Ugh.. we have only been asking for it for a year now. :( On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah... uplink appears to still always be at 100% in 3.0 also. > > > Percentage still isn't available via SNMP, is it? > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, at least in the UI, uplink frame utilization is always reported as >> 100% in 2.6.1. I haven't actually looked at the raw numbers via SNMP. >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. < >> mailing-li...@phxinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> So what I am hearing is I am reading the correct values but Uplink does >>> not read correctly? >>> >>> Gilbert >>> >>> On 9/12/2016 1:59 PM, Josh Baird wrote: >>> >>> Oh, and the uplink frame utilization values are not correct.. at least >>> in 2.6. I haven't tried 3.0 yet. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. < >>> mailing-li...@phxinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am trying to identify congestion on my ePMP radios and am getting >>>> weird numbers. I am trying to find out how others monitor congestion. >>>> >>>> I am monitoring the following MIBs... >>>> >>>> ulWLanTotalUsedFrameTimePerSecond >>>> ulWLanTotalAvailableFrameTimePerSecond >>>> dlWLanTotalUsedFrameTimePerSecond >>>> dlWLanTotalAvailableFrameTimePerSecond >>>> >>>> I figure if you divide the used by the total available I should get a >>>> frame utilization. Downlink gives me a number, but on uplink, the two >>>> values are almost identical. >>>> >>>> Am I monitoring the wrong thing? >>>> >>>> Gilbert >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
