here, but the real issue is
that your customers are going to expect to be billed by what access.log
analysis tools compute, because that is all they can use to attempt to audit
your billing mechanism, and that is what other service providers will use.
>From the customer perspective if you want to bill based on IP traffic and
not what webalizer/etc reports, you and your customer should both understand
From: Nicolas Bougues [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
Behalf Of Nicolas Bougues
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:56 PM
To: Andreas Rabus
Cc: 'Russell Coker'; Debian ISP List (E-Mail)
Subject: Re: Webalizer and net-acct differences
> Back to questioning:
> recently i did some calculation and find out that webalizer results are
> about about 85% of the net-acct results.
> Ist that an realistic overhead form http-headers, ICMP (on or to port
> and TCP/IP frame info, etc.?
Yes. But it depends upon the kind of data served. The header size is
quite fixed, but the payload size may vary. A site with loits of small
replys will have a percentage more like 60%.
Furthermore, apache doesn't take into account *incoming* traffic,
whereas your hosting provider probably does (ie counts in both
directions). There can be great differences here if you do a lot of
"posting" (like posting big files, for instance).
> PS: we pay for the traffic "on the cable" and webalizer only gets the
> "pay-load" from http.
Then use net-acct to get the real values. Unfortunatly, there's no way
to figure out the data for various virtual servers which share the
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact