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 80?), 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 same IP. -- Nicolas BOUGUES Axialys Interactive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Webalizer and net-acct differences
The header size is not so fixed, actually. If you use cookies on your site 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 the differences. - jsw -Original Message- From: Nicolas Bougues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]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 80?), 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 same IP. -- Nicolas BOUGUES Axialys Interactive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Webalizer and net-acct differences
On Monday 07 May 2001 18:17, Haim Dimermanas wrote: Anbody knows what is loggend in the Apache log in the field size (i.e. included HTTP Header or not) , and what does net-acct take for the size of a packet (just the payload, or the headers too?) From the Apache docs @ http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_log_common.html bytes The number of bytes in the object returned to the client, not including any headers. 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? -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
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 80?), 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 same IP. -- Nicolas BOUGUES Axialys Interactive
RE: Webalizer and net-acct differences
The header size is not so fixed, actually. If you use cookies on your site 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 the differences. - jsw -Original Message- From: Nicolas Bougues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 80?), 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 same IP. -- Nicolas BOUGUES Axialys Interactive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Webalizer and net-acct differences
Anbody knows what is loggend in the Apache log in the field size (i.e. included HTTP Header or not) , and what does net-acct take for the size of a packet (just the payload, or the headers too?) From the Apache docs @ http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_log_common.html bytes The number of bytes in the object returned to the client, not including any headers. Haim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Webalizer and net-acct differences
Anbody knows what is loggend in the Apache log in the field size (i.e. included HTTP Header or not) , and what does net-acct take for the size of a packet (just the payload, or the headers too?) From the Apache docs @ http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_log_common.html bytes The number of bytes in the object returned to the client, not including any headers. Haim.
