AW: Webalizer and net-acct differences
hi,
>Not only will it not report the size of the http headers, but it won't
report
>the TCP and IP frame information and any ICMP messages that may be
required.
>
>What is the problem with automatically sucking the sizes out of webalizer
>files and reporting them in some other format?
the answer ist simple: Paranoia. :)
Webalizer crashed several times and we lost all statistics (didn't keept the
lof-files so long).
And i dont't like to mess around in HTML-Code that isn't written by me.
nat-acct gives me simple textfiles and i can fiddle around with them with
perl, shell-skript or s.th. else.
(Now i keept them for three month an rotate them daily with logrotate :)
I wrote a little perlskript that summarize them daily and put the sums in an
mysql database, so i got daily stats for other protocols (ftp,mail,...) too.
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 80?),
and TCP/IP frame info, etc.?
PS: we pay for the traffic "on the cable" and webalizer only gets the
"pay-load" from http.
Reply to: