Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Mike Bartz
Also don't forget to change to SNMP v2 or higher since there is no such thing as 64 bit counters in the SNMP v1 MIB. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Peter Rudasingwa < peter.rudasin...@altechstream.rw> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except > fo

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Ryan Pavely
Also isn't http://forums.cacti.net/ more appropriate then nanog? Ryan Pavely Director Research And Development Net Access Corporation http://www.nac.net/ On 11/29/2010 9:24 AM, Peter Rudasingwa wrote: Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except fo

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Jacob Broussard
lds, etc. > > > --Original Message-- > From: Peter Rudasingwa > To: Bill Blackford > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring > Sent: Nov 29, 2010 9:50 AM > > Thanks to all. I used the 64 bit template and it's now working fine. > > Peter R. >

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread jkrejci
Bill Blackford To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring Sent: Nov 29, 2010 9:50 AM Thanks to all. I used the 64 bit template and it's now working fine. Peter R. Bill Blackford wrote: > Sounds like you need to use the 64 bit templates as your data may be > &quo

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Peter Rudasingwa
Thanks to all. I used the 64 bit template and it's now working fine. Peter R. Bill Blackford wrote: Sounds like you need to use the 64 bit templates as your data may be "rolling over". -b -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Bill Blackford
Sounds like you need to use the 64 bit templates as your data may be "rolling over". -b -- Bill Blackford Network Engineer Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Aaron Wendel
Do you have it set for 64 bit counters? Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Peter Rudasingwa To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 14:24:22 GMT+00:00 Subject: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
You need to use 64 bit counters. Here you can find more info: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_q_and_a_item09186a00800b69ac.shtml The problem is that at 150 mbps 32 bit counters roll-over at least twice in the 5 min interval. Warm regards Carlos Martinez LACNIC Uruguay

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Brian Raaen
Try using 64 bit couters, you are running into a rounding error. --- Brian Raaen Network Architech On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Peter Rudasingwa wrote: > Hi, > > I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except > for one interface which has an average of 150

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Wil Schultz
Sounds like you're using 32bit counters, create a new graph of the interface using 64bit counters in cacti. -wil On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Peter Rudasingwa wrote: > Hi, > > I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for > one interface which has an average

Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Ingo Flaschberger
Dear Peter, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct

Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring

2010-11-29 Thread Peter Rudasingwa
Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading