[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Overflow of RX/TX Bytes on AMD64



Stephen R Guglielmo wrote:
> I'm running Debian Jessie AMD64. I'm using RRDTool to create graphs of
> my network activity.

Fun!

> Do the byte counters in the `ifconfig` output overflow?

Yes.  Eventually.

> I imagine they have to at some point. What's the value at which they
> overflow?  Is it 2^64 bytes?

I imagine it depends upon whether you have a 32-bit or 64-bit system.

> Also, is there a "better" way to access this information instead of
> parsing the `ifconfig` output? Maybe somewhere in /proc?

Most programs that monitor bandwidth parse /proc/net/dev directly for
those counters.

  $ cat /proc/net/dev
  Inter-|   Receive                                                |  Transmit
   face |bytes    packets errs drop fifo frame compressed multicast|bytes    packets errs drop fifo colls carrier compressed
      lo:    4091      49    0    0    0     0          0         0     4091      49    0    0    0     0       0          0
    eth2: 4052835736 5139828    0    0    0     0          0         0 1869580385 4166842    0    0    0     0       0          0
    eth1: 3123249892 22681508    0    0    0     0          0         0 33892075524 32382195    0    0    0     0       0          0
   wlan0:       0       0    0    0    0     0          0         0      576       6    0    0    0     0       0          0
    eth0: 33656882297 37671184 576080    0    0     0          0         0 3163248578 21804028    0    0    0 1952712       0          0
    tun0: 3614860243 4491723    0    0    0     0          0         0 783124936 3435305    0    0    0     0       0          0
  mon.wlan0: 10501916673 54844796    0    0    0     0          0         0        0       0    0    0    0     0       0          0

For documentation on this see the proc(5) man page.

  man proc

And also:

  https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: